Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Angiogenic Factors in Diagnosis, Management, and Research in Preeclampsia

2013; Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; Volume: 63; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1161/hypertensionaha.113.02293

1524-4563

Sarosh Rana, S. Ananth Karumanchi, Marshall D. Lindheimer,

Reproductive System and Pregnancy

HomeHypertensionVol. 63, No. 2Angiogenic Factors in Diagnosis, Management, and Research in Preeclampsia Free AccessBrief ReportPDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissions ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toFree AccessBrief ReportPDF/EPUBAngiogenic Factors in Diagnosis, Management, and Research in Preeclampsia Sarosh Rana, S. Ananth Karumanchi and Marshall D. Lindheimer Sarosh RanaSarosh Rana From the Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (S.R., S.A.K.) and Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine (S.A.K.), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, MD (S.A.K.); and Department of Medicine and Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Chicago School of Medicine, IL (M.D.L.). , S. Ananth KarumanchiS. Ananth Karumanchi From the Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (S.R., S.A.K.) and Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine (S.A.K.), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, MD (S.A.K.); and Department of Medicine and Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Chicago School of Medicine, IL (M.D.L.). and Marshall D. LindheimerMarshall D. Lindheimer From the Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology (S.R., S.A.K.) and Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine (S.A.K.), Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, MD (S.A.K.); and Department of Medicine and Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Chicago School of Medicine, IL (M.D.L.). Originally published28 Oct 2013https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.113.02293Hypertension. 2014;63:198–202Other version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: January 1, 2013: Previous Version 1 Observational studies in humans and experimental studies in animals provide strong evidence that abnormalities in circulating angiogenic factors play a pathogenic role in preeclampsia.1 Numerous angiogenic factor abnormalities have been noted in preeclampsia, but the factors studied most extensively are the antiangiogenic protein, soluble fms-like protein kinase 1 (sFlt1), and the proangiogenic protein, placental growth factor (PlGF).2 Placental expression of sFlt1 is strikingly increased in preeclampsia, and this is associated with increased levels of maternal circulating sFlt1 and decreased levels of free bioactive PlGF,3 a finding confirmed by several groups.1 Alterations in these angiogenic factors occur before clinical signs and symptoms and correlate with the severity of the disease and adverse maternal/neonatal outcomes.4–7 In addition, basal sFlt1 levels are higher in women with multiple gestation, trisomy 13, and molar pregnancy conditions associated with higher preeclampsia rates.1 Other synergistic antiangiogenic proteins such as soluble endoglin have also been demonstrated to contribute to preeclampsia.8 It has therefore been hypothesized that excessive production of both antiangiogenic proteins sFlt1 (inhibiting vascular endothelial growth factor and PlGF signaling) and soluble endoglin (inhibiting transforming growth factor-β signaling) may lead to endothelial dysfunction, and the manifestations of human preeclampsia, and that phenotypic preeclampsia is attributable to an antiangiogenic state.9,10During the last decade, several clinical studies were designed to determine potential of angiogenic factors as prediction tests in preeclampsia.5,7,11–16 However, their accuracy fell far short of sensitivities and likelihood ratios required for clinical use,17–19 although prediction was much more reliable for early-onset (<34 weeks) preeclampsia.13,16,20–23 The modest results were interpreted by some as evidence that preeclampsia is a heterogeneous disease with no single pathway to explain its spectrum24 and led to a decreased interest in the importance of these measurements. However, important new roles in diagnoses, and prognosis, plus their potential regarding developing novel treatments, and improving classification schema for more meaningful