ReviewIf we know so much about preeclampsia, why haven’t we cured the disease?
Introduction
The adverse pregnancy condition, preeclampsia, has been recognized as a significant contributor to maternal and fetal mortality and morbidity for over 100 years. In the late 19th century it was recognized that eclampsia, which had been considered a convulsive disorder of pregnancy for almost a thousand years, was preceded by increased maternal blood pressure and proteinuria, hence preeclampsia. Not long after these observations, it was evident that even without seizures, preeclampsia indicated a potentially fatal disease for mothers and babies (Chesley, 1978).
Early research in preeclampsia was heavily influenced by the original, serendipitous observations of increased blood pressure and proteinuria. Most research was directed at attempts to understand solely the high blood pressure and renal dysfunction. Not surprisingly, little progress was made in understanding the syndrome. In the last 20 years, the recognition that preeclampsia is a multisystemic syndrome that is associated with increased inflammatory activation (Redman et al., 1999), endothelial dysfunction (Roberts et al., 1989), an abnormal balance of angiogenic and antiangiogenic factors (Maynard and Karumanchi, 2011), and profound metabolic changes (Hubel, 2006), has redirected preeclampsia research. As a result, our understanding of the pathophysiology of this disorder has increased strikingly. Furthermore, there has been a substantial increase in the understanding of the process of trophoblast invasion, long recognized as a key feature of preeclampsia (Kaufmann et al., 2003).
Ordinarily, as understanding of the pathophysiology of a disease increases, the ability to predict, prevent, and treat the disease will increase accordingly. This has not been the case with preeclampsia. The inability to treat preeclampsia is not too puzzling since the pathological changes present in women with overt preeclampsia strongly indicate that once clinically evident, the process is not reversible. However, despite an apparently in-depth understanding of the pathophysiology of preeclampsia, we have not been able to reliably predict or prevent the disease. This stimulates the title of this manuscript, a statement made by noted preeclampsia investigator, Joey Granger. “If we know so much about preeclampsia, why haven’t we cured the disease?”
In this manuscript we will review the current concepts of the pathophysiology of preeclampsia, explore what is “wrong” with these concepts, and attempt to assess how we should move forward in our study of this enigmatic condition.
Section snippets
Current concepts of the pathophysiology of preeclampsia
A useful model for understanding the pathophysiology of preeclampsia has been to consider the disorder with a two-stage model (Gammill and Roberts, 2007, Sargent et al., 2006). In the two-stage model (Fig. 1) Stage 1 is inadequate placental perfusion and Stage 2 is the maternal syndrome resulting from inadequate placental perfusion. A crucial question in preeclampsia research is, what links the two stages?
The translation of these current concepts to clinical care
With the wealth of information that has been accumulated in women prior to clinically evident preeclampsia, and the use of these data to support hypotheses relevant to the pathophysiology, it would seem that we are poised for great advances in the management of the disorder. As stated previously, it does not seem likely that treatment at the time of the disease would be more than palliative because of what appear to be irreversible pathological changes. Thus, most efforts have been directed at
Why does prevention not prevent and prediction not predict?
When large studies do not demonstrate efficacy for a therapy, while small studies do, the most obvious explanation is publication bias. That is, small studies that are effective are published, while small studies in which intervention was not successful are not, and may not even be submitted for publication. It is also possible that the failure to identify predictors or preventive agents is because we have not chosen the right link between Stage 1 and Stage 2 or that treatment was too early, or
Subtypes of preeclampsia?
We have alluded to some obvious potential subtypes that warrant studies searching for different pathophysiological bases. Are early and late preeclampsia or preeclampsia with or without fetal growth restriction all one disease? Preeclampsia also seems to primarily affect different target organs in different women. This may be due to varying maternal sensitivity, but it is nonetheless worth exploring similarities and differences in women with preeclampsia primarily affecting the liver, the
References (57)
- et al.
Uterine artery Doppler flow and uteroplacental vascular pathology in normal pregnancies and pregnancies complicated by pre-eclampsia and small for gestational age fetuses
Placenta
(2001) - et al.
Antiplatelet agents for prevention of pre-eclampsia: a meta-analysis of individual patient data
Lancet
(2007) - et al.
Inflammation and pre-eclampsia
Semin. Fetal Neonatal Med.
(2006) - et al.
The “Great Obstetrical Syndromes” are associated with disorders of deep placentation
Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.
(2011) - et al.
Rheological and physiological consequences of conversion of the maternal spiral arteries for uteroplacental blood flow during human pregnancy
Placenta
(2009) - et al.
Effect of antioxidants on the occurrence of pre-eclampsia in women at increased risk: a randomised trial
Lancet
(1999) - et al.
Fetal growth retardation in infants of multiparous and nulliparous women with preeclampsia
Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.
(1993) - et al.
Excess syncytiotrophoblast microparticle shedding is a feature of early-onset pre-eclampsia, but not normotensive intrauterine growth restriction
Placenta
(2006) - et al.
Fasting serum triglycerides, free fatty acids, and malondialdehyde are increased in preeclampsia, are positively correlated, and decrease within 48 hours post partum
Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.
(1996) - et al.
The preeclampsia biomarkers soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 and placental growth factor: current knowledge, clinical implications and future application
Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol.
(2010)
Angiogenic factors and preeclampsia
Semin. Nephrol.
Animal models of preeclampsia; uses and limitations
Placenta
Vitamin C and vitamin E in pregnant women at risk for pre-eclampsia (VIP trial): randomised placebo-controlled trial
Lancet
Maternal serum soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 concentrations are not increased in early pregnancy and decrease more slowly postpartum in women who develop preeclampsia
Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.
Preeclampsia: an excessive maternal inflammatory response to pregnancy
Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.
Recent insights into the pathogenesis of pre-eclampsia
Placenta
Pre-eclampsia: more than pregnancy-induced hypertension
Lancet
Preeclampsia: an endothelial cell disorder
Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.
Revisiting the epidemiological standard of preeclampsia: primigravidity or primipaternity?
Eur. J. Obstet. Gynecol. Reprod. Biol.
Immunoregulation in normal pregnancy and pre-eclampsia: an overview
Reprod. Biomed. Online
Renin-angiotensin system in normal and toxemic pregnancies: III. Differential sensitivity to angiotensin II and norepinephrine in toxemia of pregnancy
Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.
Renin-angiotensin system in normal and toxemic pregnancies. I. Angiotensin infusion test
Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.
Changes in uterine blood flow during human pregnancy
Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.
World Health Organization randomized trial of calcium supplementation among low calcium intake pregnant women
Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol.
Epidemiologic observations on the relationship between calcium intake and eclampsia
Int. J. Gynaecol. Obstet.
Pre-eclampsia and risk of cardiovascular disease and cancer in later life: systematic review and meta-analysis
BMJ
HLA Class I protein expression in the human placenta
Early Pregnancy [Electron. Resour.]
Effect of calcium supplementation on pregnancy-induced hypertension and preeclampsia: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
JAMA
Cited by (160)
Preeclampsia epidemiology(ies) and pathophysiology(ies)
2024, Best Practice and Research: Clinical Obstetrics and GynaecologyHypertensive Disorders in Pregnancy: Global Burden From 1990 to 2019, Current Research Hotspots and Emerging Trends
2023, Current Problems in CardiologyPreterm preeclampsia screening using biomarkers: combining phenotypic classifiers into robust prediction models
2023, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology MFMFirst-trimester preterm preeclampsia prediction with metabolite biomarkers: differential prediction according to maternal body mass index
2023, American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology