Self-monitoring blood pressure in Pregnancy: Evaluation of health professional experiences of the BUMP trials

BACKGROUND

The BUMP trials evaluated a self-monitoring of blood pressure intervention in addition to usual care, testing whether they improved detection or control of hypertension for women at risk of hypertension or with hypertension during pregnancy. This process evaluation aimed to understand healthcare professionals' perspectives and experiences of the BUMP trials of self-monitoring of blood pressure during pregnancy.

METHODS

Twenty-two in-depth qualitative interviews and an online survey with 328 healthcare professionals providing care for pregnant people in the BUMP trials were carried out across five maternity units in England.

RESULTS

Analysis used Normalisation Process Theory to identify factors required for successful implementation and integration into routine practice. Healthcare professionals felt self-monitoring of blood pressure did not over-medicalise pregnancy for women with, or at risk of, hypertension. Most said self-monitored readings positively affected their clinical encounters and professional roles, provided additive information on which to base decisions and enriched their relationships with pregnant people. Self-monitoring of blood pressure shifts responsibilities. Some healthcare professionals felt women having responsibility to decide on timing of monitoring and whether to act on self-monitored readings was unduly burdensome, and resulted in healthcare professionals taking additional responsibility for supporting them.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite healthcare professionals' early concerns that self-monitoring of blood pressure might over-medicalise pregnancy, our analysis shows the opposite was the case when used in the care of pregnant people with, or at higher risk of, hypertension. While professionals retained ultimate clinical responsibility, they viewed self-monitoring of blood pressure as a means of sharing responsibility and empowering women to understand their bodies, to make judgements and decisions, and to contribute to their care.

Platform adaptive trial of novel antivirals for early treatment of COVID-19 In the community (PANORAMIC): protocol for a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial of community novel antiviral treatment of COVID-19 in people at increased risk of more severe disease

INTRODUCTION

There is an urgent need to determine the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of novel antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

PANORAMIC is a UK-wide, open-label, prospective, adaptive, multiarm platform, randomised clinical trial that evaluates antiviral treatments for COVID-19 in the community. A master protocol governs the addition of new antiviral treatments as they become available, and the introduction and cessation of existing interventions via interim analyses. The first two interventions to be evaluated are molnupiravir (Lagevrio) and nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (Paxlovid).

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

community-dwelling within 5 days of onset of symptomatic COVID-19 (confirmed by PCR or lateral flow test), and either (1) aged 50 years and over, or (2) aged 18-49 years with qualifying comorbidities. Registration occurs via the trial website and by telephone. Recruitment occurs remotely through the central trial team, or in person through clinical sites. Participants are randomised to receive either usual care or a trial drug plus usual care. Outcomes are collected via a participant-completed daily electronic symptom diary for 28 days post randomisation. Participants and/or their Trial Partner are contacted by the research team after days 7, 14 and 28 if the diary is not completed, or if the participant is unable to access the diary. The primary efficacy endpoint is all-cause, non-elective hospitalisation and/or death within 28 days of randomisation. Multiple prespecified interim analyses allow interventions to be stopped for futility or superiority based on prespecified decision criteria. A prospective economic evaluation is embedded within the trial.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval granted by South Central-Berkshire REC number: 21/SC/0393; IRAS project ID: 1004274. Results will be presented to policymakers and at conferences, and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN30448031; EudraCT number: 2021-005748-31.

Molnupiravir plus usual care versus usual care alone as early treatment for adults with COVID-19 at increased risk of adverse outcomes (PANORAMIC): an open-label, platform-adaptive randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The safety, effectiveness, and cost-effectiveness of molnupiravir, an oral antiviral medication for SARS-CoV-2, has not been established in vaccinated patients in the community at increased risk of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19. We aimed to establish whether the addition of molnupiravir to usual care reduced hospital admissions and deaths associated with COVID-19 in this population.

METHODS

PANORAMIC was a UK-based, national, multicentre, open-label, multigroup, prospective, platform adaptive randomised controlled trial. Eligible participants were aged 50 years or older-or aged 18 years or older with relevant comorbidities-and had been unwell with confirmed COVID-19 for 5 days or fewer in the community. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive 800 mg molnupiravir twice daily for 5 days plus usual care or usual care only. A secure, web-based system (Spinnaker) was used for randomisation, which was stratified by age (<50 years vs ≥50 years) and vaccination status (yes vs no). COVID-19 outcomes were tracked via a self-completed online daily diary for 28 days after randomisation. The primary outcome was all-cause hospitalisation or death within 28 days of randomisation, which was analysed using Bayesian models in all eligible participants who were randomly assigned. This trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 30448031.