immediate and remote follow-up investigations have recently emerged.1,6,25 Here, we explore dilemmas that compromise many preeclampsia studies, discuss potentially new exciting uses of these biomarkers to guide clinical care, and postulate that analysis of angiogenic profiles by improving classification will lead to better studies, particularly those designed to clarify the natural history and remote prognosis of the disorder.Problems With Clinical Studies to Predict PreeclampsiaSubstantial resources have been allocated to preeclampsia prediction studies. In most of these studies, however, the diagnostic criteria are imprecise, few using adverse outcomes other than hypertension and proteinuria in their definitions. We have known for decades that many patients diagnosed preeclamptic by clinical criteria alone are misclassified.26 This is particularly relevant when risk factors such as diabetes mellitus, chronic hypertension, and obesity are present.27–29 In a clinical study of women diagnosed with preeclampsia, renal biopsies revealed that diagnosis was incorrect in 15% of the nulliparas and almost half the multiparas, glomerulonephritis being a frequent imposter.26 Such observations are not surprising given that de novo hypertension and proteinuria are nonspecific in delineating disease. Perhaps other end points such as adverse outcomes might better define the disorder, but few studies use this approach. However, incorporating outcomes would not eliminate all errors because certain conditions that mimic preeclampsia may lead to adverse outcomes as well. Another conclusion to consider from the 1981 report26 is the lack of reliability of protocols that study multiparas.Other problems arise when studying high-risk gestations. Chronic hypertensives and the very obese frequently harbor glomerulosclerosis,30,31 the latter also demonstrating glomerulomegaly.31,32 Daily protein excretion slightly increased but still normal in early gestation may become abnormal near term, as proteinuria increases in all gravid women as gestation progresses.33 In such instances, the appearance of frank proteinuria may have nothing to do with any new pathological process but lead to an erroneous diagnosis of superimposed preeclampsia.Of interest, prediction accuracy seems far better for early than late preeclampsia because late disease often presents with mild features. With advancing gestation, production and circulating levels of sFlt1 increase in all pregnant women, including those who remain normotensive.4,15 These factors combined with the above discussed physiological increments in protein excretion make it more difficult to discriminate preeclampsia from controls using angiogenic factor measurements when the disease presents near term. However, beyond gestational week 37, such testing seems unnecessary as then hypertension, whatever the cause, is considered by most as sufficient reason to deliver.34One argument against pursuing biomarker research has been the absence of disease-modifying agents to make such pursuits useful. Critics argue that angiogenic profile use differs from those for biomarkers measured to predict aneuploidy or diabetes mellitus where pregnancy can be terminated or blood glucose controlled. It is therefore imperative that studies to predict preeclampsia focus not only on identifying the disease, but also demonstrate clinical usefulness, that is, what does the obstetrician do if disease is predicted early?Finally, most studies using angiogenic factors were performed with manual ELISA kits, methodology often displaying high interassay coefficient of variation (10%–20%). Automated assays, now available, are much more reliable, (interassay coefficients of variation <5%), report the results rapidly, and produce more robust associations with altered factor levels and preeclampsia.35–37An Improved Approach to Diagnosis and PrognosisAn emerging role for angiogenic factors is risk stratification that permits determination of the potential morbidity of the disease when women present with diagnosed or suspected preeclampsia.6,38–42 This approach resembles evaluation of suspected cardiac disease, in which use of highly sensitive cardiac troponin has revolutionized management of patients presenting with chest pain.43,44 Rather than focusing on diagnostic certainty, we have suggested that angiogenic biomarkers can predict serious imminent adverse outcomes far better than traditional laboratory