Search

Objective: To inform digital health design by evaluating diagnostic test properties of antenatal blood pressure (BP) outputs and levels to identify women at risk of adverse outcomes. Design: Planned secondary analysis of cluster randomised trials. Setting: India, Pakistan, Mozambique. Population: Women with in‐community BP measurements and known pregnancy outcomes. Methods: Blood pressure was defined by its outputs (systolic and/or diastolic, systolic only, diastolic only or mean arterial pressure [calculated]) and level: normotension‐1 (<135/85 mmHg), normotension‐2 (135–139/85–89 mmHg), non‐severe hypertension (140–149/90–99 mmHg; 150–154/100–104 mmHg; 155–159/105–109 mmHg) and severe hypertension (≥160/110 mmHg). Dose–response (adjusted risk ratio [aRR]) and diagnostic test properties (negative [−LR] and positive [+LR] likelihood ratios) were estimated. Main Outcome Measures: Maternal/perinatal composites of mortality/morbidity. Results: Among 21 069 pregnancies, different BP outputs had similar aRR, −LR, and +LR for adverse outcomes. No BP level (even normotension‐1) was associated with low risk (all −LR ≥0.20). Across outcomes, risks rose progressively with higher BP levels above normotension‐1. For each of maternal central nervous system events and stillbirth, BP ≥155/105 mmHg showed at least good diagnostic test performance (+LR ≥5.0) and BP ≥135/85 mmHg at least fair performance, similar to BP ≥140/90 mmHg (+LR 2.0–4.99). Conclusions: In the community, normal BP values do not provide reassurance about subsequent adverse outcomes. Given the similar performance of BP cut‐offs of 135/85 and 140/90 mmHg for hypertension, and 155/105 and 160/110 mmHg for severe hypertension, digital decision support for women in the community should consider using these lower thresholds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Calcium supplementation reduces the risk of pre-eclampsia, but questions remain about the dosage to prescribe and who would benefit most.Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of high (≥1 g/day) and low (<1 g/day) calcium dosing for pre-eclampsia prevention, according to baseline dietary calcium, pre-eclampsia risk and co-interventions, and intervention timing.Search Strategy: CENTRAL, PubMed, Global Index Medicus and CINAHL, from inception to 2 February 2021, clinical trial registries, reference lists and expert input (CRD42018111239).Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of calcium supplementation for pre-eclampsia prevention, for women before or during pregnancy. Network meta-analysis (NMA) also included trials of different calcium doses.Data Collection and Analysis: Two independent reviewers extracted published data. The meta-analysis employed random-effects models and the NMA, a Bayesian random-effects model, to obtain direct and indirect effect estimates.Main Results: The meta-analysis included 30 trials (N = 20 445 women), and the NMA to evaluate calcium dosage included 25 trials (N = 15 038). Calcium supplementation prevented pre-eclampsia similarly with a high dose (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36-0.66) or a low dose (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36-0.65). By NMA, high-dose (vs low-dose) calcium did not differ in effect (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.43-1.40). Calcium was similarly effective regardless of baseline pre-eclampsia risk, vitamin D co-administration or timing of calcium initiation, but calcium was ineffective among women with adequate average baseline calcium intake.Conclusions: Low- and high-dose calcium supplementation are effective for pre-eclampsia prevention in women with low calcium intake. This has implications for population-level implementation where dietary calcium is low, and targeted implementation where average intake is adequate.Tweetable Abstract: A network meta-analysis of 25 trials found that low-dose calcium supplementation (<1 g/day) is as effective as high-dose calcium supplementation (≥1 g/day) in halving the risk of pre-eclampsia when baseline calcium intake is low. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To inform digital health design by evaluating diagnostic test properties of antenatal blood pressure (BP) outputs and levels to identify women at risk of adverse outcomes., Design: Planned secondary analysis of cluster randomised trials., Setting: India, Pakistan, Mozambique., Population: Women with in-community BP measurements and known pregnancy outcomes., Methods: Blood pressure was defined by its outputs (systolic and/or diastolic, systolic only, diastolic only or mean arterial pressure [calculated]) and level: normotension-1 (<135/85 mmHg), normotension-2 (135-139/85-89 mmHg), non-severe hypertension (140-149/90-99 mmHg; 150-154/100-104 mmHg; 155-159/105-109 mmHg) and severe hypertension (≥160/110 mmHg). Dose-response (adjusted risk ratio [aRR]) and diagnostic test properties (negative [-LR] and positive [+LR] likelihood ratios) were estimated., Main Outcome Measures: Maternal/perinatal composites of mortality/morbidity., Results: Among 21 069 pregnancies, different BP outputs had similar aRR, -LR, and +LR for adverse outcomes. No BP level (even normotension-1) was associated with low risk (all -LR ≥0.20). Across outcomes, risks rose progressively with higher BP levels above normotension-1. For each of maternal central nervous system events and stillbirth, BP ≥155/105 mmHg showed at least good diagnostic test performance (+LR ≥5.0) and BP ≥135/85 mmHg at least fair performance, similar to BP ≥140/90 mmHg (+LR 2.0-4.99)., Conclusions: In the community, normal BP values do not provide reassurance about subsequent adverse outcomes. Given the similar performance of BP cut-offs of 135/85 and 140/90 mmHg for hypertension, and 155/105 and 160/110 mmHg for severe hypertension, digital decision support for women in the community should consider using these lower thresholds., (© 2023 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Calcium supplementation reduces the risk of pre-eclampsia, but questions remain about the dosage to prescribe and who would benefit most., Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness of high (≥1 g/day) and low (<1 g/day) calcium dosing for pre-eclampsia prevention, according to baseline dietary calcium, pre-eclampsia risk and co-interventions, and intervention timing., Search Strategy: CENTRAL, PubMed, Global Index Medicus and CINAHL, from inception to 2 February 2021, clinical trial registries, reference lists and expert input (CRD42018111239)., Selection Criteria: Randomised controlled trials of calcium supplementation for pre-eclampsia prevention, for women before or during pregnancy. Network meta-analysis (NMA) also included trials of different calcium doses., Data Collection and Analysis: Two independent reviewers extracted published data. The meta-analysis employed random-effects models and the NMA, a Bayesian random-effects model, to obtain direct and indirect effect estimates., Main Results: The meta-analysis included 30 trials (N = 20 445 women), and the NMA to evaluate calcium dosage included 25 trials (N = 15 038). Calcium supplementation prevented pre-eclampsia similarly with a high dose (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36-0.66) or a low dose (RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.36-0.65). By NMA, high-dose (vs low-dose) calcium did not differ in effect (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.43-1.40). Calcium was similarly effective regardless of baseline pre-eclampsia risk, vitamin D co-administration or timing of calcium initiation, but calcium was ineffective among women with adequate average baseline calcium intake., Conclusions: Low- and high-dose calcium supplementation are effective for pre-eclampsia prevention in women with low calcium intake. This has implications for population-level implementation where dietary calcium is low, and targeted implementation where average intake is adequate., Tweetable Abstract: A network meta-analysis of 25 trials found that low-dose calcium supplementation (<1 g/day) is as effective as high-dose calcium supplementation (≥1 g/day) in halving the risk of pre-eclampsia when baseline calcium intake is low., (© 2022 The Authors. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)