Prediction of hypertensive disorders after screening at 36 weeks' gestation: comparison of angiogenic markers with competing-risks model.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the performance at 35 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks' gestation of screening for delivery with pre-eclampsia (PE) at various timepoints, using one of three approaches: placental growth factor (PlGF) concentration, soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 (sFlt-1) to PlGF concentration ratio, or the competing-risks model, which combines maternal risk factors with biomarkers to estimate patient-specific risk. METHODS: This was a prospective observational study of women attending for a routine hospital visit at 35 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks' gestation at one of two maternity hospitals in England between 2016 and 2022. During the visit, maternal demographic characteristics and medical history were recorded and serum PlGF, serum sFlt-1 and mean arterial pressure (MAP) were measured. Detection rates (DRs) were evaluated for delivery with PE (defined as per American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists 2019 criteria) within 1 week, within 2 weeks or at any time after screening, using the following strategies: (i) low PlGF (< 10th percentile); (ii) high sFlt-1/PlGF ratio (> 90th percentile); or (iii) the competing-risks model, in which maternal factors were combined with multiples of the median values of PlGF ('single test'), PlGF and sFlt-1 ('double test') or PlGF, sFlt-1 and MAP ('triple test'). Risk cut-offs corresponded to a screen-positive rate of 10%. DRs were compared between tests. RESULTS: Of 34 782 pregnancies, 831 (2.4%) developed PE. In screening for delivery with PE at any time from assessment, the DR at 10% screen-positive rate was 47% by low PlGF alone, 54% by the single test, 55% by high sFlt-1/PlGF ratio, 61% by the double test and 68% by the triple test. In screening for delivery with PE within 2 weeks from assessment, the respective values were 67%, 74%, 74%, 80% and 87%. In screening for delivery with PE within 1 week from assessment, the respective values were 77%, 81%, 85%, 88% and 91%. For prediction of PE at any time, the DR was significantly higher with the triple test compared to PlGF alone or the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio, with a DR difference (95% CI) of 20.1% (16.7-23.0%) and 12.4% (9.7-15.3%), respectively. Similar results were seen for prediction of PE within 2 weeks (20.6% (14.9-26.8%) and 12.9% (7.7-17.5%), respectively) and prediction of PE within 1 week (13.5% (5.4-21.6%) and 5.4% (0.0-10.8%), respectively). The double test was superior to the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio and the single test was superior to PlGF alone in the prediction of PE within 2 weeks and at any time from assessment, but not within 1 week of assessment. CONCLUSION: At 35 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks' gestation, the performance of screening for PE by the competing-risks model triple test is superior to that of PlGF alone or the sFlt-1/PlGF ratio for the development of disease within 1 week, within 2 weeks and at any time from screening. © 2023 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Incidence of pre-eclampsia: effect of deprivation.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between the English index of multiple deprivation (IMD) and the incidence of pre-eclampsia (PE), evaluate the distribution of IMD in a cohort of ethnically diverse pregnant women in South East England and assess whether IMD improves the prediction of PE compared with that provided by the 'history-only' competing-risks model (based on maternal characteristics and medical history). METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study of 159 125 women with a singleton pregnancy who attended their first routine hospital visit at 11 + 0 to 13 + 6 weeks' gestation in two maternity hospitals in the UK. The inclusion criteria were delivery at ≥ 24 weeks' gestation of babies without major abnormality. Participants completed a questionnaire on demographic characteristics and obstetric and medical history, which was then reviewed by a doctor together with the woman. Patients were asked to self-identify as white, black, South Asian, East Asian or mixed race. IMD was used as a measure of socioeconomic status, which takes into account income, employment, education, skills and training, health and disability, crime, barriers to housing and services, and living environment. Each neighborhood is ranked according to their level of deprivation relative to that of other areas into one of five equal groups, with Quintile 1 containing the 20% most deprived areas and Quintile 5 containing the 20% least deprived areas. IMD was assigned based on a woman's postcode. Risk factors for PE and its incidence were assessed across IMD using chi-square test or t-test, as appropriate. The relationship between IMD and gestational age at delivery with PE was evaluated by fitting parametric survival models for IMD alone, IMD combined with race and IMD combined with the Fetal Medicine Foundation history-only competing-risks model. RESULTS: The incidence of PE (n = 4088, 2.6%) increased progressively across IMD quintiles, from 2.0% in Quintile 5 (least deprived) to 3.0% in Quintile 1 (most deprived). Compared with white women and those in other racial groups, black women had a higher incidence of PE (4.8%), were less often in IMD Quintiles 4 and 5, and were more often in IMD Quintiles 1 and 2. None of the IMD quintiles improved the prediction of PE compared with that provided by the history-only competing-risks model (which includes race). The history-only competing-risks model with vs without IMD had a similar detection rate for delivery with PE at < 37 weeks' gestation (44.1% (95% CI, 41.1-47.2%) vs 43.9% (95% CI, 40.1-47.0%)) and at any gestational age (35.2% (95% CI, 33.8-36.7%) vs 35.1% (95% CI, 33.7-36.6%)), at a 10% screen-positive rate. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of PE is higher in women living in the most deprived areas in South East England and in black women (vs those of other racial groups), who also live in areas of higher deprivation. However, in screening for PE, inclusion of IMD does not improve the prediction of PE provided by race and other maternal characteristics and elements of medical history. © 2022 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Competing-risks model for pre-eclampsia and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The competing-risks model for assessment of risk for pre-eclampsia (PE) at 35-37 weeks' gestation identifies the majority of women who are at high risk of subsequent delivery with PE. We aimed to examine the incidence and relative risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes in patient groups stratified according to the estimated risk of delivery with PE. METHODS: This was a prospective non-interventional, observational study in women with a singleton pregnancy attending for a routine hospital visit at 35 + 0 to 36 + 6 weeks' gestation. The risk of delivery with PE for each patient in the study population was estimated using the competing-risks model, combining the prior distribution of gestational age at delivery with PE and the likelihood from multiples of the median values of mean arterial pressure, placental growth factor and soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1. The patients were assigned to one of the following five risk categories: Group A, ≥ 1 in 2; Group B, 1 in 5 to 1 in 3; Group C, 1 in 20 to 1 in 6; Group D, 1 in 50 to 1 in 21; and Group E, < 1 in 50. The outcome measures were delivery with PE, gestational hypertension (GH), small-for-gestational age (SGA) at birth, delivery by Cesarean section, stillbirth, neonatal death, perinatal death and admission to the neonatal unit (NNU) for at least 48 h. In each risk category, the proportion of women with each adverse outcome was determined and relative risks (RR) were calculated as compared with the lowest-risk Group E. RESULTS: In the study population of 29 035 women, 1.6%, 2.7%, 8.2%, 9.8% and 77.8% were categorized into Groups A, B, C, D and E, respectively. Compared with women in Group E, women in the higher-risk groups were more likely to have an adverse outcome. The RR of delivery with PE in Group A compared with Group E was 65.5 (95% CI, 54.1-79.1) and the respective values were 11.9 (95% CI, 9.1-15.5) for GH, 1.8 (95% CI, 1.5-2.1) for delivery by emergency Cesarean section, 1.5 (95% CI, 1.2-1.8) for delivery by elective Cesarean section, 8.9 (95% CI, 7.4-10.8) for SGA with birth weight < 3rd percentile, 4.8 (95% CI, 4.3-5.4) for SGA with birth weight < 10th percentile, 5.3 (95% CI, 1.4-20.5) for stillbirth and 3.4 (95% CI, 2.8-4.2) for NNU admission for ≥ 48 h. The RR for these pregnancy complications in higher-risk groups (vs Group E) was particularly high for cases with delivery within 2 weeks after assessment. In terms of SGA, both for birth weight < 10th and < 3rd percentiles, the trend in all cases was stronger than that observed when the analysis was confined to normotensive pregnancies. The rates of neonatal death were too small to allow meaningful comparisons between risk groups. CONCLUSION: Pregnant women identified by the competing-risks model to be at high risk of PE are also at increased risk of GH, Cesarean section, stillbirth, SGA and NNU admission for ≥ 48 h. © 2022 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Maternal and perinatal outcomes of SARS-CoV-2 infection in unvaccinated pregnancies during Delta and Omicron waves.