and clinical criteria. For instance, our published data, although still preliminary, demonstrate that the plasma sFlt1/PlGF ratio on arrival for triage of suspected preeclampsia predicts those destined to have adverse outcomes within 2 weeks, versus those who do not, especially when women present preterm.6 The ratio alone outperformed currently relied on approaches, including blood pressure, proteinuria, uric acid, alanine aminotransferase, platelet count, and creatinine.6 Of further note is a report that measuring angiogenic proteins also permits accurate risk assessment of severe late preeclampsia, importantly identifying imminent stillbirths (the latter, if confirmed, a major breakthrough in prenatal care).45,46 Measurement of angiogenic proteins in the plasma may also serve as noninvasive surrogate of placental dysfunction.15 Circulating angiogenic factors are also useful to differentiate preeclampsia from diseases such as chronic and gestational hypertension, acute and chronic glomerulonephritis, lupus flares, and gestational thrombocytopenia.47–50Our data further suggest that clinical tests, signs, and symptoms currently used for triage lead to significant misclassification and overtesting/treating, substantial resources and costs erroneously allocated to low-risk patients.6 Thus increased specificity, using the sFlt1/PlGF ratio in triage, should by more accurately defining the population at risk, enable appropriate and reduced cost/resource expenditure.51 Most importantly this approach should permit temporization and prevent unnecessary early deliveries.25Quantitative proteinuria and liver function tests used routinely to assess preeclampsia's severity are neither sensitive nor specific in predicting maternal and fetal complications.52–54 Similarly, headache and epigastric pain lack specificity.55 Recently, a complex model (PIERS [Preeclampsia Integrated Estimate of RiSk]) that uses clinical signs and laboratory tests to predict adverse outcomes has been advocated. However the model, not robust at presentation, is useful only after 48 hours of admission.56 Thus, it is fair to conclude that, as of 2013, protocols designed to determine risk stratification for suspected or diagnosed preeclampsia are far from ideal.57 Such assessments, too often, are directed by expert opinion–based guidelines that perform rather poorly as predictors of imminent adverse maternal or fetal outcomes.58 Needed are better approaches to predict complications and guide care. Thus, rather than relying on signs, symptoms, and nonspecific tests, biomarkers that are reproducible and quickly obtained, pathogenically linked to the disease, demonstrating high specificity to predict complications, and requiring less expertise to interpret, should have significant clinical usefulness.Accurate risk stratification will help clinicians focus on the appropriate patients whether their disease classification is definitely apparent or not when first evaluated and should also reduce unnecessary interventions on women at low risk for adverse outcomes. In fact, because the latter group did not suffer any adverse outcomes except a few iatrogenic preterm deliveries,25 we anticipate that using angiogenic biomarkers for evaluation of preeclampsia will help avoid unnecessary preterm deliveries. Thus, the compelling and promising data cited this far should be followed by larger prospective studies to confirm whether use of angiogenic factors in clinical decision making can decrease the incidence of preterm delivery and reduce resource utilization without increasing the risk of adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes.Therapeutic Studies Targeting the Angiogenic PathwayStudies of angiogenic pathways are helping devise specific therapies for preeclampsia. In a pilot study limited to 3 severe early preeclamptics (24–32 weeks of gestation), Thadhani et al59 depleted sFlt1 30% by apheresis and prolonged pregnancy by 2 to 4 weeks. If confirmed, this approach could lead to targeted therapy for a specific group of patients, those with an abnormal angiogenic profile. More recently, statin therapy that promotes PlGF expression and angiogenesis was shown to prevent or ameliorate disease in an animal model of preeclampsia.60,61 Pilot human trial to test safety and efficacy of statins in severe preeclampsia is ongoing.62 Relaxin increases production of local vascular endothelial growth factor, its therapeutic