Evidence of under-reporting of early-onset preeclampsia using register data

5Citations
Citations of this article
35Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Early-onset preeclampsia, traditionally defined as presenting before 34 gestational weeks, is associated with even higher risks of perinatal death, placental abruption, and stroke, than late-onset preeclampsia. Objective: We estimated the degree of misclassification in a high-risk population of lupus pregnancies and a general population comparator when gestational age at delivery defined preeclampsia phenotype compared to first preeclampsia diagnosis. Methods: Patients with lupus and general population comparators from Sweden with ≥1 singleton pregnancy in the Medical Birth Register with a documented ICD code for preeclampsia were included (2002-2016). We used gestational age at delivery (<34 versus ≥34 weeks) to phenotype preeclampsia early- versus late-onset and then reclassified based on first preeclampsia diagnosis date in the Patient Register. We cross-tabulated the two definitions and calculated sensitivity using the visit-based definition as the reference standard for general population and lupus pregnancies, overall and among nulliparous women. Results: 331 pregnancies were diagnosed with preeclampsia, of which 322 were in both registers. Of those, 58 were early-onset based on gestational age at delivery (n = 29 in lupus pregnancies). Overall, 9% of early-onset preeclampsia in lupus (sensitivity 91%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 75, 98) was misclassified as late-onset compared to 19% in the general population (sensitivity 81%, 95% CI 64, 92). We noted similar misclassification (4% vs 22%) among nulliparous women. Conclusions: In the general population, early-onset preeclampsia was more likely misclassified as late-onset than in the high-risk lupus population. Relying on gestational age at delivery to phenotype preeclampsia, this way underestimates the occurrence of early-onset preeclampsia. This also suggests that the burden of early-onset preeclampsia as a public health concern may be under-reported, although this may be more applicable to milder preeclampsia where expectant management is employed. Research of biological and maternal predictors of early-onset preeclampsia may be dealing with differentially misclassified outcomes or samples.

References Powered by Scopus

Pre-eclampsia

2576Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Incidence of preeclampsia: Risk factors and outcomes associated with early-versus late-onset disease

706Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Risk of early or severe preeclampsia related to pre-existing conditions

143Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Pre-eclampsia

327Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Patterns of placental pathology associated with preeclampsia

8Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Trajectories of cardiovascular risk predict pregnancy outcomes: The Bogalusa Heart Study and the Cardiovascular Risk in Young Finns Study

2Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Simard, J. F., Rossides, M., Wikström, A. K., Falasinnu, T., Palmsten, K., & Arkema, E. V. (2021). Evidence of under-reporting of early-onset preeclampsia using register data. Paediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 35(5), 596–600. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppe.12759

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 10

83%

Professor / Associate Prof. 2

17%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 10

83%

Nursing and Health Professions 2

17%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free