Stephen Courtenay Robson

Background: National guidance emphasises the importance of offering women requesting abortion timely access to care and choices about abortion method. Women with complex health needs face particular challenges due to restrictions in where their procedure can be safely performed. In England, a specialised commissioned service operates, offering care in five National Health Service (NHS) centres. Methods: A service evaluation collecting clinical and patient-reported data from 277 women attending (a) an NHS specialist abortion service and (b) a local abortion service for low-risk women at the same NHS provider during 2023/2024 in the North East of England. Results: Clinical outcomes were similar between groups. Women accessing the specialist service had higher gestation at abortion (+14 days, 95% CI 6.0 to 22.0), waited longer between referral and procedure (+8.0 days, 95% CI 7.0 to 10.0), were less likely to have accessed their preferred abortion method (−37.4%, 95% CI −49.3 to–25.5), travelled for longer (+30.0 min, 95% CI 20.0 to 50.0), spent more money to access care (+£22.2, 95% CI 9.0 to 45.0) and were more likely to report financial hardship as a consequence (+27.6%, 95% CI 13.3 to 41.9). This group also rated their pre-hospital care lower and described specific challenges about their care. Conclusions: While specialised abortion services for women with complex health needs have improved opportunities to access safe care, differences remain in important elements of the service. This creates disparities in relation to timely access, experience and choice of abortion method. Streamlining referral mechanisms between providers may reduce delay and improve efficiency and consistency. Services should consider how to support women who need to travel to access care.

Objective: To assess the diagnostic performance of angiogenic biomarkers in determining need for delivery in seven days in women with late preterm preeclampsia. Study design: In a prospective observational cohort study in 36 maternity units across England and Wales, we studied the diagnostic accuracy of placental growth factor (PlGF) and sFlt-1 in determining the risk of complications requiring delivery in late preterm (34⁺⁰ to 36⁺⁶ weeks' gestation) preeclampsia. Angiogenic biomarkers were measured using the Quidel (PlGF) and Roche (sFlt-1 : PlGF ratio) assays. Additional clinical data was obtained for use within the established ʻPrediction of complications in early-onset pre-eclampsiaʼ (PREP)-S prognostic model. Biomarkers were assessed using standard methods (sensitivity, specificity, Receiver Operator Curve areas). Estimated probability of early delivery from PREP-S was compared to actual event rates. Main outcome measures: Clinically indicated need for delivery for pre-eclampsia within seven days. Results: PlGF (Quidel) testing had high sensitivity (97.9%) for delivery within seven days, but negative predictive value was only 71.4%, with low specificity (8.4%), with similar results from sFlt-1/PlGF assay. The area under the curve for PlGF was 0.60 (SE 0.03), and 0.65 (0.03), and 0.64 (0.03) for PREP-S in combination with PlGF, and sFlt-1 : PlGF, respectively. Conclusions: Angiogenic biomarkers do not add to clinical assessment to help determine need for delivery for women with late preterm pre-eclampsia. Existing models developed in women with early-onset pre-eclampsia to predict complications cannot be used to predict clinically indicated need for delivery in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia.

Objective: We evaluated the best time to initiate delivery in late preterm pre-eclampsia in order to optimise long-term infant and maternal outcomes. Design: Parallel-group, non-masked, randomised controlled trial. Setting: 46 UK maternity units. Population: Women with pre-eclampsia between 34⁺⁰ and 36⁺⁶ weeks’ gestation, without severe disease, were randomised to planned delivery or expectant management. Primary long-term outcome: Infant neurodevelopmental outcome at 2 years of age, using the PARCA-R (Parent Report of Children’s Abilities-Revised) composite score. Results: Between 29 September 2014 and 10 December 2018, 901 women were enrolled in the trial, with 450 allocated to planned delivery and 451 to expectant management. At 2-year follow-up, the intention-to-treat analysis population included 276 women (290 infants) allocated to planned delivery and 251 women (256 infants) to expectant management. The mean composite standardised PARCA-R scores were 89.5 [standard deviation (SD) 18.2] in the planned delivery group and 91.9 (SD 18.4) in the expectant management group, with an adjusted mean difference of −2.4 (95% CI −5.4 to 0.5) points. Conclusion: In infants of women with late preterm pre-eclampsia, average neurodevelopmental assessment at 2 years lies within the normal range, regardless of whether planned delivery or expectant management is pursued. Because of lower than anticipated follow-up, there was limited power to demonstrate these scores were not different, but the small between-group difference in PARCA-R scores is unlikely to be clinically important.