potential also being investigated.63 Finally, dietary choline supplementation, shown to reduce placental sFlt1 expression, has been suggested as a strategy to improve placental angiogenesis.64 The future for specific therapies that antagonize sFlt1's action or reduce its production and those that enhance PlGF levels are therefore promising.Are There Multiple Causes of Phenotypic Preeclampsia?Some suggest that searching for a single biomarker to predict or diagnose preeclampsia is fruitless because the disease has multiple causes.24,65,66 If preeclampsia phenotypes were heterogeneous, both angiogenic and nonangiogenic forms24,66,67 should manifest multisystemic involvement and similar adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Whether this is true or not would require large prospective data, but in our studies patients diagnosed with preeclampsia, without angiogenic imbalance, showed no risk for any major preeclampsia-related adverse outcomes other than what seemed to be unnecessary decisions to deliver prematurely.25 This forms the basis of our view that preeclampsia, or at least the form of the disorder that should most concern us, is a single and specific entity whose phenotypes relate to angiogenic imbalance and that measurements of these proteins help identify the severe form of the disease, and its management, and identify the best populations for follow-up research. This does not mean that other hypertensive proteinuric diseases (at times designated suspected preeclampsia) should not be watched carefully, but that angiogenic factor measurements will by identifying what we consider "true preeclampsia" not only will help caregivers in management decisions but also improve classification, the latter improving research on causality, prediction, and epidemiological surveys of both immediate and remote outcomes.Our view of preeclampsia's specificity, its phenotypes explained by angiogenic imbalance, and the magnitude of which influences the severity of adverse outcomes brings to mind the validity of older morphological studies in which a single pathological entity of preeclampsia seemed apparent. Sheehan and Lynch68 in a 1973 monograph discuss 677 autopsies of pregnant women, often performed within 3 hours after death, thus avoiding the confusion of postmortem changes. The text focuses on a detailed reanalysis of material from 377 cases, 159 of whom had either preeclampsia or eclampsia (Generally, eclampsia assures the clinical diagnosis of preeclampsia was correct, whereas autopsy, of course, confirms the disease's severity!). The authors detail the gross and histological pathology of virtually every organ, the observations most unique to preeclampsia/eclampsia, greatest in liver and kidney (the latter further detailed by electron microscopy in numerous biopsy reports). These were the same lesions that investigators produced in rodents with sFlt1 overproduction several decades later and reversed the glomerular endotheliosis by administering recombinant proangiogenic proteins.3,69We suggest that the triage studies reviewed here6,37–40,42 delineate, with a high degree of success (certainly superior to current approaches), the "true preeclampsia" that is a disease with organ-specific histopathologies that lead to major adverse outcomes, including hepatic and renal disease, and fetal jeopardy, and the other outcomes classically associated with the severest forms of preeclampsia is associated with markedly elevated sFlt1/PlGF ratio in serum/plasma. We further suggest that many of the patients with sFlt1/PlGF ratios below the cutoff were misdiagnosed clinically,26 one reason they could be managed expectantly.In summary, we posit that altered angiogenic factors allow clinicians to discriminate a serious from a more benign form of hypertension and proteinuria in a manner that defines a specific and multisystemic form of preeclampsia with a definitive organ pathology or the true preeclampsia.Concluding ThoughtsThis commentary focused on newer uses of angiogenic factors, most notably for accurately diagnosing and managing preterm preeclampsia. We discussed pitfalls in preeclampsia research that may underlie disputes regarding whether preeclampsia phenotypes have heterogeneous causes, or our view that they represent angiogenic factor imbalance, alone. Thus, we conclude by suggesting that even if multiple factors lead the placenta to produce excess amounts of antiangiogenic