Evaluation of first trimester maternal serum inhibin-A for preeclampsia screening.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
06
12
2022
accepted:
24
06
2023
medline:
12
7
2023
pubmed:
10
7
2023
entrez:
10
7
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
International professional organizations recommend aspirin prophylaxis to women screened high risk for preterm preeclampsia (PE) in the first trimester. The UK Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF) screening test for preterm PE using mean arterial pressure (MAP), uterine artery pulsatility index (UTPI) and placental growth factor (PlGF) was demonstrated to have lower detection rate (DR) in Asian population studies. Additional biomarkers are therefore needed in Asian women to improve screening DRs as a significant proportion of women with preterm and term PE are currently not identified. To evaluate maternal serum inhibin-A at 11-13 weeks as an alternative to PlGF or as an additional biomarker within the FMF screening test for preterm PE. This is a nested case-control study using pregnancies initially screened at 11-13 weeks for preterm PE using the FMF triple test in a non-intervention study conducted between December 2016 and June 2018. Inhibin-A levels were retrospectively measured in 1,792 singleton pregnancies, 112 (1.7%) with PE matched for time of initial screening with 1,680 unaffected pregnancies. Inhibin-A levels were transformed to multiple of the expected median (MoM). The distribution of log10 inhibin-A MoM in PE and unaffected pregnancies and the association between log10 inhibin-A MoM and gestational age (GA) at delivery in PE were assessed. The screening performance determined by area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) and detection rates (DRs) at a 10% fixed false positive rate (FPR), for preterm and term PE was determined. All risks for preterm and term PE were based on the FMF competing risk model and Bayes theorem. Differences in AUC (ΔAUC) between different biomarker combinations were compared using the Delong test. McNemar's test was used to assess the off-diagonal change in screening performance at a fixed 10% FPR after adding inhibin-A or replacing PlGF in the preterm PE adjusted risk estimation model. Inhibin-A levels in unaffected pregnancies were significantly dependent on GA, maternal age and weight and were lower in parous women with no previous history of PE. Mean log10 inhibin-A MoM in any-onset PE (p<0.001), preterm (p<0.001) and term PE (p = 0.015) pregnancies were all significantly higher than that of unaffected pregnancies. Log10 inhibin-A MoM was inversely but not significantly correlated (p = 0.165) with GA at delivery in PE pregnancies. Replacing PlGF with inhibin-A in the FMF triple test reduced AUC and DR from 0.859 and 64.86% to 0.837 and 54.05%, the ΔAUC was not statistically significant. AUC and DR when adding inhibin-A to the FMF triple test were 0.814, 54.05% and the -0.045 reduction in AUC was statistically significant (p = 0.001). At a fixed 10% FPR, replacing PlGF with inhibin-A identified 1 (2.7%) additional pregnancy but missed 5 (13.5%) pregnancies which subsequently developed preterm PE identified by the FMF triple test. Adding inhibin-A missed 4 (10.8%) pregnancies and did not identify any additional pregnancies with preterm PE. Replacing PlGF by inhibin-A or adding inhibin-A as an additional biomarker in and to the FMF triple screening test for preterm PE does not improve screening performance and will fail to identify pregnancies that are currently identified by the FMF triple test.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
International professional organizations recommend aspirin prophylaxis to women screened high risk for preterm preeclampsia (PE) in the first trimester. The UK Fetal Medicine Foundation (FMF) screening test for preterm PE using mean arterial pressure (MAP), uterine artery pulsatility index (UTPI) and placental growth factor (PlGF) was demonstrated to have lower detection rate (DR) in Asian population studies. Additional biomarkers are therefore needed in Asian women to improve screening DRs as a significant proportion of women with preterm and term PE are currently not identified.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate maternal serum inhibin-A at 11-13 weeks as an alternative to PlGF or as an additional biomarker within the FMF screening test for preterm PE.
STUDY DESIGN
This is a nested case-control study using pregnancies initially screened at 11-13 weeks for preterm PE using the FMF triple test in a non-intervention study conducted between December 2016 and June 2018. Inhibin-A levels were retrospectively measured in 1,792 singleton pregnancies, 112 (1.7%) with PE matched for time of initial screening with 1,680 unaffected pregnancies. Inhibin-A levels were transformed to multiple of the expected median (MoM). The distribution of log10 inhibin-A MoM in PE and unaffected pregnancies and the association between log10 inhibin-A MoM and gestational age (GA) at delivery in PE were assessed. The screening performance determined by area under receiver operating characteristic curves (AUC) and detection rates (DRs) at a 10% fixed false positive rate (FPR), for preterm and term PE was determined. All risks for preterm and term PE were based on the FMF competing risk model and Bayes theorem. Differences in AUC (ΔAUC) between different biomarker combinations were compared using the Delong test. McNemar's test was used to assess the off-diagonal change in screening performance at a fixed 10% FPR after adding inhibin-A or replacing PlGF in the preterm PE adjusted risk estimation model.
