Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2020 Jun 5;15(6):e0233323. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233323

Clinical presentation and outcomes of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia at a national hospital, Kenya: A retrospective cohort study

Charity Ndwiga 1,*, George Odwe 1, Sripad Pooja 2, Omondi Ogutu 3, Alfred Osoti 3, Charlotte E Warren 2
Editor: Frank T Spradley4
PMCID: PMC7274433  PMID: 32502144

Abstract

Background

Hypertensive disorders in pregnancy including pre-eclampsia are associated with maternal and newborn mortality and morbidity. Early detection is vital for effective treatment and management of pre-eclampsia. This study examines and compares the clinical presentation and outcomes between early- and late-onset pre-eclampsia over a two year period.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study design which examines socio-demographic characteristics, treatment, outcomes, and fetal and maternal complications among women with early onset of pre-eclampsia (EO-PE) and late onset of pre-eclampsia (LO-PE). De-identified records of women who attended antenatal, intrapartum and postnatal care services and experienced pre-eclampsia at Kenyatta National teaching and referral hospital were reviewed. We used chi square, t-test, and calculated odds ratio to determine any significant differences between the EO-PE and LO-PE cohorts.

Results

Out of 620 pre-eclamptic and eclamptic patients’ records analyzed; 44 percent (n = 273) exhibited EO-PE, while 56 percent had late onset. Women with EO-PE compared to LO-PE had greater odds of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes including hemolysis elevated liver enzymes and low platelets (HELLP) syndrome (OR: 4.3; CI 2.0–10.2; p<0.001), renal dysfunction (OR; 1.7; CI 0.7–4.1; p = 0.192), stillbirth (OR = 4.9; CI 3.1–8.1; p<0.001), and neonatal death (OR: 8.5; CI 3.8–21.3; p<0.001). EO-PE was also associated with higher odds of prolonged maternal hospitalization, beyond seven days (OR = 5.8; CI 3.9–8.4; p<0.001), and antepartum hemorrhage (OR = 5.8; CI 1.1–56.4; p<0.001). Neonates born after early onset of pre-eclampsia had increased odds of respiratory distress (OR = 17.0; CI 9.0–32.3, p<0.001) and birth asphyxia (OR: 1.9; CI 0.7–4.8; p = 0.142).

Conclusions

The profiles and outcomes of women with EO-PE (compared to late onset) suggest that seriousness of morbidity increases with earlier onset. To reduce adverse neonatal and maternal outcomes, it is critical to identify, manage, referral and closely follow-up pregnant women with pre-eclampsia throughout the pregnancy continuum.

Ethical approval

This study protocol was approved by Population Council’s research ethics Institutional Review Board, Protocol 813, and KNH-UoN Ethics and Research Committee, Protocol 293/06/2017.

Background

Globally, about five to ten percent of women experience hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (HDPs) [1], making it the second leading cause of maternal mortality and morbidity. HDPs include pre-eclampsia and eclampsia, gestational hypertension, and chronic hypertension. Pre-eclampsia, that is—hypertension with proteinuria after 20 weeks’ pregnancy gestation, complicates about five percent of pregnancies [2]. Majority of the estimated 70,000 to 80,000 annual maternal, and 500,000 annual perinatal pre-eclampsia-related deaths occur in low and middle-income countries (LMICs) [3,4]. In Kenya, the 2014 confidential inquiry into maternal death revealed HDP as the third leading cause of maternal mortality, accounting for 20 percent of maternal deaths [5]. The prevalence of pre-eclampsia in Kenya is estimated to range between 5.6 to 6.5 percent [6,7], though proportions are likely higher in rural areas. While HDPs including PE are recognized as a leading cause of maternal and newborn mortality and morbidity, there is an increasing emphasis on early detection and management. Uncertainty around the differences between women who develop PE before and after 34 weeks gestation remains underexplored in low- and middle-income settings.

Pre-eclampsia and eclampsia have a devastating effect on pregnant women, their fetuses, and newborns. Women with pre-eclampsia suffer severe morbidity and mortality due to placental abruption, pulmonary edema, acute renal failure, and other organ damage [8,9]. Moreover, newborns of women with pre-eclampsia have approximately twice the risk of neonatal death, and increased risks of low Apgar scores, seizures, neonatal encephalopathy, and neonatal intensive care admission [10,11]. Women with pre-eclampsia who deliver before 37 weeks of pregnancy are also likely to have babies with low birth weight [12,13]. Recent studies in sub-Saharan Africa identified risk factors for pre-eclampsia including: primiparity and multiple parity (more than 4), low plasma vitamin C, low levels of vitamin D, chronic hypertension, family history of hypertension, as well as low levels of education [14,15].