factors, these proteins alone account for the disease's major phenotypes and therefore are extremely specific for both diagnosis and prognosis. Also, measuring these factors whose results can be produced rapidly with automated platforms will be important for triage may prevent unnecessary early deliveries in preeclamptic women with normal angiogenic profile. Based on our data, we also suggest that future screening studies should focus on prediction of angiogenic form of preeclampsia rather than disease diagnosis based on nonspecific clinical criteria. Measurement of angiogenic factors may also aid in designing specific preventive, and therapeutic trials, and for adequate short- and long-term follow-up studies.Sources of FundingS. Rana is supported by K08HD068398-01A1 (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development) and 13CRP16130003 (American Heart Association). S.A. Karumanchi is an investigator of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute.DisclosuresS.K. Karumanchi is a coinventor on multiple patents for preeclampsia markers and reports service as a consultant to Roche, Siemens, Beckman Coulter, and has financial interest in Aggamin LLC. The other authors report no conflicts.FootnotesCorrespondence to Sarosh Rana, Division of Maternal Fetal Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, 330 Brookline Ave, Kirstein 382 Boston, MA 02215. E-mail [email protected]References1. Powe CE, Levine RJ, Karumanchi SA. Preeclampsia, a disease of the maternal endothelium: the role of antiangiogenic factors and implications for later cardiovascular disease.Circulation. 2011; 123:2856–2869.LinkGoogle Scholar2. Cerdeira AS, Karumanchi SA. Angiogenic factors in preeclampsia and related disorders.Cold Spring Harb Perspect Med. 2012; 2.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Maynard SE, Min JY, Merchan J, Lim KH, Li J, Mondal S, Libermann TA, Morgan JP, Sellke FW, Stillman IE, Epstein FH, Sukhatme VP, Karumanchi SA. Excess placental soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt1) may contribute to endothelial dysfunction, hypertension, and proteinuria in preeclampsia.J Clin Invest. 2003; 111:649–658.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar4. Levine RJ, Maynard SE, Qian C, Lim KH, England LJ, Yu KF, Schisterman EF, Thadhani R, Sachs BP, Epstein FH, Sibai BM, Sukhatme VP, Karumanchi SA. Circulating angiogenic factors and the risk of preeclampsia.N Engl J Med. 2004; 350:672–683.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Chaiworapongsa T, Romero R, Kim YM, Kim GJ, Kim MR, Espinoza J, Bujold E, Gonçalves L, Gomez R, Edwin S, Mazor M. Plasma soluble vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1 concentration is elevated prior to the clinical diagnosis of pre-eclampsia.J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2005; 17:3–18.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar6. Rana S, Powe CE, Salahuddin S, Verlohren S, Perschel FH, Levine RJ, Lim KH, Wenger JB, Thadhani R, Karumanchi SA. Angiogenic factors and the risk of adverse outcomes in women with suspected preeclampsia.Circulation. 2012; 125:911–919.LinkGoogle Scholar7. Noori M, Donald AE, Angelakopoulou A, Hingorani AD, Williams DJ. Prospective study of placental angiogenic factors and maternal vascular function before and after preeclampsia and gestational hypertension.Circulation. 2010; 122:478–487.LinkGoogle Scholar8. Venkatesha S, Toporsian M, Lam C, et al. Soluble endoglin contributes to the pathogenesis of preeclampsia.Nat Med. 2006; 12:642–649.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar9. Agarwal I, Karumanchi SA. Preeclampsia and the Anti-Angiogenic State.Pregnancy Hypertens. 2011; 1:17–21.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar10. Romero R, Chaiworapongsa T. Preeclampsia: a link between trophoblast dysregulation and an antiangiogenic state.J Clin Invest. 2013; 123:2775–2777.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar11. Shibata E, Rajakumar A, Powers RW, Larkin RW, Gilmour C, Bodnar LM, Crombleholme WR, Ness RB, Roberts JM, Hubel CA. Soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 is increased in preeclampsia but not in normotensive pregnancies with small-for-gestational-age neonates: relationship to circulating placental growth factor.J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2005; 90:4895–4903.