A risk prediction model for the assessment and triage of women with hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in low-resourced settings: the miniPIERS (Pre-eclampsia Integrated Estimate of RiSk) multi-country prospective cohort study

Beth A Payne, Jennifer A Hutcheon, J Mark Ansermino, David R Hall, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Shereen Z Bhutta, Christine Biryabarema, William A Grobman, Henk Groen, Farizah Haniff, Jing Li, Laura A Magee, Mario Merialdi, Annettee Nakimuli, Ziguang Qu, Rozina Sikandar, Nelson Sass, Diane Sawchuck, D Wilhelm Steyn, Mariana Widmer, Jian Zhou, Peter von Dadelszen, miniPIERS Study Working Group, Keith Walley, K S Joseph, Florence Mirembe, Amanda Noovao, Rahat Qureshi, Tao Duan, Beth A Payne, Jennifer A Hutcheon, J Mark Ansermino, David R Hall, Zulfiqar A Bhutta, Shereen Z Bhutta, Christine Biryabarema, William A Grobman, Henk Groen, Farizah Haniff, Jing Li, Laura A Magee, Mario Merialdi, Annettee Nakimuli, Ziguang Qu, Rozina Sikandar, Nelson Sass, Diane Sawchuck, D Wilhelm Steyn, Mariana Widmer, Jian Zhou, Peter von Dadelszen, miniPIERS Study Working Group, Keith Walley, K S Joseph, Florence Mirembe, Amanda Noovao, Rahat Qureshi, Tao Duan

Abstract

Background: Pre-eclampsia/eclampsia are leading causes of maternal mortality and morbidity, particularly in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs). We developed the miniPIERS risk prediction model to provide a simple, evidence-based tool to identify pregnant women in LMICs at increased risk of death or major hypertensive-related complications.

Methods and findings: From 1 July 2008 to 31 March 2012, in five LMICs, data were collected prospectively on 2,081 women with any hypertensive disorder of pregnancy admitted to a participating centre. Candidate predictors collected within 24 hours of admission were entered into a step-wise backward elimination logistic regression model to predict a composite adverse maternal outcome within 48 hours of admission. Model internal validation was accomplished by bootstrapping and external validation was completed using data from 1,300 women in the Pre-eclampsia Integrated Estimate of RiSk (fullPIERS) dataset. Predictive performance was assessed for calibration, discrimination, and stratification capacity. The final miniPIERS model included: parity (nulliparous versus multiparous); gestational age on admission; headache/visual disturbances; chest pain/dyspnoea; vaginal bleeding with abdominal pain; systolic blood pressure; and dipstick proteinuria. The miniPIERS model was well-calibrated and had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC ROC) of 0.768 (95% CI 0.735-0.801) with an average optimism of 0.037. External validation AUC ROC was 0.713 (95% CI 0.658-0.768). A predicted probability ≥25% to define a positive test classified women with 85.5% accuracy. Limitations of this study include the composite outcome and the broad inclusion criteria of any hypertensive disorder of pregnancy. This broad approach was used to optimize model generalizability.

Conclusions: The miniPIERS model shows reasonable ability to identify women at increased risk of adverse maternal outcomes associated with the hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. It could be used in LMICs to identify women who would benefit most from interventions such as magnesium sulphate, antihypertensives, or transportation to a higher level of care.

Conflict of interest statement

PVD is a paid consultant of Alere International for work not related to the current manuscript; JMA is a founder of a startup company (LGTMedical) that is attempting to commercialize the development of a cell phone-based pulse oximeter; JMA holds <5% equity stake in the company. ZAB is a member of the Editorial Board of PLOS Medicine. No other authors have any conflicts to declare.

Figures

Figure 1. Calibration plot of the miniPIERS…
Figure 1. Calibration plot of the miniPIERS model applied 2,081 women in the cohort (H–L goodness of fit p = 0.1616).
Green line represents line of perfect fit between observed and predicted outcomes and orange line is a smoothed fit line between predicted probability and mean observed probability in each range.
Figure 2. Receiver operating characteristic curve of…
Figure 2. Receiver operating characteristic curve of the miniPIERS model developed in 2,081 women in the miniPIERS cohort.
AUC 0.768 (95% CI 0.735–0.801).
Figure 3. Receiver operating characteristic curve of…
Figure 3. Receiver operating characteristic curve of the miniPIERS model applied to the fullPIERS (11) external validation cohort.
AUC 0.713 (95% CI 0.658–0.768).

