When to give aspirin to prevent preeclampsia: application of Bayesian decision theory.

BACKGROUND: There is good evidence that first-trimester assessment of the risk for preterm preeclampsia and treatment of the high-risk group with aspirin reduces the incidence of preterm preeclampsia. Furthermore, there is evidence that aspirin is associated with an increased risk of maternal and neonatal hemorrhagic complications. Against this background, there are ongoing debates whether aspirin should be recommended for all women or to a subpopulation of women predicted to be at increased risk of developing preeclampsia. Moreover, if a strategy of the prediction and prevention of preterm preeclampsia is to be used, what method should be used for the prediction, and what risk cutoff should be used to decide on who to treat? OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the policies of universal treatment, stratified treatment, and no treatment with aspirin. STUDY DESIGN: Decisions about aspirin prophylaxis were considered from the perspective of the Bayesian decision theory. Using this approach, the treatment policies were evaluated for risks of preterm preeclampsia, effects of aspirin, and trade-offs between the harms and benefits of the treatment. Evidence on the risk of preterm preeclampsia was taken from the Screening programme for pre-eclampsia study, which was a first-trimester screening study for the prediction of preeclampsia. Evidence of the effect of aspirin was taken from the Aspirin for Evidence-Based Preeclampsia Prevention trial, which was a trial of aspirin vs placebo in the prevention of preterm preeclampsia. The trade-off between the benefits and harms of aspirin was specified by addressing the question, "What is the maximum number of women that should be treated to prevent 1 case of preterm preeclampsia?" The number can be considered as an exchange rate between the harms and benefits of using aspirin to prevent preterm PE. Given the uncertainty about the harms associated with aspirin, the treatment policies were compared across a wide range of exchange rates. RESULTS: For exchange rates between 10 and 1000 women treated with aspirin to prevent 1 case of preterm preeclampsia, the net benefit achieved from the risk assessment and targeted treatment of women at high risk of preterm preeclampsia was higher than that from women with no treatment or women with universal treatment with aspirin. CONCLUSION: Universal treatment with aspirin should be avoided. Risk-based screening should be used, and the cutoff for taking aspirin should be determined from the consideration of the trade-off between the benefits and harms and detection, false-positive, and screen-positive rates.

Aspirin delays the development of preeclampsia.

BACKGROUND: In the Combined Multimarker Screening and Randomized Patient Treatment with Aspirin for Evidence-Based Preeclampsia Prevention trial, risks of preterm preeclampsia were obtained from the competing risk model. Consenting women with risks of greater than 1 in 100 were randomized to treatment with aspirin or placebo. The trial showed strong evidence of an effect (odds ratio, 0.38, 95% confidence interval, 0.20-0.74) on the incidence of preterm preeclampsia, which was the primary outcome of Aspirin for Evidence-Based Preeclampsia Prevention. There was a small and insignificant effect on the incidence of term preeclampsia, which was a secondary outcomes (odds ratio, 0.95, 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.39). These differential effects on term and preterm preeclampsia could reflect a mechanism in which the action of aspirin is to delay the delivery with preeclampsia, thereby converting what would be, without treatment, preterm preeclampsia to term preeclampsia. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to examine the hypothesis that the effect of aspirin is to delay the time of delivery in women who have preeclampsia. STUDY DESIGN: This was an unplanned exploratory analysis of data from the Aspirin for Evidence-Based Preeclampsia Prevention trial. The delay hypothesis predicts that in groups for which preterm preeclampsia, without aspirin, were infrequent relative to term preeclampsia, a reduction in term preeclampsia would be expected because few cases of preterm preeclampsia would be converted to term preeclampsia. In contrast, in groups for which preterm preeclampsia were frequent relative to term preeclampsia, the conversion of preterm preeclampsia to term preeclampsia by aspirin would reduce or even reverse any effect on the incidence term preeclampsia. This is examined using the Aspirin for Evidence-Based Preeclampsia Prevention trial data by analysis of the effect of aspirin on the incidence of term preeclampsia stratified according to the risk of preterm preeclampsia at randomization. Given that women were included in Aspirin for Evidence-Based Preeclampsia Prevention with risks of preterm preeclampsia >1 in 100, a risk cutoff if 1 in 50 was used to define higher risk and lower risk strata. A statistical model in which the effect of aspirin is to delay the gestational age at delivery was fitted to the Aspirin for Evidence-Based Preeclampsia Prevention trial data and the consistency of the predictions from this model with the observed incidence was demonstrated. RESULTS: In the lower-risk group (<1 in 50), there was a reduction in the incidence of term preeclampsia (odds ratio, 0.62, 95% confidence interval, 0.29-1.30). In contrast, in the higher risk group (≥1 in 50) there was a small increase in the incidence of term- preeclampsia (odds ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval, 0.71- .75). Although these effects fail to achieve significance, they are consistent with the delay hypothesis. Within the framework of the aspirin-related delay hypothesis, the effect of aspirin was to delay the gestational age at delivery with preeclampsia by an estimated 4.4 weeks (95% confidence interval, 1.4-7.1 weeks) for those that in the placebo group would be delivered at 24 weeks and the effect decreased by an estimated 0.23 weeks (95% confidence interval, 0.021-0.40 weeks) for each week of gestation so that at 40+0 weeks, the estimated delay was by 0.8 weeks (95% confidence interval, -0.03 to 1.7 weeks). CONCLUSION: The Aspirin for Evidence-Based Preeclampsia Prevention trial data are consistent with the hypothesis that aspirin delays the gestational age at delivery with preeclampsia.