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar12. Rana S, Karumanchi SA, Levine RJ, Venkatesha S, Rauh-Hain JA, Tamez H, Thadhani R. Sequential changes in antiangiogenic factors in early pregnancy and risk of developing preeclampsia.Hypertension. 2007; 50:137–142.LinkGoogle Scholar13. Stepan H, Unversucht A, Wessel N, Faber R. Predictive value of maternal angiogenic factors in second trimester pregnancies with abnormal uterine perfusion.Hypertension. 2007; 49:818–824.LinkGoogle Scholar14. Erez O, Romero R, Espinoza J, Fu W, Todem D, Kusanovic JP, Gotsch F, Edwin S, Nien JK, Chaiworapongsa T, Mittal P, Mazaki-Tovi S, Than NG, Gomez R, Hassan SS. The change in concentrations of angiogenic and anti-angiogenic factors in maternal plasma between the first and second trimesters in risk assessment for the subsequent development of preeclampsia and small-for-gestational age.J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2008; 21:279–287.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar15. Romero R, Nien JK, Espinoza J, Todem D, Fu W, Chung H, Kusanovic JP, Gotsch F, Erez O, Mazaki-Tovi S, Gomez R, Edwin S, Chaiworapongsa T, Levine RJ, Karumanchi SA. A longitudinal study of angiogenic (placental growth factor) and anti-angiogenic (soluble endoglin and soluble vascular endothelial growth factor receptor-1) factors in normal pregnancy and patients destined to develop preeclampsia and deliver a small for gestational age neonate.J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2008; 21:9–23.MedlineGoogle Scholar16. Kusanovic JP, Romero R, Chaiworapongsa T, Erez O, Mittal P, Vaisbuch E, Mazaki-Tovi S, Gotsch F, Edwin SS, Gomez R, Yeo L, Conde-Agudelo A, Hassan SS. A prospective cohort study of the value of maternal plasma concentrations of angiogenic and anti-angiogenic factors in early pregnancy and midtrimester in the identification of patients destined to develop preeclampsia.J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2009; 22:1021–1038.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar17. Powers RW, Jeyabalan A, Clifton RG, Van Dorsten P, Hauth JC, Klebanoff MA, Lindheimer MD, Sibai B, Landon M, Miodovnik M; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Soluble fms-Like tyrosine kinase 1 (sFlt1), endoglin and placental growth factor (PlGF) in preeclampsia among high risk pregnancies.PLoS One. 2010; 5:e13263.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar18. McElrath TF, Lim KH, Pare E, Rich-Edwards J, Pucci D, Troisi R, Parry S. Longitudinal evaluation of predictive value for preeclampsia of circulating angiogenic factors through pregnancy.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2012; 207:407.e1–407.e7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar19. Kleinrouweler CE, Wiegerinck MM, Ris-Stalpers C, Bossuyt PM, van der Post JA, von Dadelszen P, Mol BW, Pajkrt E; EBM CONNECT Collaboration. Accuracy of circulating placental growth factor, vascular endothelial growth factor, soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase 1 and soluble endoglin in the prediction of pre-eclampsia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BJOG. 2012; 119:778–787.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar20. Stepan H, Geipel A, Schwarz F, Krämer T, Wessel N, Faber R. Circulatory soluble endoglin and its predictive value for preeclampsia in second-trimester pregnancies with abnormal uterine perfusion.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2008; 198:175.e1–175.e6.CrossrefGoogle Scholar21. Diab AE, El-Behery MM, Ebrahiem MA, Shehata AE. Angiogenic factors for the prediction of pre-eclampsia in women with abnormal midtrimester uterine artery Doppler velocimetry.Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2008; 102:146–151.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar22. Poon LC, Kametas NA, Maiz N, Akolekar R, Nicolaides KH. First-trimester prediction of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy.Hypertension. 2009; 53:812–818.LinkGoogle Scholar23. Myatt L, Clifton R, Roberts J, Spong C, Wapner R, Thorp J, Mercer B, Peaceman A, Ramin S, Carpenter M, Sciscione A, Tolosa J, Saade G, Sorokin Y, Anderson G; Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network. Can changes in angiogenic biomarkers between the first and second trimesters of pregnancy predict development of pre-eclampsia in a low-risk nulliparous patient population?BJOG. 2013; 120:1183–1191.