Institute of Health Research, University of Exeter, Exeter, United Kingdom.
Harris Birthright Research Centre for Fetal Medicine, King's College, London, United Kingdom.
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2019 Feb;220(2):199.e1-199.e13. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2018.11.1087. Epub 2018 Nov 14.
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.
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.
The data for this study were derived from 3 previously reported prospective, nonintervention, multicenter screening studies for preeclampsia in singleton pregnancies at 11 to 13 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 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.
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.
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.
目前用于子痫前期筛查的方法是通过识别来自产妇人口统计学特征和病史的危险因素;存在这些因素的患者被归类为高危,不存在这些因素的患者被归类为低危。然而,这种方法的性能并不理想。我们开发了一种竞争风险模型,该模型允许将产妇因素(年龄、体重、身高、种族、产次、子痫前期、慢性高血压、糖尿病、系统性红斑狼疮或抗磷脂综合征病史、受孕方法和妊娠间隔)与生物标志物相结合,以估计每个患者在特定妊娠前需要分娩的子痫前期风险。这种方法的性能远远优于风险评分系统。
本研究旨在通过在训练数据集和 2 个验证研究中检查竞争风险模型在子痫前期筛查中的预测性能,该模型由产妇因素、平均动脉压、子宫动脉搏动指数和血清胎盘生长因子的三重试验组合而成。
本研究的数据来自 3 项先前报道的前瞻性、非干预性、多中心子痫前期筛查研究,这些研究在 11 至 13 周的单胎妊娠中进行。在所有 3 项研究中,均记录了产妇因素和生物标志物,并由经过适当培训的人员确定结局。第一项研究纳入了 35948 名妇女,于 2010 年 2 月至 2014 年 7 月进行,用于开发子痫前期预测的竞争风险模型,因此被视为训练集。2 个验证研究分别纳入了 8775 名和 16451 名妇女,分别于 2015 年 2 月至 9 月和 2016 年 4 月至 12 月进行。使用竞争风险模型计算了在<34、<37 和<41 周分娩的子痫前期患者的个体风险,并在每个数据集评估了产妇因素单独和三重试验的子痫前期筛查性能。我们通过以下方式检查模型的预测性能:首先,通过接受者操作特征曲线下的面积和固定阳性率为 10%时的检测率来评估模型区分子痫前期组和非子痫前期组的能力;其次,通过测量校准斜率和大样本校准来评估模型的校准。
早期子痫前期、早产子痫前期和所有子痫前期的阳性率为 10%时的检测率分别约为 90%、75%和 50%,结果在训练集和 2 个验证数据集中一致。接受者操作特征曲线下的面积分别大于 0.95、0.90 和 0.80,表明对受影响和未受影响的妊娠有很高的区分能力。同样,校准斜率非常接近 1.0,表明预测风险与子痫前期的实际发生率之间有很好的一致性。在早期子痫前期和早产子痫前期的预测中,训练集和验证数据集中的 1 个观察发生率与预测结果一致。在另一个专门用于评估模型的验证数据集中,由于结局的确定更好,发生率高于预测结果。在所有 3 个数据集中,所有子痫前期的发生率都低于预测值,因为在足月时,许多妊娠因子痫前期以外的原因分娩,因此,被认为是子痫前期高危的妊娠,如果因其他原因在发生子痫前期之前分娩,可能会被错误地认为是假阳性。
只要筛查的各个组成部分由经过适当培训和审核的从业者进行,竞争风险模型就为早期预测早期子痫前期和早产子痫前期提供了一种有效且可重复的方法。早产子痫前期的早期预测是有益的,因为对高危组使用阿司匹林治疗在预防该疾病方面非常有效。