OBJECTIVE: There is little evidence related to the effects of the Omicron severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variant on pregnancy outcomes, particularly in unvaccinated women. This study aimed to compare pregnancy outcomes of unvaccinated women infected with SARS-CoV-2 during the pre-Delta, Delta and Omicron waves. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study conducted at two tertiary care facilities: Sancaktepe Training and Research Hospital, Istanbul, Turkey, and St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK. Included were women who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 by real-time reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) during pregnancy, between 1 April 2020 and 14 February 2022. The cohort was divided into three periods according to the date of their positive RT-PCR test: (i) pre-Delta (1 April 2020 to 8 June 2021 in Turkey, and 1 April 2020 to 31 July 2021 in the UK), (ii) Delta (9 June 2021 to 27 December 2021 in Turkey, and 1 August 2021 to 27 December 2021 in the UK) and (iii) Omicron (after 27 December 2021 in both Turkey and the UK). Baseline data collected included maternal age, parity, body mass index, gestational age at diagnosis and comorbidities. The primary outcome was the need for oxygen supplementation, classified as oxygen support via nasal cannula or breather mask, non-invasive mechanical ventilation with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or high-flow oxygen, mechanical ventilation with intubation, or extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Inferences were made after balancing of confounders, using an evolutionary search algorithm. Selected confounders were maternal age, body mass index and gestational age at diagnosis of infection. RESULTS: During the study period, 1286 unvaccinated pregnant women with RT-PCR-proven SARS-CoV-2 infection were identified, comprising 870 cases during the pre-Delta period, 339 during the Delta wave and 77 during the Omicron wave. In the confounder-balanced cohort, infection during the Delta wave vs during the pre-Delta period was associated with increased need for nasal oxygen support (risk ratio (RR), 2.53 (95% CI, 1.75-3.65); P < 0.001), CPAP or high-flow oxygen (RR, 2.50 (95% CI, 1.37-4.56); P = 0.002), mechanical ventilation (RR, 4.20 (95% CI, 1.60-11.0); P = 0.003) and ECMO (RR, 11.0 (95% CI, 1.43-84.7); P = 0.021). The maternal mortality rate was 3.6-fold higher during the Delta wave compared to the pre-Delta period (5.3% vs 1.5%, P = 0.010). Infection during the Omicron wave was associated with a similar need for nasal oxygen support (RR, 0.62 (95% CI, 0.25-1.55); P = 0.251), CPAP or high-flow oxygen (RR, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.36-3.12); P = 0.906) and mechanical ventilation (RR, 0.44 (95% CI, 0.06-3.45); P = 0.438) with that in the pre-Delta period. The maternal mortality rate was similar during the Omicron wave and the pre-Delta period (1.3% vs 1.3%, P = 0.999). The need for nasal oxygen support during the Omicron wave was significantly lower compared to the Delta wave (RR, 0.26 (95% CI, 0.11-0.64); P = 0.003). Perinatal outcomes were available for a subset of the confounder-balanced cohort. Preterm birth before 34 weeks' gestation was significantly increased during the Delta wave compared with the pre-Delta period (15.4% vs 4.9%, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Among unvaccinated pregnant women, SARS-CoV-2 infection during the Delta wave, in comparison to the pre-Delta period, was associated with increased requirement for oxygen support (including ECMO) and higher maternal mortality. Disease severity and pregnancy complications were similar between the Omicron wave and pre-Delta period. SARS-CoV-2 infection of unvaccinated pregnant women carries considerable risks of morbidity and mortality regardless of variant, and vaccination remains key. Miscommunication of the risks of Omicron infection may impact adversely vaccination uptake among pregnant women, who are at increased risk of complications related to SARS-CoV-2. © 2022 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Can risk prediction models help us individualise stillbirth prevention? A systematic review and critical appraisal of published risk models.

