44
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Ursodeoxycholic acid versus placebo in women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy (PITCHES): a randomised controlled trial

      research-article
      , Prof, PhD a , * , , MSc b , b , , DPhil b , , MSc b , , PhD a , , BPhil c , , MSc d , , Prof, MD e , , Prof, MD a , * , , Prof, MD f , * , PITCHES study group
      Lancet (London, England)
      Elsevier

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, characterised by maternal pruritus and increased 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 without an adequate evidence base. We aimed to evaluate whether ursodeoxycholic acid reduces adverse perinatal outcomes in women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy.

          Methods

          We did a double-blind, multicentre, randomised placebo-controlled trial at 33 hospital maternity units in England and Wales. We recruited women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy, who were aged 18 years or older and with a gestational age between 20 weeks and 40 weeks and 6 days, with a singleton or twin pregnancy and no known lethal fetal anomaly. Participants were randomly assigned 1:1 to ursodeoxycholic acid or placebo, given as two oral tablets a day at an equivalent dose of 500 mg twice a day. The dose could be increased or decreased at the clinician's discretion, to a maximum of four tablets and a minimum of one tablet a day. We recommended that treatment should be continued from enrolment until the infant's birth. The primary outcome was a composite of perinatal death (in-utero fetal death after randomisation or known neonatal death up to 7 days after birth), preterm delivery (<37 weeks' gestation), or neonatal unit admission for at least 4 h (from birth until hospital discharge). Each infant was counted once within this composite. All analyses were done according to the intention-to-treat principle. The trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry, number 91918806.

          Findings

          Between Dec 23, 2015, and Aug 7, 2018, 605 women were enrolled and randomly allocated to receive ursodeoxycholic acid (n=305) or placebo (n=300). The primary outcome analysis included 304 women and 322 infants in the ursodeoxycholic acid group, and 300 women and 318 infants in the placebo group (consent to use data was withdrawn for 1 woman and 2 infants). The primary composite outcome occurred in 74 (23%) of 322 infants in the ursodeoxycholic acid group and 85 (27%) of 318 infants in the placebo group (adjusted risk ratio 0·85 [95% CI 0·62–1·15]). Two serious adverse events were reported in the ursodeoxycholic acid group and six serious adverse events were reported in the placebo group; no serious adverse events were regarded as being related to treatment.

          Interpretation

          Treatment with ursodeoxycholic acid does not reduce adverse perinatal outcomes in women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy. Therefore, its routine use for this condition should be reconsidered.

          Funding

          National Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation Programme.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data.

          G Zou (2004)
          Relative risk is usually the parameter of interest in epidemiologic and medical studies. In this paper, the author proposes a modified Poisson regression approach (i.e., Poisson regression with a robust error variance) to estimate this effect measure directly. A simple 2-by-2 table is used to justify the validity of this approach. Results from a limited simulation study indicate that this approach is very reliable even with total sample sizes as small as 100. The method is illustrated with two data sets.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Analysis of serial measurements in medical research.

            In medical research data are often collected serially on subjects. The statistical analysis of such data is often inadequate in two ways: it may fail to settle clinically relevant questions and it may be statistically invalid. A commonly used method which compares groups at a series of time points, possibly with t tests, is flawed on both counts. There may, however, be a remedy, which takes the form of a two stage method that uses summary measures. In the first stage a suitable summary of the response in an individual, such as a rate of change or an area under a curve, is identified and calculated for each subject. In the second stage these summary measures are analysed by simple statistical techniques as though they were raw data. The method is statistically valid and likely to be more relevant to the study questions. If this method is borne in mind when the experiment is being planned it should promote studies with enough subjects and sufficient observations at critical times to enable useful conclusions to be drawn. Use of summary measures to analyse serial measurements, though not new, is potentially a useful and simple tool in medical research.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Association of adverse perinatal outcomes of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy with biochemical markers: results of aggregate and individual patient data meta-analyses

