A prognostic model, including quantitative fetal fibronectin, to predict preterm labour: the QUIDS meta-analysis and prospective cohort study
Authors: Stock Sarah J , Horne Margaret , Bruijn Merel , White Helen , Heggie Robert , Wotherspoon Lisa , Boyd Kathleen , Aucott Lorna , Morris Rachel K , Dorling Jon , Jackson Lesley , Chandiramani Manju , David Anna , Khalil Asma , Shennan Andrew , Baaren Gert-Jan van , Hodgetts-Morton Victoria , Lavender Tina , Schuit Ewoud , Harper-Clarke Susan , Mol Ben , Riley Richard D , Norman Jane , Norrie John 
Published: September 2021

Background

The diagnosis of preterm labour is challenging. False-positive diagnoses are common and result in unnecessary, potentially harmful treatments (e.g. tocolytics, antenatal corticosteroids and magnesium sulphate) and costly hospital admissions. Measurement of fetal fibronectin in vaginal fluid is a biochemical test that can indicate impending preterm birth.

Objectives

To develop an externally validated prognostic model using quantitative fetal fibronectin concentration, in combination with clinical risk factors, for the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth and to assess its cost-effectiveness.

Design

The study comprised (1) a qualitative study to establish the decisional needs of pregnant women and their caregivers, (2) an individual participant data meta-analysis of existing studies to develop a prognostic model for spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days in women with symptoms of preterm labour based on quantitative fetal fibronectin and clinical risk factors, (3) external validation of the prognostic model in a prospective cohort study across 26 UK centres, (4) a model-based economic evaluation comparing the prognostic model with qualitative fetal fibronectin, and quantitative fetal fibronectin with cervical length measurement, in terms of cost per QALY gained and (5) a qualitative assessment of the acceptability of quantitative fetal fibronectin.

Data sources/setting

The model was developed using data from five European prospective cohort studies of quantitative fetal fibronectin. The UK prospective cohort study was carried out across 26 UK centres.

Participants

Pregnant women at 22+0–34+6 weeks’ gestation with signs and symptoms of preterm labour.

Health technology being assessed

Quantitative fetal fibronectin.

Main outcome measures

Spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days.

Results

The individual participant data meta-analysis included 1783 women and 139 events of spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days (event rate 7.8%). The prognostic model that was developed included quantitative fetal fibronectin, smoking, ethnicity, nulliparity and multiple pregnancy. The model was externally validated in a cohort of 2837 women, with 83 events of spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days (event rate 2.93%), an area under the curve of 0.89 (95% confidence interval 0.84 to 0.93), a calibration slope of 1.22 and a Nagelkerke R
2 of 0.34. The economic analysis found that the prognostic model was cost-effective compared with using qualitative fetal fibronectin at a threshold for hospital admission and treatment of ≥ 2% risk of preterm birth within 7 days.

Limitations

The outcome proportion (spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days of test) was 2.9% in the validation study. This is in line with other studies, but having slightly fewer than 100 events is a limitation in model validation.

Conclusions

A prognostic model that included quantitative fetal fibronectin and clinical risk factors showed excellent performance in the prediction of spontaneous preterm birth within 7 days of test, was cost-effective and can be used to inform a decision support tool to help guide management decisions for women with threatened preterm labour.

Future work

The prognostic model will be embedded in electronic maternity records and a mobile telephone application, enabling ongoing data collection for further refinement and validation of the model.

Study registration

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42015027590 and Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN41598423.

Funding

This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 52. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.