BACKGROUND: Stillbirth prevention is an international priority - risk prediction models could individualise care and reduce unnecessary intervention, but their use requires evaluation. OBJECTIVES: To identify risk prediction models for stillbirth, and assess their potential accuracy and clinical benefit in practice. SEARCH STRATEGY: MEDLINE, Embase, DH-DATA and AMED databases were searched from inception to June 2019 using terms relevant to stillbirth, perinatal mortality and prediction models. The search was compliant with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies developing and/or validating prediction models for risk of stillbirth developed for application during pregnancy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Study screening and data extraction were conducted in duplicate, using the CHARMS checklist. Risk of bias was appraised using the PROBAST tool. RESULTS: The search identified 2751 citations. Fourteen studies reporting development of 69 models were included. Variables consistently included were: ethnicity, body mass index, uterine artery Doppler, pregnancy-associated plasma protein and placental growth factor. For almost all models there were significant concerns about risk of bias. Apparent model performance (i.e. in the development dataset) was highest in models developed for use later in pregnancy and including maternal characteristics, and ultrasound and biochemical variables, but few were internally validated and none were externally validated. CONCLUSIONS: Almost all models identified were at high risk of bias. There are first-trimester models of possible clinical benefit in early risk stratification; these require validation and clinical evaluation. There were few later pregnancy models but, if validated, these could be most relevant to individualised discussions around timing of birth. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Prediction models using maternal factors, blood tests and ultrasound could individualise stillbirth prevention, but existing models are at high risk of bias.

