Why the study?
Observational data from PREMOM I showed potential benefits of remote monitoring for prenatal observation of women at risk for GHD, prompting a randomized follow-up study.
Does remote monitoring or self-monitoring of blood pressure improve clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization in pregnant women at increased risk of gestational hypertensive disorders compared to conventional care?
Does remote monitoring or self-monitoring of blood pressure improve clinical outcomes and healthcare utilization in pregnant women at increased risk of gestational hypertensive disorders compared to conventional care?
The PREMOM II trial is designed to evaluate whether remote monitoring or self-monitoring of blood pressure improves outcomes and healthcare utilization in pregnant women at risk for gestational hypertensive disorders.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Trial protocol published for remote BP monitoring in high-risk pregnancies; RCT will extend evidence on telehealth versus conventional care.
BACKGROUND: Observational data from the retrospective, non-randomized Pregnancy REmote MOnitoring I (PREMOM I) study showed that remote monitoring (RM) may be beneficial for prenatal observation of women at risk for gestational hypertensive disorders (GHD) in terms of clinical outcomes, health economics, and stakeholder perceptions. PREMOM II is a prospective, randomized, multicenter follow-up study that was performed to explore these promising results. METHODS: After providing written consent, 3922 pregnant women aged ≥18 years who are at increased risk of developing GHD will be randomized (1:1:1 ratio) to (a) conventional care (control group), (b) a patient self-monitoring group, and (c) a midwife-assisted RM group. The women in each group will be further divided (1:1 ratio) to evaluate the outcomes of targeted or non-targeted (conventional) antihypertensive medication. Women will be recruited in five hospitals in Flanders, Belgium: Ziekenhuis Oost-Limburg, Universitaire Ziekenhuis Antwerpen, Universitaire Ziekenhuis Leuven, AZ Sint Jan Brugge-Oostende, and AZ Sint Lucas Brugge. The primary outcomes are: (1) numbers and types of prenatal visits; (2) maternal outcomes; (3) neonatal outcomes; (4) the applicability and performance of RM; and (5) compliance with RM and self-monitoring. The secondary outcomes are: (1) cost-effectiveness and willingness to pay; (2) patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS) questionnaires on the experiences of the participants; and (3) the maternal and perinatal outcomes according to the type of antihypertensive medication. Demographic, and maternal and neonatal outcomes are collected from the patients' electronic records. Blood pressure and compliance rate will be obtained from an online digital coordination platform for remote data handling. Information about the healthcare-related costs will be obtained from the National Coordination Committee of Belgian Health Insurance Companies (Intermutualistisch Agentschap). PROMS will be assessed using validated questionnaires. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first randomized trial comparing midwife-assisted RM and self-monitoring of prenatal blood pressure versus conventional management among women at increased risk of GHD. Positive results of this study may lead to a practical framework for caregivers, hospital management, and payers to introduce RM into the prenatal care programs of high-risk pregnancies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov , identification number NCT04031430. Registered 24 July 2019, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04031430?cond=premom+ii&draw=2&rank=1 .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lanssens et al. (2020) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: