TY - JOUR
T1 - Care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth for improving outcomes
AU - Wojcieszek, Aleena M.
AU - Shepherd, Emily
AU - Middleton, Philippa
AU - Lassi, Zohra S.
AU - Wilson, Trish
AU - Murphy, Margaret M.
AU - Heazell, Alexander E.P.
AU - Ellwood, David A.
AU - Silver, Robert M.
AU - Flenady, Vicki
N1 - Funding Information:
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) Objective outcomes Trial financially supported by the Canadian Foundation for Women’s Health, Pharmacia & Upjohn Inc and Pfizer Canada. The study report notes the funders were not involved in the study design, data collection, analyses, interpretation or writing of the manuscript “S.R. Kahn and M. Rodger have received speaker’s honoraria and investigator-initiated grants-in-aid from various manufacturers of LMWH. The other authors state that they have no conflict of interest” (study report p. 63) Primary publication and completed data request form. Trial registration at www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN78732833 (retrospectively registered in 2008) Clinical trials identifier: ISRCTN78732833 Study was stopped early due to slow recruitment and following interim analyses demonstrating a decrease in the primary outcome at P < 0.005. Trialists noted: “We are aware that stopping the study may have led to exaggerated effect sizes” (study report p. 63) Most of the participants (78.4%) were recruited at 1 hospital (CHU Sainte-Justine) Women with spontaneous abortion < 12 weeks’ gestation were censored a posteriori from the analyses as they could not develop primary or secondary outcomes Low birthweight defined as weight < 2500 g SGA defined by percentile < 10th percentile Prematurity and neonatal intensive care stay was taken as the proxy for neonatal morbidity Adherence defined by observance of treatment. 1 woman switched from control to intervention
Funding Information:
Alexander EP Heazell: Alexander EP Heazell’s salary is funded by his National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) Clinician Scientist Award (CS-2013-13-009) although this review is not directly funded by this award. He also receives salary support from Tommy’s Charity as Director of the Tommy’s Stillbirth Research Centre, University of Manchester. This review is part of this programme of work into improving care in pregnancies after stillbirth. Alexander E P Heazell is the Clinical Lead for a specialist antenatal service for women who have experienced a stillbirth in previous pregnancy.
Funding Information:
Composite endpoint of pre-eclampsia, eclampsia, HELLP syndrome, intrauterine fetal death, FGR, or placental abruption; Pregnancy complications: miscarriage; termination; gestational diabetes; gestational hypertension; cholestasis; premature rupture of membranes; oligohydramnios; placental praevia; risk of preterm delivery; abnormal uterine artery velocimetry; others; Other maternal adverse events: bleeding; thrombocytopenia; others; Fetal/neonatal adverse events: chromosomal or congenital abnormalities; abnormal cardiotocography; others;Other outcomes: abnormal uterine artery velocimetry; GA at birth; delivery after 38th week; delivery at or before 38th week (before 35th week; before 31st week); caesarean section; birthweight < 10th centile; birthweight 10th to 49th centile; birthweight 50th to 89th centile; birthweight > 90th centile; birthweight; Apgar score < 7 Trial supported by the Italian Drug Agency (Agenzia Italiana del Farmaco) of the Ministry of Health (grant for independent research; trial registration: EudraCT 2006-004205-26). The study report notes “No pharmaceutical company was involved in any phases of the trial, including protocol design, study conduction, co-ordination and monitoring, data handling and analysis, and manuscript writing” (study report p. 3270)
Funding Information:
Primary outcome: composite of any pregnancy loss after randomisation, pre-eclampsia, birth of a SGA infant, placental abruption, or objectively documented VTE Secondary outcomes: GA at birth, preterm birth, mode of delivery, and maternal complications related to enoxaparin use (thrombocytopenia, antepartum bleeding, and symptomatic fracture) Not stated in article. Trialists advised that the trial was supported by Emek Medical Center
Funding Information:
This project was supported by the National Institute for Health Research, via Cochrane Infrastructure funding to Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth. The views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Systematic Reviews Programme, NIHR, NHS or the Department of Health.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 The Cochrane Collaboration.
PY - 2018/12/17
Y1 - 2018/12/17
N2 - Background: Stillbirth affects at least 2.6 million families worldwide every year and has enduring consequences for parents and health services. Parents entering a subsequent pregnancy following stillbirth face a risk of stillbirth recurrence, alongside increased risks of other adverse pregnancy outcomes and psychosocial challenges. These parents may benefit from a range of interventions to optimise their short- and longer-term medical health and psychosocial well-being. Objectives: To assess the effects of different interventions or models of care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth on maternal, fetal, neonatal and family health outcomes, and health service utilisation. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (6 June 2018), along with ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 June 2018). Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials (qRCTs). Trials using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion, but we found no such reports. We included trials published as abstract only, provided sufficient information was available to allow assessment of trial eligibility and risk of bias. We excluded cross-over trials. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and undertook data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments. We extracted data from published reports, or sourced data directly from trialists. We checked the data for accuracy and resolved discrepancies by discussion or correspondence with trialists, or both. We conducted an assessment of the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Main results: We included nine RCTs and one qRCT, and judged them to be at low to moderate risk of bias. Trials were carried out between the years 1964 and 2015 and took place predominantly in high-income countries in Europe. All trials assessed medical interventions; no trials assessed psychosocial interventions or incorporated psychosocial aspects of care. Trials evaluated the use of antiplatelet agents (low-dose aspirin (LDA) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), or both), third-party leukocyte immunisation, intravenous immunoglobulin, and progestogen. Trial participants were women who were either pregnant or attempting to conceive following a pregnancy loss, fetal death, or adverse outcome in a previous pregnancy. We extracted data for 222 women who had experienced a previous stillbirth of 20 weeks' gestation or more from the broader trial data sets, and included them in this review. Our GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low, due largely to serious imprecision in effect estimates as a result of small sample sizes, low numbers of events, and wide confidence intervals (CIs) crossing the line of no effect. Most of the analyses in this review were not sufficiently powered to detect differences in the outcomes assessed. The results presented are therefore largely uncertain. Main comparisons LMWH versus no treatment/standard care (three RCTs, 123 women, depending on the outcome) It was uncertain whether LMWH reduced the risk of stillbirth (risk ratio (RR) 2.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 16.62; 3 trials; 122 participants; low-quality evidence), adverse perinatal outcome (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.32; 2 trials; 77 participants; low-quality evidence), adverse maternal psychological effects (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 1 trial; 40 participants; very low-quality evidence), perinatal mortality (RR 2.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 16.62; 3 trials; 122 participants; low-quality evidence), or any preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (RR 1.01, 0.58 to 1.74; 3 trials; 114 participants; low-quality evidence). No neonatal deaths were reported in the trials assessed and no data were available for maternal-infant attachment. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups among the remaining secondary outcomes. LDA versus placebo (one RCT, 24 women) It was uncertain whether LDA reduced the risk of stillbirth (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.01), neonatal death (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.38), adverse perinatal outcome (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.34), perinatal mortality, or any preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (both of the latter RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.06; all very low-quality evidence). No data were available for adverse maternal psychological effects or maternal-infant attachment. LDA appeared to be associated with an increase in birthweight (mean difference (MD) 790.00 g, 95% CI 295.03 to 1284.97 g) when compared to placebo, but this result was very unstable due to the extremely small sample size. Whether LDA has any effect on the remaining secondary outcomes was also uncertain. Other comparisons LDA appeared to be associated with an increase in birthweight when compared to LDA + LMWH (MD -650.00 g, 95% CI -1210.33 to -89.67 g; 1 trial; 29 infants), as did third-party leukocyte immunisation when compared to placebo (MD 1195.00 g, 95% CI 273.35 to 2116.65 g; 1 trial, 4 infants), but these results were again very unstable due to extremely small sample sizes. The effects of the interventions on the remaining outcomes were also uncertain. Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient evidence in this review to inform clinical practice about the effectiveness of interventions to improve care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following a stillbirth. There is a clear and urgent need for well-designed trials addressing this research question. The evaluation of medical interventions such as LDA, in the specific context of stillbirth prevention (and recurrent stillbirth prevention), is warranted. However, appropriate methodologies to evaluate such therapies need to be determined, particularly where clinical equipoise may be lacking. Careful trial design and multicentre collaboration is necessary to carry out trials that would be sufficiently large to detect differences in statistically rare outcomes such as stillbirth and neonatal death. The evaluation of psychosocial interventions addressing maternal-fetal attachment and parental anxiety and depression is also an urgent priority. In a randomised-trial context, such trials may allocate parents to different forms of support, to determine which have the greatest benefit with the least financial cost. Importantly, consistency in nomenclature and in data collection across all future trials (randomised and non-randomised) may be facilitated by a core outcomes data set for stillbirth research. All future trials should assess short- and longer-term psychosocial outcomes for parents and families, alongside economic costs of interventions.
