The Effects of Aspirin in Gestation and Reproduction (EAGeR) Trial: A Story of Discovery

Low-dose aspirin in pregnancy: who? when? how much? and why?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The use of low dose aspirin (LDA) has become routine in prenatal care for a variety of diagnoses, most importantly in women with a history of preeclampsia and associated poor pregnancy outcomes. Although LDA is currently indicated in patients considered to be at risk for development of preeclampsia, optimal dosing, timing of treatment initiation, and persons of benefit are under investigation. Several studies have also looked at LDA treatment and its effect on other maternal and fetal outcomes. This review summarizes the current guidelines for the use of LDA, incorporating the most recent research findings, and offers possible future implications of LDA treatment.

RECENT FINDINGS

Over 10 years ago, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the World Health Organization, and the United States Preventive Service Task Force began publishing guidelines focused on the use of LDA in pregnancy. Since the release of these guidelines, several large studies have re-evaluated the use of LDA with a focus on initiation of treatment and dosing. The combined results of these studies suggest a decreased rate of preeclampsia at aspirin doses >100 mg when treatment is initiated prior to 16 weeks of gestation.

SUMMARY

Overall, early initiation of LDA has been shown to decrease the development of preeclampsia in patients considered at increased risk. Current literature suggests increasing the recommended dose to >100 mg to optimize these risk reductions. Although LDA use seems promising for other outcomes like preterm delivery and intrauterine growth restriction, further studies to strengthen recommendations are warranted.

Aspirin or heparin or both for improving pregnancy outcomes in women with persistent antiphospholipid antibodies and recurrent pregnancy loss

BACKGROUND

Aspirin and heparin are widely used as preventive strategy to reduce the high risk of recurrent pregnancy loss in women with antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). This review supersedes a previous, out-of-date review that evaluated all potential therapies for preventing recurrent pregnancy loss in women with aPL. The current review focusses on a narrower scope because current clinical practice is restricted to using aspirin or heparins, or both for women with aPL in an attempt to reduce pregnancy complications.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of aspirin or heparin, or both for improving pregnancy outcomes in women with persistent (on two separate occasions) aPL, either lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin (aCL) or aβ₂-glycoprotein-I antibodies (aβ₂GPI) or a combination, and recurrent pregnancy loss (two or more, which do not have to be consecutive).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (3 June 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies. Where necessary, we attempted to contact trial authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, cluster-randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that assess the effects of aspirin, heparin (either low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH]), or a combination of aspirin and heparin compared with no treatment, placebo or another, on pregnancy outcomes in women with persistent aPL and recurrent pregnancy loss were eligible. All treatment regimens were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion criteria and risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data and checked them for accuracy and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies (1672 women) met the inclusion criteria; nine randomised controlled trials and two quasi-RCTs. The studies were conducted in the USA, Canada, UK, China, New Zealand, Iraq and Egypt. One included trial involved 1015 women, all other included trials had considerably lower numbers of participants (i.e. 141 women or fewer). Some studies had high risk of selection and attrition bias, and many did not include sufficient information to judge the risk of reporting bias. Overall, the certainty of evidence is low to very low due to the small numbers of women in the studies and to the risk of bias. The dose and type of heparin and aspirin varied among studies. One study compared aspirin alone with placebo; no studies compared heparin alone with placebo and there were no trials that had a no treatment comparator arm during pregnancy; five studies explored the efficacy of heparin (either UFH or LMWH) combined with aspirin compared with aspirin alone; one trial compared LMWH with aspirin; two trials compared the combination of LMWH plus aspirin with the combination of UFH plus aspirin; two studies evaluated the combination of different doses of heparin combined with aspirin. All trials used aspirin at a low dose. Aspirin versus placebo We are very uncertain if aspirin has any effect on live birth compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.25, 1 trial, 40 women, very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if aspirin has any effect on the risk of pre-eclampsia, pregnancy loss, preterm delivery of a live infant, intrauterine growth restriction or adverse events in the child, compared to placebo. We are very uncertain if aspirin has any effect on adverse events (bleeding) in the mother compared with placebo (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.77, 1 study, 40 women). The certainty of evidence for these outcomes is very low because of imprecision, due to the low numbers of women involved and the wide 95% CIs, and also because of risk of bias. Venous thromboembolism and arterial thromboembolism were not reported in the included studies. Heparin plus aspirin versus aspirin alone Heparin plus aspirin may increase the number of live births (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.49, 5 studies, 1295 women, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if heparin plus aspirin has any effect on the risk of pre-eclampsia, preterm delivery of a live infant, or intrauterine growth restriction, compared with aspirin alone because of risk of bias and imprecision due to the low numbers of women involved and the wide 95% CIs. We are very uncertain if heparin plus aspirin has any effect on adverse events (bleeding) in the mother compared with aspirin alone (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.19 to 14.03, 1 study, 31 women). No women in either the heparin plus aspirin group or the aspirin alone group had heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, allergic reactions, or venous or arterial thromboembolism. Similarly, no infants had congenital malformations. Heparin plus aspirin may reduce the risk of pregnancy loss (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.71, 5 studies, 1295 women, low-certainty evidence). When comparing LMWH plus aspirin versus aspirin alone the pooled RR for live birth was 1.20 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.38, 3 trials, 1155 women). In the comparison of UFH plus aspirin versus aspirin alone, the RR for live birth was 1.74 (95% CI 1.28 to 2.35, 2 trials, 140 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The combination of heparin (UFH or LMWH) plus aspirin during the course of pregnancy may increase live birth rate in women with persistent aPL when compared with aspirin treatment alone. The observed beneficial effect of heparin was driven by one large study in which LMWH plus aspirin was compared with aspirin alone. Adverse events were frequently not, or not uniformly, reported in the included studies. More research is needed in this area in order to further evaluate potential risks and benefits of this treatment strategy, especially among women with aPL and recurrent pregnancy loss, to gain consensus on the ideal prevention for recurrent pregnancy loss, based on a risk profile.