The impact of pre-eclampsia definitions on the identification of adverse outcome risk in hypertensive pregnancy - analyses from the CHIPS trial (Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy Study).

OBJECTIVE: To examine the association between pre-eclampsia definition and pregnancy outcome. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of Control of Hypertension in Pregnancy Study (CHIPS) trial data. SETTING: International multicentre randomised controlled trial (RCT). POPULATION: In all, 987 women with non-severe non-proteinuric pregnancy hypertension. METHODS: We evaluated the association between pre-eclampsia definitions and adverse pregnancy outcomes, stratified by hypertension type and blood pressure control. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main CHIPS trial outcomes: primary (perinatal loss or high-level neonatal care for >48 hours), secondary (serious maternal complications), birthweight <10th centile, severe maternal hypertension, delivery at <34 or <37 weeks, and maternal hospitalisation before birth. RESULTS: Of 979/987 women with informative data, 280 (28.6%) progressed to pre-eclampsia defined restrictively by new proteinuria, and 471 (48.1%) to pre-eclampsia defined broadly as proteinuria or one/more maternal symptoms, signs or abnormal laboratory tests. The broad (versus restrictive) definition had significantly higher sensitivities (range 62-79% versus 36-50%), lower specificities (range 53-65% versus 72-82%), and similar or higher diagnostic odds ratios and 'true-positive' to 'false-positive' ratios. Stratified analyses showed similar results. Addition of available fetoplacental manifestations (stillbirth or birthweight <10th centile) to the broad pre-eclampsia definition improved sensitivity (74-87%). CONCLUSIONS: A broad (versus restrictive) pre-eclampsia definition better identifies women who develop adverse pregnancy outcomes. These findings should be replicated in a prospective study within routine healthcare to ensure that the anticipated increase in surveillance and intervention in a larger number of women with pre-eclampsia is associated with improved outcomes, reasonable costs and congruence with women's values. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: A broad (versus restrictive) pre-eclampsia definition better identifies the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Maternity services in the UK during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: a national survey of modifications to standard care.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the modifications to maternity services across the UK, in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, in the context of the pandemic guidance issued by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), Royal College of Midwives (RCM) and NHS England. DESIGN: National survey. SETTING: UK maternity services during the COVID-19 pandemic. POPULATION OR SAMPLE: Healthcare professionals working within maternity services. METHODS: A national electronic survey was developed to investigate local modifications to general and specialist maternity care during the COVID-19 pandemic, in the context of the contemporaneous national pandemic guidance. After a pilot phase, the survey was distributed through professional networks by the RCOG and co-authors. The survey results were presented descriptively in tabular and graphic formats, with proportions compared using chi-square tests. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Service modifications made during the pandemic. RESULTS: A total of 81 respondent sites, 42% of the 194 obstetric units in the UK, were included. They reported substantial and heterogeneous maternity service modifications. Seventy percent of units reported a reduction in antenatal appointments and 56% reported a reduction in postnatal appointments; 89% reported using remote consultation methods. A change to screening pathways for gestational diabetes mellitus was reported by 70%, and 59% had temporarily removed the offer of births at home or in a midwife-led unit. A reduction in emergency antenatal presentations was experienced by 86% of units. CONCLUSIONS: This national survey documents the extensive impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on maternity services in the UK. More research is needed to understand the impact on maternity outcomes and experience. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: A national survey showed that UK maternity services were modified extensively and heterogeneously in response to COVID-19.