              Summary Background Intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy is associated with adverse perinatal outcomes, but the association with the concentration of specific biochemical markers is unclear. We aimed to quantify the adverse perinatal effects of intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy in women with increased serum bile acid concentrations and determine whether elevated bile acid concentrations were associated with the risk of stillbirth and preterm birth. Methods We did a systematic review by searching PubMed, Web of Science, and Embase databases for studies published from database inception to June 1, 2018, reporting perinatal outcomes for women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy when serum bile acid concentrations were available. Inclusion criteria were studies defining intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy based upon pruritus and elevated serum bile acid concentrations, with or without raised liver aminotransferase concentrations. Eligible studies were case-control, cohort, and population-based studies, and randomised controlled trials, with at least 30 participants, and that reported bile acid concentrations and perinatal outcomes. Studies at potential higher risk of reporter bias were excluded, including case reports, studies not comprising cohorts, or successive cases seen in a unit; we also excluded studies with high risk of bias from groups selected (eg, a subgroup of babies with poor outcomes were explicitly excluded), conference abstracts, and Letters to the Editor without clear peer review. We also included unpublished data from two UK hospitals. We did a random effects meta-analysis to determine risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. Aggregate data for maternal and perinatal outcomes were extracted from case-control studies, and individual patient data (IPD) were requested from study authors for all types of study (as no control group was required for the IPD analysis) to assess associations between biochemical markers and adverse outcomes using logistic and stepwise logistic regression. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42017069134. Findings We assessed 109 full-text articles, of which 23 studies were eligible for the aggregate data meta-analysis (5557 intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy cases and 165 136 controls), and 27 provided IPD (5269 intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy cases). Stillbirth occurred in 45 (0·83%) of 4936 intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy cases and 519 (0·32%) of 163 947 control pregnancies (odds ratio [OR] 1·46 [95% CI 0·73–2·89]; I 2=59·8%). In singleton pregnancies, stillbirth was associated with maximum total bile acid concentration (area under the receiver operating characteristic curve [ROC AUC]) 0·83 [95% CI 0·74–0·92]), but not alanine aminotransferase (ROC AUC 0·46 [0·35–0·57]). For singleton pregnancies, the prevalence of stillbirth was three (0·13%; 95% CI 0·02–0·38) of 2310 intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy cases in women with serum total bile acids of less than 40 μmol/L versus four (0·28%; 0·08–0·72) of 1412 cases with total bile acids of 40–99 μmol/L (hazard ratio [HR] 2·35 [95% CI 0·52–10·50]; p=0·26), and versus 18 (3·44%; 2·05–5·37) of 524 cases for bile acids of 100 μmol/L or more (HR 30·50 [8·83–105·30]; p<0·0001). Interpretation The risk of stillbirth is increased in women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy and singleton pregnancies when serum bile acids concentrations are of 100 μmol/L or more. Because most women with intrahepatic cholestasis of pregnancy have bile acids below this concentration, they can probably be reassured that the risk of stillbirth is similar to that of pregnant women in the general population, provided repeat bile acid testing is done until delivery. Funding Tommy's, ICP Support, UK National Institute of Health Research, Wellcome Trust, and Genesis Research Trust.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet
                Lancet
                Lancet (London, England)
                Elsevier
                0140-6736
                1474-547X
                07 September 2019
                07 September 2019
                : 394
                : 10201
                : 849-860
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, King's College London, London, UK
                [b ]National Perinatal Epidemiology Unit Clinical Trials Unit, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [c ]ICP Support, Sutton Coldfield, UK
                [d ]Research Department of Primary Care and Population Health, University College London, London, UK
                [e ]Division of Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine, IWK Health Centre, Halifax, NS, Canada
                [f ]Division of Child Health, Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Prof Lucy Chappell, Department of Women and Children's Health, School of Life Course Sciences, King's College London, London SE1 7EH, UK lucy.chappell@ 123456kcl.ac.uk
                [*]

                Joint senior authors

                [†]

                A full list of collaborators is provided in the appendix

                Article
                S0140-6736(19)31270-X
                10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31270-X
                6739598
                31378395
                c8b48a19-b1af-4c78-9331-5f3213f79e85
                © 2019 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Article

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article