Obstetrics and Gynecology, 87(5 Pt 1), 643-648, 1996
The preterm prediction study: fetal fibronectin testing and spontaneous preterm birth. NICHD Maternal Fetal Medicine Units Network
Brian Mercer , Paul Meis , R COPPER
A Das, R L Goldenberg, D McNellis
Author affiliations (3)
From Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, N.C. (P.J.M.); the National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development, Bethesda, Md. (M.K., C.Y.S.); the Biostatistics
Center, ...
To evaluate the presence of fetal fibronectin in the cervix and vagina as a screening test for spontaneous preterm birth.
Methods
Two thousand nine hundred twenty-nine women at ten centers were routinely screened every 2 weeks from 22-24 to 30 weeks for cervical and vaginal fetal fibronectin. A positive test was defined as a value equal to or greater than 50 ng/mL. The relation between a positive test at four gestational ages and spontaneous preterm birth at various intervals after the test was determined.
Results
In each testing period, 3-4% of the fetal fibronectin tests were positive. The correlation between cervical and vaginal fetal fibronectin at the same visit was always approximately 0.7 (P < .001), and that between cervical or vaginal fetal fibronectin in consecutive visits was between 0.17 and 0.25 (P < .001). The sensitivity of fetal fibronectin at 22-24 weeks to predict spontaneous preterm birth at less than 28 weeks was 0.63, and the relative risk for a positive versus negative test was 59. The specificity was always 96-98%, whereas the positive predictive value rose from 13% to 36% as the upper limit of the definition of preterm birth was increased from less than 28 to less than 37 weeks. The relative risk for spontaneous preterm birth after a positive fetal fibronectin test compared with a negative fetal fibronectin test varied substantially by testing period and by the definition of spontaneous preterm birth, but always remained greater than 4 and statistically significant.
Conclusion
A positive cervical or vaginal fetal fibronectin test at 22-24 weeks predicted more than half of the spontaneous preterm births at less than 28 weeks (sensitivity 0.63). As the definition of spontaneous preterm birth was extended to include later gestational ages or when the fetal fibronectin test was performed later in pregnancy, the level of association between a positive fetal fibronectin test and spontaneous preterm birth, while remaining highly significant, tended to decrease. Although fetal fibronectin is an excellent test for predicting spontaneous preterm birth, we present no evidence that the use of this test will result in a reduction in spontaneous preterm birth.
PMID 8677060 8677060 DOI 10.1016/0029-7844(96)00035-x 10.1016/0029-7844(96)00035-x
Cite this article
Goldenberg, R. L., Mercer, B. M., Meis, P. J., Copper, R. L., Das, A., & McNellis, D. (1996). The preterm prediction study: fetal fibronectin testing and spontaneous preterm birth. NICHD Maternal Fetal Medicine Units Network. Obstetrics and gynecology, 87(5 Pt 1), 643-648. https://doi.org/10.1016/0029-7844(96)00035-x
Goldenberg RL, Mercer BM, Meis PJ, Copper RL, Das A, McNellis D. The preterm prediction study: fetal fibronectin testing and spontaneous preterm birth. NICHD Maternal Fetal Medicine Units Network. Obstet Gynecol. 1996;87(5 Pt 1):643-648. doi:10.1016/0029-7844(96)00035-x
Goldenberg, R. L., et al. "The preterm prediction study: fetal fibronectin testing and spontaneous preterm birth. NICHD Maternal Fetal Medicine Units Network." Obstetrics and gynecology, vol. 87, no. 5 Pt 1, 1996, pp. 643-648.
Keywords
Adult, Cervix Uteri/chemistry, Extraembryonic Membranes/metabolism, Female, Fibronectins/analysis, Gestational Age, Humans, Mass Screening/methods, Obstetric Labor, Premature/diagnosis/epidemiology/prevention & Control, Predictive Value of Tests, Pregnancy, Risk Factors, Sensitivity and Specificity, Vagina/chemistry, Fibronectins
Related articles
EndometriosisFertility OutcomesEndometriosis Surgery ClaimsReproductive Treatment Access
For many patients with endometriosis, laparoscopic surgery is the most effective treatment to alleviate severe chronic pelvic pain and improve quality of life. Because endometriosis is common among individuals with infertility, surgery is often considered alongside fertility evaluation and treatment to manage symptoms, identify disease pathology, and restore pelvic anatomy. In patients who desire pregnancy, the decision of whether and when to pursue surgery should be guided by clear medical indications and shared decision making between the patient and their obstetrician-gynecologist. In recent months, however, religious and political groups have sought to reframe this medical decision as an ideologic and moral one, advocating for endometriosis surgery in nearly all patients with infertility and claiming that this can eliminate the need for assisted reproductive technologies. This framework, known as restorative reproductive medicine (RRM), aligns with efforts to promote the "personhood" of fertilized eggs, restrict access to in in vitro fertilization (IVF), and advance endometriosis surgery and lifestyle modifications as "root-cause treatment leading to natural fertility." Recent editorials and issue briefs in the obstetrics and gynecology literature have discussed the serious ethical, medical, and policy implications of RRM, yet there remains an urgent need to address specifically the unfounded claims about endometriosis surgery and its purported advantages over assisted reproductive technology. This article examines the social context of this controversy and reviews the current evidence regarding the indications, benefits, and limitations of endometriosis surgery in the management of infertility. In contrast to RRM's assertions, no evidence supports the adoption of endometriosis surgery as a replacement for IVF or as a primary treatment for infertility. Rather, the role of surgery in fertility care is highly nuanced and depends on each patient's clinical presentation, reproductive goals, and personal priorities.
To assess the Pearl Index for risk of ectopic pregnancy in women using levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine systems (LNG-IUS) with hormonal reservoirs of 13.5 mg, 19.5 mg, or 52 mg. This was a retrospective cohort study. Women diagnosed with an ectopic pregnancy in Stockholm County, Sweden, between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2019, were identified through the electronic medical record system. The final analysis included 2,252 cases of ectopic pregnancy. Information on age, reproductive and medical history, as well as current use of contraception was retrieved. The time of intrauterine device (IUD) insertion before ectopic pregnancy and the numbers of sold LNG-IUS during the study period were used to calculate the incidence rate for ectopic pregnancy during use per 100 woman-years (Pearl Index). Among women with an ectopic pregnancy diagnosis, 105 presented with a known type of hormonal IUD in situ, of whom 94 were included in the calculations of the Pearl Index. The estimated Pearl Index for ectopic pregnancy was 0.136 (95% CI 0.106-0.176) for the LNG-IUS 13.5-mg, 0.037 (95% CI 0.021-0.067) for the LNG-IUS 19.5-mg, and 0.009 (95% CI 0.006-0.014) for the LNG-IUS 52-mg. With the 52-mg LNG-IUS as referent, the relative risk (RR) for ectopic pregnancy was higher during the first year for LNG 13.5-mg (RR 20.59, 95% CI 12.04-35.21), and for both 13.5-mg (RR 14.49, 95% CI 9.01-23.3) and 19.5-mg (RR 4.44, 95% CI 1.64-12.00) during the total study period. The absolute risk of ectopic pregnancy during the use of LNG-IUS at any doses was low. The results show that the lower the dose of the IUD, the higher the risk of an ectopic pregnancy. Higher-dose LNG-IUS should be considered when providing contraceptive counseling to a woman with known risk factors for ectopic pregnancy who are considering a hormonal IUD.
To assess whether coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination is associated with changes in cycle or menses length in those receiving vaccination as compared with an unvaccinated cohort. We analyzed prospectively tracked menstrual cycle data using the application "Natural Cycles." We included U.S. residents aged 18-45 years with normal cycle lengths (24-38 days) for three consecutive cycles before the first vaccine dose followed by vaccine-dose cycles (cycles 4-6) or, if unvaccinated, six cycles over a similar time period. We calculated the mean within-individual change in cycle and menses length (three prevaccine cycles vs first- and second-dose cycles in the vaccinated cohort, and the first three cycles vs cycles four and five in the unvaccinated cohort). We used mixed-effects models to estimate the adjusted difference in change in cycle and menses length between the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts. We included 3,959 individuals (vaccinated 2,403; unvaccinated 1,556). Most of the vaccinated cohort received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (55%) (Moderna 35%, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen 7%). Overall, COVID-19 vaccine was associated with a less than 1-day change in cycle length for both vaccine-dose cycles compared with prevaccine cycles (first dose 0.71 day-increase, 98.75% CI 0.47-0.94; second dose 0.91, 98.75% CI 0.63-1.19); unvaccinated individuals saw no significant change compared with three baseline cycles (cycle four 0.07, 98.75% CI -0.22 to 0.35; cycle five 0.12, 98.75% CI -0.15 to 0.39). In adjusted models, the difference in change in cycle length between the vaccinated and unvaccinated cohorts was less than 1 day for both doses (difference first dose 0.64 days, 98.75% CI 0.27-1.01; second dose 0.79 days, 98.75% CI 0.40-1.18). Change in menses length was not associated with vaccination. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination is associated with a small change in cycle length but not menses length.
Dunsmoor-Su R et al., 2021·Obstetrics and gynecology
The physiology of testosterone as a normal female hormone in reproductive years and beyond is poorly taught and understood. This has led to unregulated and dangerous prescribing practices by physicians and other health care professionals. There are data for safe use, and as women's health care practitioners, we owe it to our patients to follow these guidelines and practices, as well as advocate for more research and safer, regulated products to prescribe.