Pseudotumor cerebri syndrome with different types of hormonal contraceptives in women of child-bearing age.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: There is a lack of comparative safety data on the risk of pseudotumor cerebri syndrome (PTCS) associated with different hormonal contraceptives. We sought to quantify the risk of PTCS associated with eight different types of hormonal contraceptives compared with oral levonorgestrel. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study, with a case-control analysis of 4 871 504 women aged 15-45 years in the period 2008-2015, using IQVIA Ambulatory Electronic Medical Records data in the USA. Patients who used nine different contraceptive agents including intrauterine levonorgestrel, medroxyprogesterone injection, etonogestrel/ethinyl estradiol vaginal ring and combination oral contraceptives (COCs) that contained ethinyl estradiol and the progestins levonorgestrel, norgestimate, desogestrel, norethindrone and drospirenone, were included. Diagnosis of PTCS was defined using the first International Classification of Diseases, 9th or 10th revision, code for intracranial hypertension in patients who had also received an imaging code in the 30 days prior to the index date. RESULTS: A total of 3323 PTCS cases and 13 292 matched controls were identified. No increase in risk was found when analysing intrauterine levonorgestrel or COCs containing desogestrel, norethindrone, drospirenone, norgestimate or norgestrel versus COC levonorgestrel. The adjusted incidence rate ratio for etonogestrel/etonogestrel/ethinyl estradiol vaginal ring and medroxyprogesterone suspension compared with levonorgestrel COC was 4.45 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.98-9.96] and 2.20 (95% CI 1.33-3.64), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study found an elevated risk for PTCS among users of etonogestrel vaginal ring and medroxyprogesterone suspension when compared with oral levonorgestrel. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings.

A core outcome set for pre-eclampsia research: an international consensus development study.

OBJECTIVE: To develop a core outcome set for pre-eclampsia. DESIGN: Consensus development study. SETTING: International. POPULATION: Two hundred and eight-one healthcare professionals, 41 researchers and 110 patients, representing 56 countries, participated. METHODS: Modified Delphi method and Modified Nominal Group Technique. RESULTS: A long-list of 116 potential core outcomes was developed by combining the outcomes reported in 79 pre-eclampsia trials with those derived from thematic analysis of 30 in-depth interviews of women with lived experience of pre-eclampsia. Forty-seven consensus outcomes were identified from the Delphi process following which 14 maternal and eight offspring core outcomes were agreed at the consensus development meeting. Maternal core outcomes: death, eclampsia, stroke, cortical blindness, retinal detachment, pulmonary oedema, acute kidney injury, liver haematoma or rupture, abruption, postpartum haemorrhage, raised liver enzymes, low platelets, admission to intensive care required, and intubation and ventilation. Offspring core outcomes: stillbirth, gestational age at delivery, birthweight, small-for-gestational-age, neonatal mortality, seizures, admission to neonatal unit required and respiratory support. CONCLUSIONS: The core outcome set for pre-eclampsia should underpin future randomised trials and systematic reviews. Such implementation should ensure that future research holds the necessary reach and relevance to inform clinical practice, enhance women's care and improve the outcomes of pregnant women and their babies. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: 281 healthcare professionals, 41 researchers and 110 women have developed #preeclampsia core outcomes @HOPEoutcomes @jamesmnduffy. [Correction added on 29 June 2020, after first online publication: the order has been corrected.].

Research priority setting in women's health: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Developing a shared agenda is an important step in ensuring future research has the necessary relevance. OBJECTIVE: To characterise research priority setting partnerships (PSPs) relevant to women's health. SEARCH STRATEGY: Included studies were identified by searching MEDLINE and the James Lind Alliance (JLA) database. SELECTION CRITERIA: Priority setting partnerships using formal consensus methods. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Descriptive narrative to describe the study characteristics, methods, and results. MAIN RESULTS: Ten national and two international PSPs were identified. All PSPs used the JLA method to identify research priorities. Nine PSPs had published a protocol. Potential research uncertainties were gathered from guidelines (two studies), Cochrane reviews (five studies), and surveys (12 studies). The number of healthcare professionals (31-287), patients (44-932), and others (33-139) who responded to the survey, and the number of uncertainties submitted (52-4767) varied. All PSPs entered confirmed research uncertainties (39-104) into interim priority setting surveys and healthcare professionals (31-287), patients (44-932), and others (33-139) responded. All PSPs entered a short list of research uncertainties into a consensus development meeting, which enabled healthcare professionals (six to 21), patients (eight to 14), and others (two to 13) to identify research priorities (ten to 15). Four PSPs have published their results. CONCLUSION: Future research priority setting studies should publish a protocol, use formal consensus development methods, and ensure their methods and results are comprehensively reported. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Research published in @BJOGtweets highlights future research priorities across women's health, including @FertilityTop10, @jamesmnduffy.

