Repeat Placental Growth Factor-Based Testing in Women with Suspected Preterm Pre-Eclampsia (PARROT-2): a Multicentre, Parallel-Group, Superiority, Randomised Controlled Trial.

Background Placental growth factor (PlGF)-based testing has high diagnostic accuracy for predicting pre-eclampsia needing delivery, significantly reducing time to diagnosis and severe maternal adverse outcomes. The clinical benefit of repeat PlGF-based testing is unclear. We aimed to determine whether repeat PlGF-based testing (using a clinical management algorithm and nationally recommended thresholds) reduces adverse perinatal outcomes in pregnant individuals with suspected preterm pre-eclampsia. Methods In this multicentre, parallel -group, superiority, randomised controlled trial, done in 22 maternity units across England, Scotland, and Wales, we recruited women aged 18 years or older with suspected pre-eclampsia between 22 weeks and 0 days of gestation and 35 weeks and 6 days of gestation. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to revealed repeat PlGF-based testing or concealed repeat testing with usual care. The intervention was not masked to women or partners, or clinicians or data collectors, due to the nature of the trial. The trial statistician was masked to intervention allocation. The primary outcome was a perinatal composite of stillbirth, early neonatal death, or neonatal unit admission. The primary analysis was by the intention -to -treat principle, with a per -protocol analysis restricted to women managed according to their allocation group. The trial was prospectively registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN 85912420. Findings Between Dec 17, 2019, and Sept 30, 2022, 1253 pregnant women were recruited and randomly assigned treatment; one patient was excluded due to randomisation error. 625 women were allocated to revealed repeat PlGFbased testing and 627 women were allocated to usual care with concealed repeat PlGF-based testing (mean age 32 center dot 3 [SD 5 center dot 7] years; 879 [70%] white). One woman in the concealed repeat PlGF-based testing group was lost to follow-up. There was no significant difference in the primary perinatal composite outcome between the revealed repeat PlGFbased testing group (195 [31 center dot 2%]) of 625 women) compared with the concealed repeat PlGF-based testing group (174 [27 center dot 8%] of 626 women; relative risk 1 center dot 21 [95% CI 0 center dot 95-1 center dot 33]; p=0 center dot 18). The results from the per -protocol analysis were similar. There were four serious adverse events in the revealed repeat PlGF-based testing group and six in the concealed repeat PlGF-based testing group; all serious adverse events were deemed unrelated to the intervention by the site principal investigators and chief investigator. Interpretation Repeat PlGF-based testing in pregnant women with suspected pre-eclampsia was not associated with improved perinatal outcomes. In a high -income setting with a low prevalence of adverse outcomes, universal, routine repeat PlGF-based testing of all individuals with suspected pre-eclampsia is not recommended.