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar24. Roberts JM, Bell MJ. If we know so much about preeclampsia, why haven't we cured the disease?J Reprod Immunol. 2013; 99:1–9.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar25. Rana S, Schnettler WT, Powe C, Wenger J, Salahuddin S, Cerdeira AS, Verlohren S, Perschel FH, Arany Z, Lim KH, Thadhani R, Karumanchi SA. Clinical characterization and outcomes of preeclampsia with normal angiogenic profile.Hypertens Pregnancy. 2013; 32:189–201.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar26. Fisher KA, Luger A, Spargo BH, Lindheimer MD. Hypertension in pregnancy: clinical-pathological correlations and remote prognosis.Medicine (Baltimore). 1981; 60:267–276.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar27. Germain S, Nelson-Piercy C. Lupus nephritis and renal disease in pregnancy.Lupus. 2006; 15:148–155.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar28. Catalano PM. Management of obesity in pregnancy.Obstet Gynecol. 2007; 109(2 pt 1):419–433.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar29. Powe CE, Thadhani R. Diabetes and the kidney in pregnancy.Semin Nephrol. 2011; 31:59–69.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar30. Marcantoni C, Fogo AB. A perspective on arterionephrosclerosis: from pathology to potential pathogenesis.J Nephrol. 2007; 20:518–524.MedlineGoogle Scholar31. Kambham N, Markowitz GS, Valeri AM, Lin J, D'Agati VD. Obesity-related glomerulopathy: an emerging epidemic.Kidney Int. 2001; 59:1498–1509.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar32. Kasiske BL, Napier J. Glomerular sclerosis in patients with massive obesity.Am J Nephrol. 1985; 5:45–50.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar33. Lindheimer MD, Kanter D. Interpreting abnormal proteinuria in pregnancy: the need for a more pathophysiological approach.Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 115(2 pt 1):365–375.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar34. Koopmans CM, Bijlenga D, Groen H, et al; HYPITAT study group. Induction of labour versus expectant monitoring for gestational hypertension or mild pre-eclampsia after 36 weeks' gestation (HYPITAT): a multicentre, open-label randomised controlled trial.Lancet. 2009; 374:979–988.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar35. Sunderji S, Gaziano E, Wothe D, Rogers LC, Sibai B, Karumanchi SA, Hodges-Savola C. Automated assays for sVEGF R1 and PlGF as an aid in the diagnosis of preterm preeclampsia: a prospective clinical study.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 202:40.e1–40.e7.CrossrefGoogle Scholar36. Verlohren S, Galindo A, Schlembach D, Zeisler H, Herraiz I, Moertl MG, Pape J, Dudenhausen JW, Denk B, Stepan H. An automated method for the determination of the sFlt-1/PIGF ratio in the assessment of preeclampsia.Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2010; 202:161.e1–161.e11.CrossrefGoogle Scholar37. Gullai N, Stenczer B, Molvarec A, Fügedi G, Veresh Z, Nagy B, Rigó J. Evaluation of a rapid and simple placental growth factor test in hypertensive disorders of pregnancy.Hypertens Res. 2013; 36:457–462.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar38. Chaiworapongsa T, Romero R, Savasan ZA, Kusanovic JP, Ogge G, Soto E, Dong Z, Tarca A, Gaurav B, Hassan SS. Maternal plasma concentrations of angiogenic/anti-angiogenic factors are of prognostic value in patients presenting to the obstetrical triage area with the suspicion of preeclampsia.J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2011; 24:1187–1207.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar39. Moore AG, Young H, Keller JM, Ojo LR, Yan J, Simas TA, Maynard SE. Angiogenic biomarkers for prediction of maternal and neonatal complications in suspected preeclampsia.J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2012; 25:2651–2657.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar40. Sibiude J, Guibourdenche J, Dionne MD, Le Ray C, Anselem O, Serreau R, Goffinet F, Tsatsaris V. Placental growth factor for the prediction of adverse outcomes in patients with suspected preeclampsia or intrauterine growth restriction.PLoS One. 2012; 7:e50208.CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar41. Chaiworapongsa T, Romero R, Whitten A, Tarca AL, Bhatti G, Draghici S, Chaemsaithong P, Miranda J, Hassan SS. Differences and similarities in the transcriptional profile of peripheral whole blood in early and late-onset preeclampsia: insights into the molecul