Predictive performance of the competing risk model in screening for preeclampsia.

BACKGROUND: The established method of screening for preeclampsia is to identify risk factors from maternal demographic characteristics and medical history; in the presence of such factors the patient is classified as high risk and in their absence as low risk. However, the performance of such an approach is poor. We developed a competing risks model, which allows combination of maternal factors (age, weight, height, race, parity, personal and family history of preeclampsia, chronic hypertension, diabetes mellitus, systemic lupus erythematosus or antiphospholipid syndrome, method of conception and interpregnancy interval), with biomarkers to estimate the individual patient-specific risks of preeclampsia requiring delivery before any specified gestation. The performance of this approach is by far superior to that of the risk scoring systems. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to examine the predictive performance of the competing risks model in screening for preeclampsia by a combination of maternal factors, mean arterial pressure, uterine artery pulsatility index, and serum placental growth factor, referred to as the triple test, in a training data set for the development of the model and 2 validation studies. STUDY DESIGN: The data for this study were derived from 3 previously reported prospective, nonintervention, multicenter screening studies for preeclampsia in singleton pregnancies at 11+0 to 13+6 weeks' gestation. In all 3 studies, there was recording of maternal factors and biomarkers and ascertainment of outcome by appropriately trained personnel. The first study of 35,948 women, which was carried out between February 2010 and July 2014, was used to develop the competing risks model for prediction of preeclampsia and is therefore considered to be the training set. The 2 validation studies were comprised of 8775 and 16,451 women, respectively, and they were carried out between February and September 2015 and between April and December 2016, respectively. Patient-specific risks of delivery with preeclampsia at <34, <37, and <41+3 weeks' gestation were calculated using the competing risks model and the performance of screening for preeclampsia by maternal factors alone and the triple test in each of the 3 data sets was assessed. We examined the predictive performance of the model by first, the ability of the model to discriminate between the preeclampsia and no-preeclampsia groups using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and the detection rate at fixed screen-positive rate of 10%, and second, calibration by measurements of calibration slope and calibration in the large. RESULTS: The detection rate at the screen-positive rate of 10% of early-preeclampsia, preterm-preeclampsia, and all-preeclampsia was about 90%, 75%, and 50%, respectively, and the results were consistent between the training and 2 validation data sets. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was >0.95, >0.90, and >0.80, respectively, demonstrating a very high discrimination between affected and unaffected pregnancies. Similarly, the calibration slopes were very close to 1.0, demonstrating a good agreement between the predicted risks and observed incidence of preeclampsia. In the prediction of early-preeclampsia and preterm-preeclampsia, the observed incidence in the training set and 1 of the validation data sets was consistent with the predicted one. In the other validation data set, which was specifically designed for evaluation of the model, the incidence was higher than predicted, presumably because of better ascertainment of outcome. The incidence of all-preeclampsia was lower than predicted in all 3 data sets because at term many pregnancies deliver for reasons other than preeclampsia, and therefore, pregnancies considered to be at high risk for preeclampsia that deliver for other reasons before they develop preeclampsia can be wrongly considered to be false positives. CONCLUSION: The competing risks model provides an effective and reproducible method for first-trimester prediction of early preeclampsia and preterm preeclampsia as long as the various components of screening are carried out by appropriately trained and audited practitioners. Early prediction of preterm preeclampsia is beneficial because treatment of the high-risk group with aspirin is highly effective in the prevention of the disease.

Aspirin for Evidence-Based Preeclampsia Prevention trial: effect of aspirin on length of stay in the neonatal intensive care unit.

