P–419 On prognosis after unexplained recurrent pregnancy losses (RPL); a systematic review and external validation of clinical prediction models

Abstract

Abstract Study question Which models that predict pregnancy outcome in couples with unexplained RPL exist and what is the performance of the most used model? Summary answer We identified seven prediction models; none followed the recommended prediction model development steps. Moreover, the most used model showed poor predictive performance. What is known already RPL remains unexplained in 50–75% of couples For these couples, there is no effective treatment option and clinical management rests on supportive care. Essential part of supportive care consists of counselling on the prognosis of subsequent pregnancies. Indeed, multiple prediction models exist, however the quality and validity of these models varies. In addition, the prediction model developed by Brigham et al is the most widely used model, but has never been externally validated. Study design, size, duration We performed a systematic review to identify prediction models for pregnancy outcome after unexplained RPL. In addition we performed an external validation of the Brigham model in a retrospective cohort, consisting of 668 couples with unexplained RPL that visited our RPL clinic between 2004 and 2019. Participants/materials, setting, methods A systematic search was performed in December 2020 in Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane library to identify relevant studies. Eligible studies were selected and assessed according to the TRIPOD) guidelines, covering topics on model performance and validation statement. The performance of predicting live birth in the Brigham model was evaluated through calibration and discrimination, in which the observed pregnancy rates were compared to the predicted pregnancy rates. Main results and the role of chance Seven models were compared and assessed according to the TRIPOD statement. This resulted in two studies of low, three of moderate and two of above average reporting quality. These studies did not follow the recommended steps for model development and did not calculate a sample size. Furthermore, the predictive performance of neither of these models was internally- or externally validated. We performed an external validation of Brigham model. Calibration showed overestimation of the model and too extreme predictions, with a negative calibration intercept of –0.52 (CI 95% –0.68 – –0.36), with a calibration slope of 0.39 (CI 95% 0.07 – 0.71). The discriminative ability of the model was very low with a concordance statistic of 0.55 (CI 95% 0.50 – 0.59). Limitations, reasons for caution None of the studies are specifically named prediction models, therefore models may have been missed in the selection process. The external validation cohort used a retrospective design, in which only the first pregnancy after intake was registered. Follow-up time was not limited, which is important in counselling unexplained RPL couples. Wider implications of the findings: Currently, there are no suitable models that predict on pregnancy outcome after RPL. Moreover, we are in need of a model with several variables such that prognosis is individualized, and factors from both the female as the male to enable a couple specific prognosis. Trial registration number Not applicable