Spencer Laura, Bubner Tanya, Bain Emily, Middleton Philippa
ARCH: Australian Research Centre for Health of Women and Babies, Robinson Research Institute, Discipline of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, The University of Adelaide, 72 King William Road, Adelaide, SA, Australia, 5006.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015 Sep 21;2015(9):CD011263. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011263.pub2.
Thyroid dysfunction pre-pregnancy and during pregnancy (both hyper- and hypothyroidism) is associated with increased risk of adverse outcomes for mothers and infants in the short- and long-term. Managing the thyroid dysfunction (e.g. thyroxine for hypothyroidism, or antithyroid medication for hyperthyroidism) may improve outcomes. The best method of screening to identify and subsequently manage thyroid dysfunction pre-pregnancy and during pregnancy is unknown.
To assess the effects of different screening methods (and subsequent management) for thyroid dysfunction pre-pregnancy and during pregnancy on maternal and infant outcomes.
We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (14 July 2015) and reference lists of retrieved studies.
Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials, comparing any screening method (e.g. tool, program, guideline/protocol) for detecting thyroid dysfunction (including hypothyroidism, hyperthyroidism, and/or thyroid autoimmunity) pre-pregnancy or during pregnancy with no screening, or alternative screening methods.
Two review authors independently assessed eligibility of studies, extracted and checked data accuracy, and assessed the risk of bias of included studies.
We included two randomised controlled trials (involving 26,408 women) - these trials were considered to be at low risk of bias. Universal screening (screening all women) versus case finding (screening only those at perceived increased risk) in pregnancy for thyroid dysfunctionOne trial (4562 women) compared universal screening with case finding for thyroid dysfunction. Before 11 weeks' gestation, women in the universal screening group, and 'high-risk' women in the case finding group had their sera tested for TSH (thyroid stimulating hormone), fT4 (free thyroxine) and TPO-Ab (thyroid peroxidase antibody); women with hypothyroidism (TSH > 2.5 mIU/litre) received levothyroxine; women with hyperthyroidism (undetectable TSH and elevated fT4) received antithyroid medication.In regards to this review's primary outcomes, compared with the case finding group, more women in the universal screening group were diagnosed with hypothyroidism (risk ratio (RR) 3.15, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.91 to 5.20; 4562 women; GRADE: high quality evidence), with a trend towards more women being diagnosed with hyperthyroidism (RR 4.50, 95% CI 0.97 to 20.82; 4562 women; P = 0.05; GRADE: moderate quality evidence). No clear differences were seen in the risks of pre-eclampsia (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.18; 4516 women; GRADE: moderate quality evidence), or preterm birth (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.24; 4516 women; GRADE: high quality evidence) between groups. This trial did not report on neurosensory disability for the infant as a child.Considering this review's secondary outcomes, more women in the universal screening group received pharmacological treatment for thyroid dysfunction (RR 3.15, 95% CI 1.91 to 5.20; 4562 women). No clear differences between groups were observed for miscarriage (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.19; 4516 women; GRADE: moderate quality evidence), fetal and neonatal death (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.02; 4516 infants; GRADE: moderate quality evidence), or other secondary outcomes: pregnancy-induced hypertension, gestational diabetes, congestive heart failure, thyroid storm, mode of birth (caesarean section), preterm labour, placental abruption, respiratory distress syndrome, low birthweight, neonatal intensive care unit admission, or other congenital malformations. The trial did not report on a number of outcomes including adverse effects associated with the intervention. Universal screening versus no screening in pregnancy for hypothyroidismOne trial (21,846 women) compared universal screening with no screening for hypothyroidism. Before 15 + 6 weeks' gestation, women in the universal screening group had their sera tested; women who screened 'positive' (TSH > 97.5th percentile, fT4 < 2.5th percentile, or both) received levothyroxine.Considering primary review outcomes, compared with the no screening group, more women in the universal screening screened 'positive' for hypothyroidism (RR 998.18, 95% CI 62.36 to 15,978.48; 21,839 women; GRADE: high quality evidence). No data were provided for the outcome pre-eclampsia, and for preterm birth, the trial reported rates of 5.6% and 7.9% for the screening and no screening groups respectively (it was unclear if these percentages related to the entire cohort or women who screened positive). No clear difference was seen for neurosensory disability for the infant as a child (three-year follow-up IQ score < 85) (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.22; 794 infants; GRADE: moderate quality evidence).More women in the universal screening group received pharmacological treatment for thyroid dysfunction (RR 1102.90, 95% CI 69.07 to 17,610.46; 1050 women); 10% had their dose lowered because of low TSH, high fT4 or minor side effects. No clear differences were observed for other secondary outcomes, including developmental delay/intellectual impairment at three years. Most of our secondary outcomes, including miscarriage, fetal or neonatal death were not reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Based on the existing evidence, though universal screening for thyroid dysfunction in pregnancy increases the number of women diagnosed with hypothyroidism who can be subsequently treated, it does not clearly impact (benefit or harm) maternal and infant outcomes.While universal screening versus case finding for thyroid dysfunction increased diagnosis and subsequent treatment, we found no clear differences for the primary outcomes: pre-eclampsia or preterm birth. No clear differences were seen for secondary outcomes, including miscarriage and fetal or neonatal death; data were lacking for the