Aim: There is currently limited evidence on the costs associated with late preterm pre-eclampsia beyond antenatal care and post-natal discharge from hospital. The aim of this analysis is to evaluate the 24-month cost-utility of planned delivery for women with late preterm pre-eclampsia at 34⁺⁰ and 36⁺⁶ weeks’ gestation compared to expectant management from an English National Health Service perspective using participant-level data from the PHOENIX trial. Methods: Women between 34⁺⁰ and 36⁺⁶ weeks' gestation in 46 maternity units in England and Wales were individually randomised to planned delivery or expectant management. Resource use was collected from hospital records between randomisation and primary hospital discharge following birth. Women were followed up at 6 months and 24 months following birth and self-reported resource use for themselves and their infant(s) covering the previous 6 months. Women completed the EQ-5D-5L at randomisation and follow-up. Results: A total of 450 women were randomised to planned delivery, 451 to expectant management: 187 and 170 women, respectively, had complete data at 24 months. Planned delivery resulted in a significantly lower mean cost per woman and infant(s) over 24 months [−£2711, 95% confidence interval (CI) −4840 to −637], with a mean incremental difference in QALYs of 0.019 (95% CI −0.039 to 0.063). Short-term and 24-month infant costs were not significantly different between the intervention arms. There is a 99% probability that planned delivery is cost-effective at all thresholds below £37,000 per QALY gained. Conclusion: There is a high probability that planned delivery is cost-effective compared to expectant management. These results need to be considered alongside clinical outcomes and in the wider context of maternity care. Trial registration: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN01879376. Registered 25 November 2013.

Background: In women with late preterm pre-eclampsia, the optimal time to initiate delivery is unclear because limitation of maternal disease progression needs to be balanced against infant complications. The aim of this trial was to determine whether planned earlier initiation of delivery reduces maternal adverse outcomes without substantial worsening of neonatal or infant outcomes, compared with expectant management (usual care) in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia. Methods: In this parallel-group, non-masked, multicentre, randomised controlled trial done in 46 maternity units across England and Wales, we compared planned delivery versus expectant management (usual care) with individual randomisation in women with late preterm pre-eclampsia from 34 to p = 0.0034]. The results from the per-protocol analysis were similar. There were 9 serious adverse events in the planned delivery group and 12 in the expectant management group. Interpretation: There is strong evidence to suggest that planned delivery reduces maternal morbidity and severe hypertension compared with expectant management, with more neonatal unit admissions related to prematurity but no indicators of greater neonatal morbidity. This trade-off should be discussed with women with late preterm pre-eclampsia to allow shared decision making on timing of delivery. Funding: National Institute for Health and Care Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Health Technology Assessment Volume: 25, Issue: 63, Published in November 2021

