Search

Preeclampsia (PE) is a hypertensive complication of pregnancy that affects 2–8% of women worldwide and is one of the leading causes of maternal deaths and premature birth. PE can occur early in pregnancy (34 weeks gestation). Whilst the placenta is clearly implicated in early onset PE (EOPE), late onset PE (LOPE) is less clear with some believing the disease is entirely maternal whilst others believe that there is an interplay between maternal systems and the placenta. In both types of PE, the syncytiotrophoblast (STB), the layer of the placenta in direct contact with maternal blood, is stressed. In EOPE, the STB is oxidatively stressed in early pregnancy (leading to PE later in gestation- the two-stage model) whilst in LOPE the STB is stressed because of villous overcrowding and senescence later in pregnancy. It is this stress that perturbs maternal systems leading to the clinical manifestations of PE. Whilst some of the molecular species driving this stress have been identified, none completely explain the multisystem nature of PE. Syncytiotrophoblast membrane vesicles (STB-EVs) are a potential contributor to this multisystem disorder. STB-EVs are released into the maternal circulation in increasing amounts with advancing gestational age, and this release is further exacerbated with stress. There are good in vitro evidence that STB-EVs are taken up by macrophages and liver cells with additional evidence supporting endothelial cell uptake. STB-EV targeting remains in the early stages of discovery. In this review, we highlight the role of STB-EVs in PE. In relation to current research, we discuss different protocols for ex vivo isolation of STB-EVs, as well as specific issues involving tissue preparation, isolation (some of which may be unique to STB-EVs), and methods for their analysis. We suggest potential solutions for these challenges.

Objective Stillbirth is a potentially preventable complication of pregnancy. Identifying women at high risk of stillbirth can guide decisions on the need for closer surveillance and timing of delivery in order to prevent fetal death. Prognostic models have been developed to predict the risk of stillbirth, but none has yet been validated externally. In this study, we externally validated published prediction models for stillbirth using individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to assess their predictive performance. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, DH-DATA and AMED databases were searched from inception to December 2020 to identify studies reporting stillbirth prediction models. Studies that developed or updated prediction models for stillbirth for use at any time during pregnancy were included. IPD from cohorts within the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complications (IPPIC) Network were used to validate externally the identified prediction models whose individual variables were available in the IPD. The risk of bias of the models and cohorts was assessed using the Prediction study Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST). The discriminative performance of the models was evaluated using the C-statistic, and calibration was assessed using calibration plots, calibration slope and calibration-in-the-large. Performance measures were estimated separately in each cohort, as well as summarized across cohorts using random-effects meta-analysis. Clinical utility was assessed using net benefit. Results Seventeen studies reporting the development of 40 prognostic models for stillbirth were identified. None of the models had been previously validated externally, and the full model equation was reported for only one-fifth (20%, 8/40) of the models. External validation was possible for three of these models, using IPD from 19 cohorts (491 201 pregnant women) within the IPPIC Network database. Based on evaluation of the model development studies, all three models had an overall high risk of bias, according to PROBAST. In the IPD meta-analysis, the models had summary C-statistics ranging from 0.53 to 0.65 and summary calibration slopes ranging from 0.40 to 0.88, with risk predictions that were generally too extreme compared with the observed risks. The models had little to no clinical utility, as assessed by net benefit. However, there remained uncertainty in the performance of some models due to small available sample sizes. Conclusions The three validated stillbirth prediction models showed generally poor and uncertain predictive performance in new data, with limited evidence to support their clinical application. The findings suggest methodological shortcomings in their development, including overfitting. Further research is needed to further validate these and other models, identify stronger prognostic factors and develop more robust prediction models. (c) 2021 The Authors. Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Objective: Stillbirth is a potentially preventable complication of pregnancy. Identifying women at risk can guide decisions on closer surveillance or timing of birth to prevent fetal death.Prognostic models have been developed to predict the risk of stillbirth, but none have yet been externally validated. We externally validated published prediction models for stillbirth using individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis to assess their predictive performance. Methods: We searched Medline, EMBASE, DH-DATA and AMED databases from inception to December 2020 to identify stillbirth prediction models. We included studies that developed or updated prediction models for stillbirth for use at any time during pregnancy. IPD from cohorts within the International Prediction of Pregnancy Complication (IPPIC) Network were used to externally validate the identified prediction models whose individual variables were available in the IPD. We assessed the risk of bias of the models and IPD using PROBAST, and reported discriminative performance using the C-statistic, and calibration performance using calibration plots, calibration slopeand calibration-in-the-large. We estimated performance measures separately in each study, and then summarised across studies using random-effects meta-analysis. Clinical utility was assessed using net benefit. Results: We identified 17 studies reporting the development of 40 prognostic models for stillbirth. None of the models were previously externally validated, and only a fifth (20%, 8/40) reported the full model equation. We were able to validate three of these models using the IPD from 19 cohort studies (491,201 pregnant women) within the IPPIC Network database. Based on evaluating their development studies, all three models had an overall high risk of bias according to PROBAST. In our IPD meta-analysis, the models had summary C-statistics ranging from 0.53 to 0.65; summary calibration slopes of 0.40to 0.88, and generally with observed risks predictions that were too extreme compared to observed risks; and little to no clinical utility as assessed by net benefit. However, there remained uncertainty in performance for some models due to small available sample sizes. Conclusion: The three validated models generally showed poor and uncertain predictive performancein new data, with limited evidence to support their clinical application. Findings suggest methodological shortcomings in their development including overfitting of models. Further research is needed to further validate these and other models, identify stronger prognostic factors, and to develop more robust prediction models

Preeclampsia is a serious complication of pregnancy, affecting both maternal and fetal health. In genome-wide association meta-analysis of European and Central Asian mothers, we identify sequence variants that associate with preeclampsia in the maternal genome at ZNF831/20q13 and FTO/16q12. These are previously established variants for blood pressure (BP) and the FTO variant has also been associated with body mass index (BMI). Further analysis of BP variants establishes that variants at MECOM/3q26, FGF5/4q21 and SH2B3/12q24 also associate with preeclampsia through the maternal genome. We further show that a polygenic risk score for hypertension associates with preeclampsia. However, comparison with gestational hypertension indicates that additional factors modify the risk of preeclampsia. Studies to identify maternal variants associated with preeclampsia have been limited by sample size. Here, the authors meta-analyze eight GWAS of 9,515 preeclamptic women, identifying five variants associated with preeclampsia and showing that genetic predisposition to hypertension is a major risk factor for preeclampsia.