Control of Hypertension In Pregnancy Study randomised controlled trial-are the results dependent on the choice of labetalol or methyldopa?

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the difference in outcomes between 'less tight' (target diastolic blood pressure [dBP] of 100 mmHg) versus 'tight' control (target dBP of 85 mmHg) in the CHIPS Trial (ISRCTN 71416914, http://pre-empt.cfri.ca/;CHIPS) depended on the choice of labetalol or methyldopa, the two most commonly used antihypertensive agents in CHIPS. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of CHIPS Trial data. SETTING: International multicentre randomised controlled trial (94 sites, 15 countries). POPULATION OR SAMPLE: A total of 987 women with non-severe non-proteinuric pregnancy hypertension. METHODS: Logistic regression was used for comparisons of 'less tight' versus 'tight' control among women treated with labetalol (but not methydopa) versus methyldopa (but not labetalol). Analyses were adjusted for the influence of baseline factors, including use of any antihypertensive therapy at randomisation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Main CHIPS Trial outcomes: primary (perinatal loss or high-level neonatal care for > 48 hours), secondary (serious maternal complications), birthweight < 10th centile, severe maternal hypertension, pre-eclampsia, and delivery at < 34 or < 37 weeks. RESULTS: Of 987 women in CHIPS, antihypertensive therapy was taken by 566 women at randomisation (labetalol 111 ['less tight'] versus 127 ['tight'] or methyldopa 126 ['less tight'] versus 117 ['tight']) and 815 women after randomisation (labetalol 186 ['less tight'] versus 247 ['tight'] and methyldopa by 98 ['less tight'] versus 126 ['tight']). Following adjustment, odds ratios for outcomes in 'less tight' versus 'tight' control were similar between antihypertensive groups according to 'at randomisation' and 'after randomisation' therapy. CONCLUSION: Outcomes for 'less tight' versus 'tight' control were not dependent on use of methyldopa or labetalol. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: In the CHIPS Trial, maternal and infant outcomes were not dependent on use of labetalol or methyldopa.

Do labetalol and methyldopa have different effects on pregnancy outcome? Analysis of data from the Control of Hypertension In Pregnancy Study (CHIPS) trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare pregnancy outcomes, accounting for allocated group, between methyldopa-treated and labetalol-treated women in the CHIPS Trial (ISRCTN 71416914) of 'less tight' versus 'tight' control of pregnancy hypertension. DESIGN: Secondary analysis of CHIPS Trial cohort. SETTING: International randomised controlled trial (94 sites, 15 countries). POPULATION OR SAMPLE: Of 987 CHIPS recruits, 481/566 (85.0%) women treated with antihypertensive therapy at randomisation. Of 981 (99.4%) women followed to delivery, 656/745 (88.1%) treated postrandomisation. METHODS: Logistic regression to compare outcomes among women who took methyldopa or labetalol, adjusted for the influence of baseline factors. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: CHIPS primary (perinatal loss or high level neonatal care for >48 hours) and secondary (serious maternal complications) outcomes, birthweight <10th centile, severe maternal hypertension, pre-eclampsia and delivery at <34 or <37 weeks. RESULTS: Methyldopa and labetalol were used commonly at randomisation (243/987, 24.6% and 238/987, 24.6%, respectively) and post-randomisation (224/981, 22.8% and 433/981, 44.1%, respectively). Following adjusted analyses, methyldopa (versus labetalol) at randomisation was associated with fewer babies with birthweight <10th centile [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.48; 95% CI 0.20-0.87]. Methyldopa (versus labetalol) postrandomisation was associated with fewer CHIPS primary outcomes (aOR 0.64; 95% CI 0.40-1.00), birthweight <10th centile (aOR 0.54; 95% CI 0.32-0.92), severe hypertension (aOR 0.51; 95% CI 0.31-0.83), pre-eclampsia (aOR 0.55; 95% CI 0.36-0.85), and delivery at <34 weeks (aOR 0.53; 95% CI 0.29-0.96) or <37 weeks (aOR 0.55; 95% CI 0.35-0.85). CONCLUSION: These nonrandomised comparisons are subject to residual confounding, but women treated with methyldopa (versus labetalol), particularly those with pre-existing hypertension, may have had better outcomes. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: There was no evidence that women treated with methyldopa versus labetalol had worse outcomes.