Ursodeoxycholic acid to reduce adverse perinatal outcomes for intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy: the PITCHES RCT
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Background Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, characterised by maternal pruritus and raised serum bile acid concentrations, is associated with increased rates of stillbirth, preterm birth and neonatal unit admission. Ursodeoxycholic acid is widely used as a treatment, but without an adequate evidence base. Objective We aimed to evaluate whether or not ursodeoxycholic acid reduces adverse perinatal outcomes in affected women. Design Multicentre, masked, randomised, placebo-controlled, two-arm, parallel-group trial. Setting Thirty-three UK maternity units. Participants Women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy aged ≥ 18 years, between 20+0 and 40+6 weeks’ gestation with a singleton or twin pregnancy and no known lethal fetal anomaly. Interventions Women were randomly assigned (1 : 1 allocation ratio) to take ursodeoxycholic acid tablets or matched placebo tablets, at an equivalent dose of 1000 mg daily, titrated as needed. Main outcome measures The primary outcome was a composite of perinatal death (in utero fetal death after randomisation or known neonatal death up to 7 days) or preterm delivery (< 37 weeks’ gestation) or neonatal unit admission for at least 4 hours (from birth until hospital discharge). Each infant was counted once within this composite. Analyses were by intention to treat. Results Between 23 December 2015 and 7 August 2018, 605 women were randomised, with 305 women allocated to the ursodeoxycholic acid arm and 300 women to the placebo arm. There was no evidence of a significant difference in the incidence of the primary outcome between the groups: 23.0% (74 out of 322 infants) in the ursodeoxycholic acid group compared with 26.7% (85 out of 318 infants) in the placebo group; adjusted risk ratio 0.85 (95% confidence interval 0.62 to 1.15). There was no evidence of a significant difference in total costs (maternal, infant and the cost of ursodeoxycholic acid) between the two trial groups. There were two serious adverse events in the ursodeoxycholic acid group and six in the placebo group. Limitations Limitations include a primary outcome event rate in the control group that was lower than that estimated for the sample size calculation, but the lack of evidence of effect in all analyses suggests that it is unlikely that the trial had insufficient power. Conclusions In this clinical trial of ursodeoxycholic acid in women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, there is no evidence that it is effective in reducing a composite of adverse perinatal outcomes. Future work Future research should aim to elucidate the aetiology and pathophysiology of adverse perinatal outcomes, particularly stillbirth, in women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy to assist the development of an effective preventative treatment. Further exploratory analyses may identify groups of women who might respond to ursodeoxycholic acid treatment. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN91918806. Funding This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation (EME) Programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) partnership. This will be published in full in Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Vol. 7, No. 9. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».