RESULTS
Inhibin-A levels in unaffected pregnancies were significantly dependent on GA, maternal age and weight and were lower in parous women with no previous history of PE. Mean log10 inhibin-A MoM in any-onset PE (p<0.001), preterm (p<0.001) and term PE (p = 0.015) pregnancies were all significantly higher than that of unaffected pregnancies. Log10 inhibin-A MoM was inversely but not significantly correlated (p = 0.165) with GA at delivery in PE pregnancies. Replacing PlGF with inhibin-A in the FMF triple test reduced AUC and DR from 0.859 and 64.86% to 0.837 and 54.05%, the ΔAUC was not statistically significant. AUC and DR when adding inhibin-A to the FMF triple test were 0.814, 54.05% and the -0.045 reduction in AUC was statistically significant (p = 0.001). At a fixed 10% FPR, replacing PlGF with inhibin-A identified 1 (2.7%) additional pregnancy but missed 5 (13.5%) pregnancies which subsequently developed preterm PE identified by the FMF triple test. Adding inhibin-A missed 4 (10.8%) pregnancies and did not identify any additional pregnancies with preterm PE.
CONCLUSION
Replacing PlGF by inhibin-A or adding inhibin-A as an additional biomarker in and to the FMF triple screening test for preterm PE does not improve screening performance and will fail to identify pregnancies that are currently identified by the FMF triple test.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37428792
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0288289
pii: PONE-D-22-29184
pmc: PMC10332599
doi:
Substances chimiques
Placenta Growth Factor
144589-93-5
Biomarkers
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0288289Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Moungmaithong et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
LCP has received speaker fees and consultancy payments from Roche Diagnostics and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. LCP and DS have received in‐kind contributions from Roche Diagnostics, PerkinElmer, Thermo Fisher Scientific, and GE Healthcare. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials. Other co-authors report no conflicts of interest.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2004 Feb 12;350(7):672-83
pubmed: 14764923
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Jun;49(6):756-760
pubmed: 28295782
J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2011 Apr;24(4):595-9
pubmed: 21375372
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Apr;33(4):387-93
pubmed: 19306471
N Engl J Med. 2017 Aug 17;377(7):613-622
pubmed: 28657417
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Mar;218(3):287-293.e1
pubmed: 29138036
Prenat Diagn. 2009 Aug;29(8):753-60
pubmed: 19412915
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999 Dec;106(12):1298-303
pubmed: 10609725
Lancet. 1997 May 3;349(9061):1285-8
pubmed: 9142063
Prenat Diagn. 2012 Jan;32(1):29-38
pubmed: 22234821
Am J Reprod Immunol. 1998 Jul;40(1):37-42
pubmed: 9689359
N Engl J Med. 2006 Sep 7;355(10):992-1005
pubmed: 16957146
Biometrics. 1988 Sep;44(3):837-45
pubmed: 3203132
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Dec;221(6):650.e1-650.e16
pubmed: 31589866
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Feb;33(2):157-60
pubmed: 19115262
J Physiol. 2019 Sep;597(18):4695-4714
pubmed: 31343740
Am J Perinatol. 2021 Mar;38(4):363-369
pubmed: 31604350
Hypertension. 2022 Feb;79(2):314-322
pubmed: 34689595
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2018 Aug;52(2):186-195
pubmed: 29896812
BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2019 Apr 11;19(1):124
pubmed: 30971214
Hum Reprod. 2000 Jul;15(7):1640-5
pubmed: 10875882
Gynecol Obstet Invest. 2019;84(1):12-19
pubmed: 30007972
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2020 Aug;56(2):206-214
pubmed: 31671479
Fetal Diagn Ther. 2012;31(3):141-6
pubmed: 22441437
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jun;35(6):662-70
pubmed: 20232288
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Feb;53(2):239-244
pubmed: 29700870
Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2019 May;145 Suppl 1:1-33
pubmed: 31111484
Sci Rep. 2020 Apr 14;10(1):6398
pubmed: 32286341
Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Dec;126(6):1242-1250
pubmed: 26551178
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2006 Dec;195(6):1636-45
pubmed: 16959203
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Feb;226(2S):S1071-S1097.e2
pubmed: 32682859
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Aug;60(2):200-206
pubmed: 35468236
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Jan;53(1):7-22
pubmed: 30320479
Lancet. 1997 May 3;349(9061):1266-7
pubmed: 9142057
Placenta. 2011 Feb;32 Suppl:S42-8
pubmed: 21257082
Hypertension. 2018 Jul;72(1):24-43
pubmed: 29899139
Hypertens Pregnancy. 2003;22(1):45-55
pubmed: 12648442
Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1998 Oct;105(10):1101-3
pubmed: 9800934
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2013 May;41(5):491-9
pubmed: 23362106
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Feb;216(2):110-120.e6
pubmed: 27640943
J Am Heart Assoc. 2020 Oct 20;9(19):e018219
pubmed: 32990126
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2008 Oct;32(5):622-6
pubmed: 18816493
Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2014 Nov;182:194-201
pubmed: 25305662
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Jan;214(1):103.e1-103.e12
pubmed: 26297382
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Nov;221(5):533-534
pubmed: 31306651