FINDINGS

Between Dec 8, 2021, and April 27, 2022, 26 411 participants were randomly assigned, 12 821 to molnupiravir plus usual care, 12 962 to usual care alone, and 628 to other treatment groups (which will be reported separately). 12 529 participants from the molnupiravir plus usual care group, and 12 525 from the usual care group were included in the primary analysis population. The mean age of the population was 56·6 years (SD 12·6), and 24 290 (94%) of 25 708 participants had had at least three doses of a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Hospitalisations or deaths were recorded in 105 (1%) of 12 529 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group versus 98 (1%) of 12 525 in the usual care group (adjusted odds ratio 1·06 [95% Bayesian credible interval 0·81-1·41]; probability of superiority 0·33). There was no evidence of treatment interaction between subgroups. Serious adverse events were recorded for 50 (0·4%) of 12 774 participants in the molnupiravir plus usual care group and for 45 (0·3%) of 12 934 in the usual care group. None of these events were judged to be related to molnupiravir.

INTERPRETATION

Molnupiravir did not reduce the frequency of COVID-19-associated hospitalisations or death among high-risk vaccinated adults in the community.

FUNDING

UK National Institute for Health and Care Research.

Cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy study of self-testing for proteinuria during hypertensive pregnancies: The UDIP study

OBJECTIVE

To determine the accuracy of self-testing for proteinuria during pregnancy.

DESIGN

Diagnostic accuracy study.

SETTING

Antenatal clinics, maternity assessment units and inpatient wards at three hospital sites.

POPULATION OR SAMPLE

345 pregnant women.

METHODS

Pregnant women self-tested in-clinic for urinary protein using visually read dipsticks with samples then sent for laboratory estimation of the spot protein-creatinine ratio (PCR) (primary reference test). Secondary index tests included testing by antenatal healthcare professionals and an automated colorimetric reader.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value, positive predictive value and likelihood ratios were calculated for self-testing (primary index test) along with healthcare professional and colorimetric testing compared to the primary reference test (PCR).

RESULTS

335/345 (97%) had sufficient data to be included in the analysis. Self-testing had a sensitivity of 0.71 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.79) and a specificity of 0.89 (95% CI 0.84-0.92) compared to PCR. Sensitivity and specificity of testing by healthcare professionals and the colorimetric reader were similar: sensitivity 0.73 (95% CI 0.64-0.80) and 0.78 (95% CI 0.69-0.85), respectively; specificity 0.88 (95% CI 0.82-0.92) and 0.83 (95% CI 0.78-0.88), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Pregnant women can visually read a dipstick for urinary protein with similar accuracy to antenatal healthcare professionals. Automated colorimetric testing was not significantly different, in contrast to some previous studies. Self-testing has the potential to form part of a self-monitoring regime in pregnancy.

Self-monitoring of blood pressure in pregnancy: A mixed methods evaluation of a national roll-out in the context of a pandemic

Objective

To evaluate how English maternity units implemented self-monitoring of blood pressure (SMBP) in pregnancy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Design

Mixed methods including surveys, anonymised patient data and in-depth interviews with women.

Setting

Maternity units across England.

Participants

45 maternity units completed a survey about the implementation of SMBP (supported by the provision of guidance and blood pressure monitors) during the pandemic, 166 women completed a survey about their experiences of SMBP, and 23 women took part in in-depth interviews. Clinical data from 627 women undertaking SMBP were available from 13 maternity units.

Results

SMBP was predominantly used to provide additional BP monitoring for hypertensive or high-risk pregnant women. Overall maternity units and women were positive about its use in terms of reducing the need for additional face-to-face contacts and giving women more control and insight into their own BP. However, there were challenges in setting up SMBP services rapidly and embedding them within existing care pathways, particularly around interpreting readings and managing the provision of monitors.

Conclusions

A considerable proportion of maternity units in England commenced a SMBP service for hypertensive or high-risk women from March 2020. There is a need for further research into appropriate care pathways, including guidance around white coat or masked hypertension and the use of SMBP postnatally.

Effect of Self-monitoring of Blood Pressure on Blood Pressure Control in Pregnant Individuals With Chronic or Gestational Hypertension: The BUMP 2 Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Inadequate management of elevated blood pressure is a significant contributing factor to maternal deaths. The role of blood pressure self-monitoring in pregnancy in improving clinical outcomes for the pregnant individual and infant is unclear.