primary outcome: neurosensory disability for the infant as a child, and for many secondary outcomes. Though universal screening versus no screening for hypothyroidism similarly increased diagnosis and subsequent treatment, no clear difference was seen for the primary outcome: neurosensory disability for the infant as a child (IQ < 85 at three years); data were lacking for the other primary outcomes: pre-eclampsia and preterm birth, and for the majority of secondary outcomes.For outcomes assessed using the GRADE approach the evidence was considered to be moderate or high quality, with any downgrading of the evidence based on the presence of wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect.More evidence is needed to assess the benefits or harms of different screening methods for thyroid dysfunction in pregnancy, on maternal, infant and child health outcomes. Future trials should assess impacts on use of health services and costs, and be adequately powered to evaluate the effects on short- and long-term outcomes.
孕前及孕期甲状腺功能障碍(包括甲状腺功能亢进和减退)与母婴近期及远期不良结局风险增加相关。治疗甲状腺功能障碍(如用甲状腺素治疗甲状腺功能减退,或用抗甲状腺药物治疗甲状腺功能亢进)可能改善结局。目前尚不清楚用于识别并随后治疗孕前及孕期甲状腺功能障碍的最佳筛查方法。
评估不同的孕前及孕期甲状腺功能障碍筛查方法(及后续治疗)对母婴结局的影响。
我们检索了Cochrane妊娠与分娩组试验注册库(2015年7月14日)以及检索到的研究的参考文献列表。
随机或半随机对照试验,比较任何用于检测孕前或孕期甲状腺功能障碍(包括甲状腺功能减退、甲状腺功能亢进和/或甲状腺自身免疫)的筛查方法(如工具、项目、指南/方案)与不筛查或其他筛查方法。
两名综述作者独立评估研究的合格性,提取并检查数据准确性,评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。
我们纳入了两项随机对照试验(涉及26408名女性),这些试验被认为偏倚风险较低。孕期甲状腺功能障碍的普遍筛查(筛查所有女性)与病例发现法(仅筛查那些被认为风险增加的女性)一项试验(4562名女性)比较了孕期甲状腺功能障碍的普遍筛查与病例发现法。在妊娠11周前,普遍筛查组的女性以及病例发现组的“高危”女性检测血清促甲状腺激素(TSH)、游离甲状腺素(fT4)和甲状腺过氧化物酶抗体(TPO-Ab);甲状腺功能减退(TSH>2.5 mIU/L)的女性接受左甲状腺素治疗;甲状腺功能亢进(TSH不可测且fT4升高)的女性接受抗甲状腺药物治疗。关于本综述的主要结局,与病例发现组相比,普遍筛查组中更多女性被诊断为甲状腺功能减退(风险比(RR)3.15,95%置信区间(CI)1.91至5.20;4562名女性;证据质量:高质量),有更多女性被诊断为甲状腺功能亢进的趋势(RR 4.50,95%CI 0.97至20.82;4562名女性;P = 0.05;证据质量:中等质量)。两组之间在子痫前期风险(RR 0.87,95%CI 0.64至1.18;4516名女性;证据质量:中等质量)或早产风险(RR 0.99,95%CI 0.80至1.24;4516名女性;证据质量:高质量)方面未见明显差异。该试验未报告婴儿儿童期神经感觉障碍情况。考虑本综述的次要结局,普遍筛查组中更多女性接受了甲状腺功能障碍的药物治疗(RR 3.15,95%CI 1.91至5.20;4562名女性)。两组在流产(RR 0.90,95%CI 0.68至1.19;4516名女性;证据质量:中等质量)、胎儿及新生儿死亡(RR 92,95%CI 0.42至2.02;4516名婴儿;证据质量:中等质量)或其他次要结局方面未见明显差异:妊娠高血压、妊娠期糖尿病、充血性心力衰竭、甲状腺危象、分娩方式(剖宫产)、早产、胎盘早剥、呼吸窘迫综合征、低出生体重、新生儿重症监护病房入院或其他先天性畸形。该试验未报告包括干预相关不良反应在内的一些结局。孕期甲状腺功能减退的普遍筛查与不筛查一项试验(21846名女性)比较了孕期甲状腺功能减退的普遍筛查与不筛查。在妊娠15 + 6周前,普遍筛查组的女性检测血清;筛查“阳性”(TSH>第97.5百分位数,fT4<第2.5百分位数,或两者兼有) 的女性接受左甲状腺素治疗。考虑主要综述结局,与不筛查组相比,普遍筛查组中更多女性筛查甲状腺功能减退呈“阳性”(RR 998.18,95%CI 62.36至15978.48;名女性;证据质量:高质量)。未提供子痫前期结局的数据,对于早产,该试验报告筛查组和不筛查组的发生率分别为5.6%和7.9%(不清楚这些百分比是与整个队列还是筛查阳性女性相关)。婴儿儿童期神经感觉障碍(3岁时智商得分<85)未见明显差异(RR 0.85,95%CI 0.60至1.22;794名婴儿;证据质量:中等质量)。普遍筛查组中更多女性接受了甲状腺功能障碍的药物治疗(RR 1102.90,95%CI 69.07至17610.46;1050名女性);10%因TSH低、fT4高或轻微副作用而降低剂量。在其他次要结局方面未见明显差异,包括3岁时的发育迟缓/智力损害。我们的大多数次要结局,包括流产、胎儿或新生儿死亡均未报告。
基于现有证据,尽管孕期甲状腺功能障碍的普遍筛查增加了被诊断为甲状腺功能减退且随后可接受治疗的女性数量,但并未明确影响母婴结局(有益或有害)。虽然甲状腺功能障碍的普遍筛查与病例发现法相比增加了诊断及后续治疗,但我们发现主要结局子痫前期或早产方面未见明显差异。次要结局包括流产和胎儿或新生儿死亡方面未见明显差异;主要结局婴儿儿童期神经感觉障碍以及许多次要结局缺乏数据。尽管甲状腺功能减退的普遍筛查与不筛查同样增加了诊断及后续治疗,但主要结局婴儿儿童期神经感觉障碍(3岁时智商<85)未见明显差异;其他主要结局子痫前期和早产以及大多数次要结局缺乏数据。对于使用GRADE方法评估的结局,证据被认为是中等或高质量,证据的任何降级基于存在跨越无效应线的宽置信区间。需要更多证据来评估孕期甲状腺功能障碍不同筛查方法对母婴及儿童健康结局的利弊。未来试验应评估对卫生服务利用和成本的影响,并有足够的效力来评估对近期及远期结局的影响。