PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Nancy McBride
AU  - Sara L. White
AU  - Lucilla Poston
AU  - Diane Farrar
AU  - Jane West
AU  - Naveed Sattar
AU  - Scott M. Nelson
AU  - John Wright
AU  - Dan Mason
AU  - Matthew Suderman
AU  - Caroline Relton
AU  - Paul Yousefi
AU  - Deborah A Lawlor
TI  - Do nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR)-based metabolomics improve the prediction of pregnancy-related disorders?
AID  - 10.1101/2020.06.22.20134650
DP  - 2020 Jan 01
TA  - medRxiv
PG  - 2020.06.22.20134650
4099  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/06/22/2020.06.22.20134650.short
4100  - http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2020/06/22/2020.06.22.20134650.full
AB  - Background Prediction of pregnancy-related disorders is mostly done based on established and easily measured risk factors. However, these measures are at best moderate at discriminating between high and low risk women. Recent advances in metabolomics may provide earlier and more accurate prediction of women at risk of pregnancy-related disorders.Methods and Findings We used data collected from women in the Born in Bradford (BiB; n=8,212) and UK Pregnancies Better Eating and Activity Trial (UPBEAT; n=859) studies to create and validate prediction models for pregnancy-related disorders. These were gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP), small for gestational age (SGA), large for gestational age (LGA) and preterm birth (PTB). We used ten-fold cross-validation and penalised regression to create prediction models. We compared the predictive performance of 1) risk factors (maternal age, pregnancy smoking status, body mass index, ethnicity and parity) to 2) nuclear magnetic resonance-derived metabolites (N = 156 quantified metabolites, collected at 24-28 weeks gestation) and 3) risk factors and metabolites combined. The multi-ethnic BiB cohort was used for training and testing the models, with independent validation conducted in UPBEAT, a study of obese pregnant women of multiple ethnicities.In BiB, discrimination for GDM, HDP, LGA and SGA was improved with the addition of metabolites to the risk factors only model. Risk factors area under the curve (AUC 95% confidence interval (CI)): GDM (0.69 (0.64, 0.73)), HDP (0.74 (0.70, 0.78)) and LGA (0.71 (0.66, 0.75)), and SGA (0.59 (0.56,0.63)). Combined AUC 95% (CI)): GDM (0.78 (0.74, 0.81)), HDP (0.76 (0.73, 0.79)) and LGA (0.75 (0.70, 0.79)), and SGA (0.66 (0.63,0.70)). For GDM, HDP, LGA, but not SGA, calibration was good for a combined risk factor and metabolite model. Prediction of PTB was poor for all models. Independent validation in UPBEAT at 24-28 weeks and 15-18 weeks gestation confirmed similar patterns of results, but AUC were attenuated. A key limitation was our inability to identify a large general pregnancy population for independent validation.Conclusions Our results suggest metabolomics combined with established risk factors improves prediction GDM, HDP and LGA, when compared to risk factors alone. They also highlight the difficulty of predicting PTB, with all models performing poorly.BackgroundCurrent methods used to predict pregnancy-related disorders exhibit modest discrimination and calibration.Metabolomics may enable improved prediction of pregnancy-related disorders.Why Was This Study Done?We require tools to identify women with high-risk pregnancies earlier on, so that antenatal care can be more appropriately targeted at women who need it most and tailored to women’s needs and to facilitate early intervention.It has been suggested that metabolomic markers might improve prediction of future pregnancy-related disorders. Previous studies tend to be small and rarely undertake external validation.What Did the Researchers Do and Find?Using BiB (8,212 pregnant women of multiple ethnicities), we created prediction models, using established risk factors and 156 NMR-derived metabolites, for five pregnancy-related disorders. These were gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP), small for gestational age (SGA), large for gestational age (LGA) and preterm birth (PTB). We sought external validation in UPBEAT (859 obese pregnant women).We compared the predictive discrimination (area under the curve - AUC) and calibration (calibration slopes) of the models. The prediction models we compared were 1) established risk factors (pregnancy smoking, maternal age, body mass index (BMI), maternal ethnicity and parity) 2) NMR-derived metabolites measured in the second trimester and 3) a combined model of risk factors and metabolites.Inclusion of metabolites with risk factors improved prediction of GDM, HDP, LGA and SGA in BiB. Prediction of PTB was poor with all models. Result patterns were similar in validation using UPBEAT, particularly for GDM and HDP, but AUC were attenuated.What Do These Findings Mean?These findings indicate that combining current risk factor and metabolomic data could improve the prediction of GDM, HDP, LGA and SGA. These findings need to be validated in larger, general populations of pregnant women.Competing Interest StatementDAL has received support from Medtronic Ltd and Roche Diagnostics for biomarker research unrelated to those presented in this paper.Funding StatementThe work was supported by National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Centre at the University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, which funds N.M.s PhD studentship, US National Institute of Health (R01 DK10324), the European Research Council under the European Unions Seventh Framework Programme (FP7/2007-2013) / ERC grant agreement no 669545. Core funding for Born in Bradford (BiB) has been funded by the Wellcome Trust (WT101597MA) a joint grant from the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and UK Economic and Social Science Research Council (ESRC) (MR/N024397/1), the British Heart Foundation (CS/16/4/32482) and the NIHR under its Collaboration for Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) for Yorkshire and Humber and the Clinical Research Network (CRN). This study received funding from the National Institute of Health Research (RP-PG-0407-10452), Medical Research Council UK (MR/L002477/1), Chief Scientist Office, Scottish Government Health Directorates (Edinburgh) (CZB/A/680), Biomedical Research Centre at Guys & St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust & Kings College London and the NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, Tommys Charity, UK (SC039280). SLW is supported by Tommys Charity, UK. D.A.L., C.R., P.Y., M.S. and N.M. work in a unit that receives support from the MRC (MC_UU_00011/5 and MC_UU_00011/6) and University of Bristol. The funders did not have any role in the design, analysis, or preparation of the manuscript for publication. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the National Institute for Health Research, the Department of Health and Social Care or any of the funders listed above.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:DAL has received support from Medtronic Ltd and Roche Diagnostics for biomarker research unrelated to those presented in this paper.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesData are available from the studies used in this paper upon request: Born in Bradford (BiB) and the UK Pregnancies Better Eating Activity Trial (UPBEAT). https://borninbradford.nhs.uk/ https://www.ucl.ac.uk/epidemiology-health-care/research/bsh/research/obesity/uk-pregnancies-better-eating-and-activity-trial-upbeat GDMgestational diabetes mellitusHDPhypertensive disorders of pregnancySGAsmall for gestational ageLGAlarge for gestational agePTBpreterm birthBMIbody mass indexBiBBorn in BradfordUPBEATUK Pregnancies and Better Eating Activity TrialAUCArea under the curveNMRnuclear magnetic resonance