BACKGROUND: Preeclampsia is a major pregnancy complication with adverse short- and long-term implications for both the mother and baby. Screening for preeclampsia at 11-13 weeks' gestation by a combination of maternal demographic characteristics and medical history with measurements of biomarkers can identify about 75% of women who develop preterm preeclampsia with delivery at <37 weeks' gestation and 90% of those with early preeclampsia at <32 weeks, at a screen-positive rate of 10%. A recent trial (Combined Multimarker Screening and Randomized Patient Treatment with Aspirin for Evidence-Based Preeclampsia Prevention) has reported that in women identified by first-trimester screening as being at high risk for preeclampsia, use of aspirin (150 mg/d from the first to the third trimester), compared to placebo, reduced the incidence of preterm preeclampsia, which was the primary outcome, by 62% (95% confidence interval, 26-80%) and the incidence of early preeclampsia by 89% (95% confidence interval, 53-97%). The surprising finding of the trial was that despite the reduction in preeclampsia the incidence of admission to the neonatal intensive care unit, which was one of the secondary outcomes, was not significantly affected (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.62-1.40). OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the effect of prophylactic use of aspirin during pregnancy in women at high risk of preeclampsia on length of stay in the neonatal intensive care unit. STUDY DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of data from the Aspirin for Evidence-Based Preeclampsia Prevention trial to assess evidence of differences in the effect of aspirin on length of stay in neonatal intensive care. Bootstrapping was used for the comparison of mean length of stay between the aspirin and placebo groups. Logistic regression was used to assess treatment effects on stay in the neonatal intensive care unit. RESULTS: In the trial there were 1620 participants and 1571 neonates were liveborn. The total length of stay in neonatal intensive care was substantially longer in the placebo than aspirin group (1696 vs 531 days). This is a reflection of significantly shorter mean lengths of stay in babies admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit from the aspirin than the placebo group (11.1 vs 31.4 days), a reduction of 20.3 days (95% confidence interval, 7.0-38.6; P = .008). Neonatal intensive care of babies born at <32 weeks' gestation contributed 1856 (83.3%) of the total of 2227 days in intensive care across both treatment arms. These occurred in 9 (1.2%) of the 777 livebirths in the aspirin group and in 23 (2.9%) of 794 in the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% confidence interval, 0.19-0.93; P = .033). Overall, in the whole population, including 0 lengths of stay for those not admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit, the mean length of stay was longer in the placebo than aspirin group (2.06 vs 0.66 days; reduction of 1.4 days; 95% confidence interval, 0.45-2.81; P = .014). This corresponds to a reduction in length of stay of 68% (95% confidence interval, 20-86%). CONCLUSION: In pregnancies at high risk of preeclampsia administration of aspirin reduces the length of stay in the neonatal intensive care unit by about 70%. This reduction could essentially be attributed to a decrease in the rate of births at <32 weeks' gestation, mainly because of prevention of early preeclampsia. The findings have implications for both short- and long-term health care costs as well as infant survival and handicap.

Aspirin for Evidence-Based Preeclampsia Prevention trial: influence of compliance on beneficial effect of aspirin in prevention of preterm preeclampsia.

BACKGROUND: The Aspirin for Evidence-Based Preeclampsia Prevention trial was a multicenter study in women with singleton pregnancies. Screening was carried out at 11-13 weeks' gestation with an algorithm that combines maternal factors and biomarkers (mean arterial pressure, uterine artery pulsatility index, and maternal serum pregnancy-associated plasma protein A and placental growth factor). Those with an estimated risk for preterm preeclampsia of >1 in 100 were invited to participate in a double-blind trial of aspirin (150 mg/d) vs placebo from 11-14 until 36 weeks' gestation. Preterm preeclampsia with delivery at <37 weeks' gestation, which was the primary outcome, occurred in 1.6% (13/798) participants in the aspirin group, as compared with 4.3% (35/822) in the placebo group (odds ratio in the aspirin group, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.20 to 0.74). OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine the influence of compliance on the beneficial effect of aspirin in prevention of preterm preeclampsia in the Aspirin for Evidence-Based Preeclampsia Prevention trial. STUDY DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of data from the trial. The proportion of prescribed tablets taken was used as an overall measure of compliance. Logistic regression analysis was used to estimate the effect of aspirin on the incidence of preterm preeclampsia according to compliance of <90% and ≥90%, after adjustment for the estimated risk of preterm preeclampsia at screening and the participating center. The choice of cut-off of 90% was based on an exploratory analysis of the treatment effect. Logistic regression analysis was used to investigate predictors of compliance ≥90% among maternal characteristics and medical history. RESULTS: Preterm preeclampsia occurred in 5/555 (0.9%) participants in the aspirin group with compliance ≥90%, in 8/243 (3.3%) of participants in the aspirin group with compliance <90%, in 22/588 (3.7%) of participants in the placebo group with compliance ≥90%, and in 13/234 (5.6%) of participants in the placebo group with compliance <90%. The odds ratio in the aspirin group for preterm preeclampsia was 0.24 (95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.65) for compliance ≥90% and 0.59 (95% confidence interval, 0.23-1.53) for compliance <90%. Compliance was positively associated with family history of preeclampsia and negatively associated with smoking, maternal age <25 years, Afro-Caribbean and South Asian racial origin, and history of preeclampsia in a previous pregnancy. CONCLUSION: The beneficial effect of aspirin in the prevention of preterm preeclampsia appears to depend on compliance.