AB - Background: Stillbirth affects at least 2.6 million families worldwide every year and has enduring consequences for parents and health services. Parents entering a subsequent pregnancy following stillbirth face a risk of stillbirth recurrence, alongside increased risks of other adverse pregnancy outcomes and psychosocial challenges. These parents may benefit from a range of interventions to optimise their short- and longer-term medical health and psychosocial well-being. Objectives: To assess the effects of different interventions or models of care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth on maternal, fetal, neonatal and family health outcomes, and health service utilisation. Search methods: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (6 June 2018), along with ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 June 2018). Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials (qRCTs). Trials using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion, but we found no such reports. We included trials published as abstract only, provided sufficient information was available to allow assessment of trial eligibility and risk of bias. We excluded cross-over trials. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and undertook data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments. We extracted data from published reports, or sourced data directly from trialists. We checked the data for accuracy and resolved discrepancies by discussion or correspondence with trialists, or both. We conducted an assessment of the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach. Main results: We included nine RCTs and one qRCT, and judged them to be at low to moderate risk of bias. Trials were carried out between the years 1964 and 2015 and took place predominantly in high-income countries in Europe. All trials assessed medical interventions; no trials assessed psychosocial interventions or incorporated psychosocial aspects of care. Trials evaluated the use of antiplatelet agents (low-dose aspirin (LDA) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), or both), third-party leukocyte immunisation, intravenous immunoglobulin, and progestogen. Trial participants were women who were either pregnant or attempting to conceive following a pregnancy loss, fetal death, or adverse outcome in a previous pregnancy. We extracted data for 222 women who had experienced a previous stillbirth of 20 weeks' gestation or more from the broader trial data sets, and included them in this review. Our GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low, due largely to serious imprecision in effect estimates as a result of small sample sizes, low numbers of events, and wide confidence intervals (CIs) crossing the line of no effect. Most of the analyses in this review were not sufficiently powered to detect differences in the outcomes assessed. The results presented are therefore largely uncertain. Main comparisons LMWH versus no treatment/standard care (three RCTs, 123 women, depending on the outcome) It was uncertain whether LMWH reduced the risk of stillbirth (risk ratio (RR) 2.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 16.62; 3 trials; 122 participants; low-quality evidence), adverse perinatal outcome (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.32; 2 trials; 77 participants; low-quality evidence), adverse maternal psychological effects (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 1 trial; 40 participants; very low-quality evidence), perinatal mortality (RR 2.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 16.62; 3 trials; 122 participants; low-quality evidence), or any preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (RR 1.01, 0.58 to 1.74; 3 trials; 114 participants; low-quality evidence). No neonatal deaths were reported in the trials assessed and no data were available for maternal-infant attachment. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups among the remaining secondary outcomes. LDA versus placebo (one RCT, 24 women) It was uncertain whether LDA reduced the risk of stillbirth (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.01), neonatal death (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.38), adverse perinatal outcome (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.34), perinatal mortality, or any preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (both of the latter RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.06; all very low-quality evidence). No data were available for adverse maternal psychological effects or maternal-infant attachment. LDA appeared to be associated with an increase in birthweight (mean difference (MD) 790.00 g, 95% CI 295.03 to 1284.97 g) when compared to placebo, but this result was very unstable due to the extremely small sample size. Whether LDA has any effect on the remaining secondary outcomes was also uncertain. Other comparisons LDA appeared to be associated with an increase in birthweight when compared to LDA + LMWH (MD -650.00 g, 95% CI -1210.33 to -89.67 g; 1 trial; 29 infants), as did third-party leukocyte immunisation when compared to placebo (MD 1195.00 g, 95% CI 273.35 to 2116.65 g; 1 trial, 4 infants), but these results were again very unstable due to extremely small sample sizes. The effects of the interventions on the remaining outcomes were also uncertain. Authors' conclusions: There is insufficient evidence in this review to inform clinical practice about the effectiveness of interventions to improve care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following a stillbirth. There is a clear and urgent need for well-designed trials addressing this research question. The evaluation of medical interventions such as LDA, in the specific context of stillbirth prevention (and recurrent stillbirth prevention), is warranted. However, appropriate methodologies to evaluate such therapies need to be determined, particularly where clinical equipoise may be lacking. Careful trial design and multicentre collaboration is necessary to carry out trials that would be sufficiently large to detect differences in statistically rare outcomes such as stillbirth and neonatal death. The evaluation of psychosocial interventions addressing maternal-fetal attachment and parental anxiety and depression is also an urgent priority. In a randomised-trial context, such trials may allocate parents to different forms of support, to determine which have the greatest benefit with the least financial cost. Importantly, consistency in nomenclature and in data collection across all future trials (randomised and non-randomised) may be facilitated by a core outcomes data set for stillbirth research. All future trials should assess short- and longer-term psychosocial outcomes for parents and families, alongside economic costs of interventions.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85059033902&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1002/14651858.CD012203.pub2
DO - 10.1002/14651858.CD012203.pub2
M3 - Review article
C2 - 30556599
AN - SCOPUS:85059033902
SN - 1469-493X
VL - 2018
JO - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
JF - Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
IS - 12
M1 - CD012203
ER -