References

    1. Steegers EA, von Dadelszen P, Duvekot JJ, Pijnenborg R (2010) Pre-eclampsia. Lancet 376: 631–644.
    1. Lozano R, Naghavi M, Foreman K, Lim S, Shibuya K, et al. (2013) Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 380: 2095–2128.
    1. Khan KS, Wojdyla D, Say L, Gulmezoglu AM, Van Look PF (2006) WHO analysis of causes of maternal death: a systematic review. Lancet 367: 1066–1074.
    1. Hutcheon JA, Lisonkova S, Joseph KS (2011) Epidemiology of pre-eclampsia and the other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 25: 391–403.
    1. Firoz T, Sanghvi H, Merialdi M, von Dadelszen P (2011) Pre-eclampsia in low and middle income countries. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 25: 537–548.
    1. Joint Learning Initiative (2004) Human Resources for Health: overcoming the crisis. Available: . Accessed 3 August 2012.
    1. Ganzevoort W, Sibai BM (2011) Temporising versus interventionist management (preterm and at term). Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 25: 463–476.
    1. Gabrysch S, Campbell OM (2009) Still too far to walk: literature review of the determinants of delivery service use. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth 9: 34.
    1. Thaddeus S, Maine D (1994) Too far to walk: maternal mortality in context. Soc Sci Med 38: 1091–1110.
    1. Fulton BD, Scheffler RM, Sparkes SP, Auh EY, Vujicic M, et al. (2011) Health workforce skill mix and task shifting in low income countries: a review of recent evidence. Hum Resour Health 9: 1.
    1. von Dadelszen P, Payne B, Li J, Ansermino JM, Pipkin FB, et al. (2011) Prediction of adverse maternal outcomes in pre-eclampsia: development and validation of the fullPIERS model. Lancet 377: 219–227.
    1. Payne B, Magee LA, von Dadelszen P (2011) Assessment, surveillance and prognosis in pre-eclampsia. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 25: 449–462.
    1. Brown B, Cochran SW, Helmer O (1967) An evaluation of methodology of Delphi Technique. Biometrics 23: 600–606.
    1. Harrell FE, Lee KL, Mark DB (1996) Multivariable prognostic models: issues in developing models, evaluating assumptions and adequacy, and measuring and reducing errors. Stat Med 15: 361–387.
    1. Steyerberg EW, Borsboom GJ, van Houwelingen HC, Eijkemans MJ, Habbema JD (2004) Validation and updating of predictive logistic regression models: a study on sample size and shrinkage. Stat Med 23: 2567–2586.
    1. Vergouwe Y, Steyerberg EW, Eijkemans MJ, Habbema JD (2005) Substantial effective sample sizes were required for external validation studies of predictive logistic regression models. J Clin Epidemiol 58: 475–483.
    1. Steyerberg EW, Vickers AJ, Cook NR, Gerds T, Gonen M, et al. (2010) Assessing the performance of prediction models: a framework for traditional and novel measures. Epidemiology 21: 128–138.
    1. Hanley JA, McNeil BJ (1982) The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 143: 29–36.
    1. Deeks J, Altman D (2004) Statistics notes - Diagnostic tests 4: likelihood ratios. Br Med J 329: 168–169.
    1. Janes H, Pepe MS, Gu W (2008) Assessing the value of risk predictions by using risk stratification tables. Ann Intern Med 149: 751–760.
    1. Efron B, Tibsherani R (1993) An introduction to the bootstrap. New York: Chapman and Hal.
    1. Martin JN Jr, Thigpen BD, Moore RC, Rose CH, Cushman J, May W (2005) Stroke and severe preeclampsia and eclampsia: a paradigm shift focusing on systolic blood pressure. Obstet Gynecol 105: 246–254.
    1. Dissanayake VH, Morgan L, Broughton Pipkin F, Vathanan V, Premaratne S, et al. (2004) The urine protein heat coagulation test–a useful screening test for proteinuria in pregnancy in developing countries: a method validation study. BJOG 111: 491–494.
    1. Richardosn DK, Corcoran JD, Escobar GJ, Lee SK (2001) Canadian NICU Network, Kaiser Permanente Neonatal Data Se, (2001) et al. SNAP-II and SNAPPE-II: Simplified newborn illness severity and mortality risk scores. J Pediatr 138: 92–100.
    1. D'Agostino RB Sr, Grundy S, Sullivan LM, Wilson P (2001) CHD Risk Prediction G. Validation of the Framingham coronary heart disease prediction scores: results of a multiple ethnic groups investigation. JAMA 286: 180–187.
    1. Austin PC, Tu JV (2004) Automated variable selection methods for logistic regression produced unstable models for predicting acute myocardial infarction mortality. J Clin Epidemiol 57: 1138–1146.

Source: PubMed

3
구독하다