Objective

To evaluate the effect of blood pressure self-monitoring, compared with usual care alone, on blood pressure control and other related maternal and infant outcomes, in individuals with pregnancy hypertension.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Unblinded, randomized clinical trial that recruited between November 2018 and September 2019 in 15 hospital maternity units in England. Individuals with chronic hypertension (enrolled up to 37 weeks' gestation) or with gestational hypertension (enrolled between 20 and 37 weeks' gestation). Final follow-up was in May 2020.

Interventions

Participants were randomized to either blood pressure self-monitoring using a validated monitor and a secure telemonitoring system in addition to usual care (n = 430) or to usual care alone (n = 420). Usual care comprised blood pressure measured by health care professionals at regular antenatal clinics.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary maternal outcome was the difference in mean systolic blood pressure recorded by health care professionals between randomization and birth.

Results

Among 454 participants with chronic hypertension (mean age, 36 years; mean gestation at entry, 20 weeks) and 396 with gestational hypertension (mean age, 34 years; mean gestation at entry, 33 weeks) who were randomized, primary outcome data were available from 444 (97.8%) and 377 (95.2%), respectively. In the chronic hypertension cohort, there was no statistically significant difference in mean systolic blood pressure for the self-monitoring groups vs the usual care group (133.8 mm Hg vs 133.6 mm Hg, respectively; adjusted mean difference, 0.03 mm Hg [95% CI, -1.73 to 1.79]). In the gestational hypertension cohort, there was also no significant difference in mean systolic blood pressure (137.6 mm Hg compared with 137.2 mm Hg; adjusted mean difference, -0.03 mm Hg [95% CI, -2.29 to 2.24]). There were 8 serious adverse events in the self-monitoring group (4 in each cohort) and 3 in the usual care group (2 in the chronic hypertension cohort and 1 in the gestational hypertension cohort).

Conclusions and Relevance

Among pregnant individuals with chronic or gestational hypertension, blood pressure self-monitoring with telemonitoring, compared with usual care, did not lead to significantly improved clinic-based blood pressure control.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03334149.

Effect of Self-monitoring of Blood Pressure on Diagnosis of Hypertension During Higher-Risk Pregnancy: The BUMP 1 Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Inadequate management of elevated blood pressure (BP) is a significant contributing factor to maternal deaths. Self-monitoring of BP in the general population has been shown to improve the diagnosis and management of hypertension; however, little is known about its use in pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether self-monitoring of BP in higher-risk pregnancies leads to earlier detection of pregnancy hypertension.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Unblinded, randomized clinical trial that included 2441 pregnant individuals at higher risk of preeclampsia and recruited at a mean of 20 weeks' gestation from 15 hospital maternity units in England between November 2018 and October 2019. Final follow-up was completed in April 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Participating individuals were randomized to either BP self-monitoring with telemonitoring (n = 1223) plus usual care or usual antenatal care alone (n = 1218) without access to telemonitored BP.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was time to first recorded hypertension measured by a health care professional.

RESULTS

Among 2441 participants who were randomized (mean [SD] age, 33 [5.6] years; mean gestation, 20 [1.6] weeks), 2346 (96%) completed the trial. The time from randomization to clinic recording of hypertension was not significantly different between individuals in the self-monitoring group (mean [SD], 104.3 [32.6] days) vs in the usual care group (mean [SD], 106.2 [32.0] days) (mean difference, -1.6 days [95% CI, -8.1 to 4.9]; P = .64). Eighteen serious adverse events were reported during the trial with none judged as related to the intervention (12 [1%] in the self-monitoring group vs 6 [0.5%] in the usual care group).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among pregnant individuals at higher risk of preeclampsia, blood pressure self-monitoring with telemonitoring, compared with usual care, did not lead to significantly earlier clinic-based detection of hypertension.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03334149.

Infant bed-sharing: supporting parents to make an informed decision

The practice of infant bed-sharing remains controversial in countries such as the UK and the US, despite its prevalence, and healthcare professionals are often faced with the task of advising parents on bed-sharing without the support of consistent or up-to-date guidelines. This article explores UK and US recommendations on infant bed-sharing, considering the existing evidence. The possible relationship between infant bed-sharing and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) is explored, alongside other factors that may be linked to SIDS. Areas where further research is required are identified and appropriate resources are provided, with a view to empowering healthcare professionals to support parents in making an informed and proactive decision about infant bed-sharing.

Clinical presentation, assessment and management of pre-eclampsia

Pre-eclampsia is a complex and unpredictable disorder that may occur during pregnancy. Its presentation ranges from mild to severe, and the condition may lead to the death of the mother and/or the baby in extreme cases. The earlier the disorder is detected and managed, the better the outcome. This article provides an outline of the disorder and its management, within the framework of UK and international guidelines. A series of suggested activities encourages the reader to reflect on the information provided within the context of their practice.