Low Molecular Weight Heparin for Prevention of Placenta-Mediated Pregnancy Complications: An Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction Placenta-mediated pregnancy complications (PMPC) include pre-eclampsia, late pregnancy loss, placental abruption, and the small-for-gestational age (SGA) newborn. They are leading causes of maternal, fetal, and neonatal morbidity and mortality. Affected women are at an elevated risk of recurrence in subsequent pregnancies. We completed a pooled summary-based (i.e. study level) meta-analysis that strongly suggests that low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) reduces the risk of recurrent PMPCs. However, our study-level meta-analysis was limited by high clinical and statistical heterogeneity likely due to the inclusion of women with heterogeneous prior PMPCs and trial designs (e.g. single vs multi-center trials). To address these limitations, the trialists agreed to conduct an individual patient data meta-analysis to identify sources of heterogeneity including exploring which patients benefit from LMWH and which outcomes are prevented. Methods We conducted a systematic review to identify randomised controlled trials that were eligible to contribute individual patient data to a meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of LMWH for reducing the risk of PMPC in women with prior PMPCs. The primary outcome was a composite of early-onset or severe pre-eclampsia, birth of an SGA newborn < 5th percentile, late pregnancy loss (> 20 weeks), or placental abruption leading to delivery. Individual patient data from eligible women were re-coded in a prescribed format and combined in a common dataset for analysis. All studies were assessed for risk of bias. Results Data from 1049 women in nine trials were analysed; Participants were mostly Caucasian (88%) with a mean age of 31.518 had thrombophilia. 525 women were randomised to LMWH and 524 to no LMWH. In our primary outcome analysis, LMWH did not significantly reduce the risk of recurrent PMPCs (LMWH 60/459 (13.1%) vs. no LMWH 92/449 (20.5%) p=0.1). Significant heterogeneity was noted between single center and multi-center trials. In multi-center trials, LMWH reduced HELLP (p=0.03) but none of the other secondary outcomes, whereas in single center trials LMWH reduced all of the secondary outcomes. In sub-group analysis, in multi-center trials LMWH reduced the primary outcome in women with prior abruption (p<0.01) but none of the other sub-groups, whereas in single center trials LMWH was beneficial in all the sub-groups (prior pre-eclampsia, prior severe pre-eclampsia, prior early onset pre-eclampsia, prior SGA <10th, prior SGA < 5th and prior abruption). Conclusions In this individual patient data meta-analysis, LMWH does not appear to reduce the risk of recurrent PMPC in women with prior PMPC. Promising results suggest that women with prior abruption may benefit from LMWH but this should be replicated in future multi-center trials. PROSPERO registration:CRD42013006249 Table. Primary Analysis All Studies Multi-Center Studies Single Center Studies Composite outcome Risk difference (95% CI) N=908 -0.07 (-0.16, 0.01)p = 0.10 N=524 -0.01 (-0.11, 0.09) p = 0.89 N=384 -0.17 (-0.21, -0.13) p < .0001 Secondary Outcome Analyses Severe or Early Preeclampsia Risk difference (95% CI) N=946 -0.04 (-0.10, 0.02) p = 0.20 N=562 0.01 (-0.06, 0.07) p = 0.81 N=384 -0.11 (-0.16, -0.07) p <.0001 HELLP Risk difference (95% CI) N=813 -0.02 (-0.04, -0.004) p = 0.01 N=429 -0.01 (-0.02, -0.001) p = 0.03 N=384 -0.04 (-0.07, -0.01) p = 0.02 SGA <10 Risk difference (95% CI) N=913 -0.08 (-0.14, -0.02) p = 0.01 N=529 -0.03 (-0.10, 0.03) p = 0.32 N=384 -0.14 (-0.18, -0.10) p <0.0001 Abruption leading to delivery Risk difference (95% CI) N=945 -0.01 (-0.02, 0.003) p = 0.14 N=561 -0.01 (-0.03, 0.01) p = 0.53 N=384 -0.016 (-0.027, -0.005) p = 0.005 Subgroup Analyses Prior preeclampsia Risk difference (95% CI) N=583 -0.12 (-0.19, -0.04) p = 0.002 N=288 -0.06 (-0.19, 0.06) p = 0.34 N=295 -0.17 (-0.24, -0.11) p <.0001 Prior severe or early onset Preeclampsia Risk difference (95% CI) N=487 -0.10 (-0.19, -0.02) p = 0.02 N=236 -0.04 (-0.19, 0.12) p = 0.65 N=251 -0.17 (-0.23, -0.11) p <.0001 Any prior late loss (2 >12 weeks or 1 >16 weeks) Risk difference (95% CI) N=245 0.001 (-0.11, 0.12) p = 0.98 N=0 Prior SGA < 10 Risk difference (95% CI) N=305 -0.12 (-0.25, 0.01) p = 0.08 N=203 -0.03 (-0.17, 0.10) p = 0.64 N=102 -0.29 (-0.38, -0.20) p <.0001 Prior abruption Risk difference (95% CI) N=281 -0.16 (-0.22, -0.11) p <.0001 N=95 -0.13 (-0.22, -0.04) p = 0.01 N=186 -0.18 (-0.22, -0.14) p <.0001 Disclosures Rodger: Biomerieux: Honoraria, Research Funding. Off Label Use: Low Molecular Weight Heparin to prevent pregnancy complications. de Vries:Pfizer: Research Funding. Rey:Leo Pharma: Other: Travel Grant. Gris:Sanofi: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding; Stago: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Leo Pharma: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; LFB: Consultancy, Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Baxter: Research Funding; BI: Speakers Bureau; Bayer: Speakers Bureau; BMS: Speakers Bureau. Schleussner:Bayer: Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Merck: Research Funding, Speakers Bureau. Middeldorp:GSK/Aspen: Research Funding; Bayer: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BI: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau; BMS: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Consultancy, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Daiichi-Sankyo: Consultancy, Speakers Bureau. Bates:Eli Lilly Canada: Other: I hold the Eli Lilly Canada/May Cohen Chair in Women's Health. Eli Lilly Canada provides unrestricted funding for partial salary support through this Chair. Eli Lilly Canada does not manufacture/distribute drugs relevant to the topic to be discussed..
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.018 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.056 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".