Background: Preterm birth is common in twins and accounts for significant mortality and morbidity. There are no effective preventative treatments. Some studies have suggested that, in twin pregnancy complicated by a short cervix, the Arabin pessary, which fits around the cervix and can be inserted as an outpatient procedure, reduces preterm birth and prevents neonatal morbidity. Objective: STOPPIT 2 aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of the Arabin cervical pessary in preventing preterm birth in women with a twin pregnancy and a short cervix. Design: STOPPIT 2 was a pragmatic, open label, multicentre randomised controlled trial with two treatment group – the Arabin pessary plus standard care (intervention) and standard care alone (control). Participants were initially recruited into the screening phase of the study, when cervical length was measured. Women with a measured cervical length of ≤ 35 mm were then recruited into the treatment phase of the study. An economic evaluation considered cost-effectiveness and a qualitative substudy explored the experiences of participants and clinicians. Setting: Antenatal clinics in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Participants: Women with twin pregnancy at < 21 weeks’ gestation with known chorionicity and gestation established by scan at ≤ 16 weeks’ gestation. Interventions: Ultrasound scan to establish cervical length. Women with a cervical length of ≤ 35 mm at 18^+ 0–20^+ 6 weeks’ gestation were randomised to standard care or Arabin pessary plus standard care. Randomisation was performed by computer and accessed through a web-based browser. Main outcome measures: Obstetric – all births before 34^+ 0 weeks’ gestation following the spontaneous onset of labour; and neonatal – composite of adverse outcomes, including stillbirth or neonatal death, periventricular leukomalacia, early respiratory morbidity, intraventricular haemorrhage, necrotising enterocolitis or proven sepsis, all measured up to 28 days after the expected date of delivery. Results: A total of 2228 participants were recruited to the screening phase, of whom 2170 received a scan and 503 were randomised: 250 to Arabin pessary and 253 to standard care alone. The rate of the primary obstetric outcome was 18.4% (46/250) in the intervention group and 20.6% (52/253) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.38; p = 0.54). The rate of the primary neonatal outcome was 13.4% (67/500) and 15.0% (76/506) in the intervention group and control group, respectively (adjusted odds ratio 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 1.36; p = 0.52). The pessary was largely well tolerated and clinicians found insertion and removal ‘easy’ or ‘fairly easy’ in the majority of instances. The simple costs analysis showed that pessary treatment is no more costly than standard care. Limitations: There was the possibility of a type II error around smaller than anticipated benefit. Conclusions: In this study, the Arabin pessary did not reduce preterm birth or adverse neonatal outcomes in women with a twin pregnancy and a short cervix. The pessary either is ineffective at reducing preterm birth or has an effect size of < 0.4. Future work: Women with twin pregnancy remain at risk of preterm birth; work is required to find treatments for this. Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN98835694 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02235181. Funding: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 44. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Background: Preterm-labour-associated preterm birth is a common cause of perinatal mortality and morbidity in twin pregnancy. We aimed to test the hypothesis that the Arabin pessary would reduce preterm-labour-associated preterm birth by 40% or greater in women with a twin pregnancy and a short cervix. Methods and findings: We conducted an open-label randomised controlled trial in 57 hospital antenatal clinics in the UK and Europe. From 1 April 2015 to 14 February 2019, 2,228 women with a twin pregnancy underwent cervical length screening between 18 weeks 0 days and 20 weeks 6 days of gestation. In total, 503 women with cervical length ≤ 35 mm were randomly assigned to pessary in addition to standard care (n = 250, mean age 32.4 years, mean cervical length 29 mm, with pessary inserted in 230 women [92.0%]) or standard care alone (n = 253, mean age 32.7 years, mean cervical length 30 mm). The pessary was inserted before 21 completed weeks of gestation and removed at between 35 and 36 weeks or before birth if earlier. The primary obstetric outcome, spontaneous onset of labour and birth before 34 weeks 0 days of gestation, was present in 46/250 (18.4%) in the pessary group compared to 52/253 (20.6%) following standard care alone (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.87 [95% CI 0.55–1.38], p = 0.54). The primary neonatal outcome—a composite of any of stillbirth, neonatal death, periventricular leukomalacia, early respiratory morbidity, intraventricular haemorrhage, necrotising enterocolitis, or proven sepsis, from birth to 28 days after the expected date of delivery—was present in 67/500 infants (13.4%) in the pessary group compared to 76/506 (15.0%) following standard care alone (aOR 0.86 [95% CI 0.54–1.36], p = 0.50). The positive and negative likelihood ratios of a short cervix (≤35 mm) to predict preterm birth before 34 weeks were 2.14 and 0.83, respectively. A meta-analysis of data from existing publications (4 studies, 313 women) and from STOPPIT-2 indicated that a cervical pessary does not reduce preterm birth before 34 weeks in women with a short cervix (risk ratio 0.74 [95% CI 0.50–1.11], p = 0.15). No women died in either arm of the study; 4.4% of babies in the Arabin pessary group and 5.5% of babies in the standard treatment group died in utero or in the neonatal period (p = 0.53). Study limitations include lack of power to exclude a smaller than 40% reduction in preterm labour associated preterm birth, and to be conclusive about subgroup analyses. Conclusions: These results led us to reject our hypothesis that the Arabin pessary would reduce the risk of the primary outcome by 40%. Smaller treatment effects cannot be ruled out. Trial registration: ISRCTN Registry ISRCTN 02235181. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02235181.