Antiplatelet agents for preventing pre-eclampsia and its complications

BACKGROUND

Pre-eclampsia is associated with deficient intravascular production of prostacyclin, a vasodilator, and excessive production of thromboxane, a vasoconstrictor and stimulant of platelet aggregation. These observations led to the hypotheses that antiplatelet agents, low-dose aspirin in particular, might prevent or delay development of pre-eclampsia.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of antiplatelet agents, such as aspirin and dipyridamole, when given to women at risk of developing pre-eclampsia.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (30 March 2018), and reference lists of retrieved studies. We updated the search in September 2019 and added the results to the awaiting classification section of the review.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised trials comparing antiplatelet agents with either placebo or no antiplatelet agent were included. Studies only published in abstract format were eligible for inclusion if sufficient information was available. We would have included cluster-randomised trials in the analyses along with individually-randomised trials, if any had been identified in our search strategy. Quasi-random studies were excluded. Participants were pregnant women at risk of developing pre-eclampsia. Interventions were administration of an antiplatelet agent (such as low-dose aspirin or dipyridamole), comparisons were either placebo or no antiplatelet.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors assessed trials for inclusion and extracted data independently. For binary outcomes, we calculated risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI), on an intention-to-treat basis. For this update we incorporated individual participant data (IPD) from trials with this available, alongside aggregate data (AD) from trials where it was not, in order to enable reliable subgroup analyses and inclusion of two key new outcomes. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created a 'Summary of findings' table using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventy-seven trials (40,249 women, and their babies) were included, although three trials (relating to 233 women) did not contribute data to the meta-analysis. Nine of the trials contributing data were large (> 1000 women recruited), accounting for 80% of women recruited. Although the trials took place in a wide range of countries, all of the nine large trials involved only women in high-income and/or upper middle-income countries. IPD were available for 36 trials (34,514 women), including all but one of the large trials. Low-dose aspirin alone was the intervention in all the large trials, and most trials overall. Dose in the large trials was 50 mg (1 trial, 1106 women), 60 mg (5 trials, 22,322 women), 75mg (1 trial, 3697 women) 100 mg (1 trial, 3294 women) and 150 mg (1 trial, 1776 women). Most studies were either low risk of bias or unclear risk of bias; and the large trials were all low risk of bas. Antiplatelet agents versus placebo/no treatment The use of antiplatelet agents reduced the risk of proteinuric pre-eclampsia by 18% (36,716 women, 60 trials, RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.77 to 0.88; high-quality evidence), number needed to treat for one women to benefit (NNTB) 61 (95% CI 45 to 92). There was a small (9%) reduction in the RR for preterm birth <37 weeks (35,212 women, 47 trials; RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.87 to 0.95, high-quality evidence), NNTB 61 (95% CI 42 to 114), and a 14% reduction infetal deaths, neonatal deaths or death before hospital discharge (35,391 babies, 52 trials; RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.95; high-quality evidence), NNTB 197 (95% CI 115 to 681). Antiplatelet agents slightly reduced the risk of small-for-gestational age babies (35,761 babies, 50 trials; RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.92; high-quality evidence), NNTB 146 (95% CI 90 to 386), and pregnancies with serious adverse outcome (a composite outcome including maternal death, baby death, pre-eclampsia, small-for-gestational age, and preterm birth) (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.96; 17,382 women; 13 trials, high-quality evidence), NNTB 54 (95% CI 34 to 132). Antiplatelet agents probably slightly increase postpartum haemorrhage > 500 mL (23,769 women, 19 trials; RR 1.06, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.12; moderate-quality evidence due to clinical heterogeneity), and they probably marginally increase the risk of placental abruption, although for this outcome the evidence was downgraded due to a wide confidence interval including the possibility of no effect (30,775 women; 29 trials; RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.54; moderate-quality evidence). Data from two large trials which assessed children at aged 18 months (including results from over 5000 children), did not identify clear differences in development between the two groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Administering low-dose aspirin to pregnant women led to small-to-moderate benefits, including reductions in pre-eclampsia (16 fewer per 1000 women treated), preterm birth (16 fewer per 1000 treated), the baby being born small-for-gestational age (seven fewer per 1000 treated) and fetal or neonatal death (five fewer per 1000 treated). Overall, administering antiplatelet agents to 1000 women led to 20 fewer pregnancies with serious adverse outcomes. The quality of evidence for all these outcomes was high. Aspirin probably slightly increased the risk of postpartum haemorrhage of more than 500 mL, however, the quality of evidence for this outcome was downgraded to moderate, due to concerns of clinical heterogeneity in measurements of blood loss. Antiplatelet agents probably marginally increase placental abruption, but the quality of the evidence was downgraded to moderate due to low event numbers and thus wide 95% CI. Overall, antiplatelet agents improved outcomes, and at these doses appear to be safe. Identifying women who are most likely to respond to low-dose aspirin would improve targeting of treatment. As almost all the women in this review were recruited to the trials after 12 weeks' gestation, it is unclear whether starting treatment before 12 weeks' would have additional benefits without any increase in adverse effects. While there was some indication that higher doses of aspirin would be more effective, further studies would be warranted to examine this.