Early detection and management of pre-eclampsia is essential, but few studies have examined prevalence or incidence of early versus late onset of pre-eclampsia in LMICs, including Kenya. Late detection and poor management of pre-eclampsia in primary healthcare facilities negatively affect newborn and maternal health outcomes. Understanding the pre-eclampsia burden is necessary for improving care for women experiencing both early and late onset pre-eclampsia and eclampsia. We therefore examined Kenya’s pre-eclampsia and eclampsia clinical spectrum, including presentation at admission, management of complications, and maternal and newborn health outcomes at the maternity unit of a national referral hospital. The purpose of this study is to describe the profile of women with pre-eclampsia and eclampsia and examine the differences in maternal and perinatal characteristics and health outcomes between early onset pre-eclampsia (EO-PE: less than 34 weeks gestation) and late onset pre-eclampsia, (LO-PE: greater than or equal to 34 weeks gestation)—for women who received antenatal; care (ANC), intrapartum care, or postnatal care (PNC) at Kenyatta National Hospital (KNH).

Analytic framework

EO-PE is associated with higher morbidities and more severe maternal and neonatal/fetal outcomes than LO-PE [16,17]. To reduce poor maternal and perinatal outcomes, including prematurity, prompt and effective care, early delivery for women with early onset disease is paramount [18,19]. We used an analytic framework, based on existing evidence and clinical practice, (Fig 1) to guide the retrospective review of in-patient records of women who experienced both EO-PE and LO- PE in a Kenyan context.

Fig 1. Analytic framework.

Fig 1

Methods

Study design

This study adopts a retrospective cohort design that examined socio-demographic characteristics, treatment, outcomes, and fetal and maternal complications among women with EO-PE and LO-PE. It draws on a review of de-identified records of women who attended ANC, intrapartum care, and PNC services and experienced pre-eclampsia, over a two-year period (September 2015 to October 2017).

Study site

This study was conducted at KNH, the largest teaching and referral hospital in Kenya and East Africa with a capacity of 1,800 beds. KNH also serves as a primary hospital for Nairobi County residents in addition to referred patients from different parts of Kenya. The labor ward operates 24 hours a day and conducts about 1,255 deliveries per month while ANC clinic services about 2,164 clients per month. Pregnant and postnatal women with complications, including medical or surgical complications, receive multidisciplinary care either within the maternity unit or in other units. The maternity unit’s newborn care unit (NBU) has 60 beds/incubators, and the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) has five incubators/respirators. About 100 babies are admitted per day to KNH’s NBU and stay for an average of 14 days.

Study population

This study population comprises women who received ANC, intrapartum care, or PNC (up to 12 weeks following birth) at KNH or those who were referred to KNH preceding, during or following delivery, and suffered from pre-eclampsia and eclampsia after 20 weeks’ gestation. Eligibility criteria included PE/E diagnosis with high blood pressure, proteinuria, or evidence of end organ damage. Women who had hypertension but not pre-eclampsia were excluded from the study.

Sample size and sampling

A two-proportion sample size calculation, to detect 30 percent difference with 95 percent confidence and 80 percent power [20], accounting for missing cases, resulted in a sample of 620 women’s records for review. The calculation was based on the main outcome: the incidence of adverse events after EO-PE and LO-PE among pregnant or postnatal women presenting for care at KNH for the indexed pregnancy. Prior studies in Kenya revealed EO-PE and LO-PE incidence rates of 0.38 percent and 2.7 percent [6,7], respectively; considering our high risk setting in a referral institution, we used incidence estimates of 0.4 percent EO-PE and four percent LO-PE to estimate our sample.

We obtained a list of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia cases in ANC, delivery and PNC units. Of 1,529 eligible in-patient records identified, 191 (12.5%) women experienced eclampsia and the remainder experienced pre-eclampsia. All eclampsia cases were included since the number was small. We then randomly sampled the inpatient records describing pre-eclampsia, stratified by month and year of observation resulting to 909 (59.5%). After exclusion of a total of 480 (43.6%) case files (due to missing or incomplete data), we achieved a sample of 620 PE/E case files for analysis. Fig 2 shows the study’s sampling method and record review procedure for the study period.

Fig 2. Flow diagram of patient’s records sample selection.

Fig 2

Data extraction and analysis

Data were extracted from de-identified maternity inpatient records focusing on the time of diagnosis of PE/E and the time of any treatment or intervention that enabled measurement of clinical management and care. Extractions assessed eligibility (EO-PE or LO-PE) by consensus review of the in-patient records and included: medical records, clinician notes or antenatal cards for any exposure in the month preceding delivery, gestational age by date, and ultrasound results. Data on maternal outcomes included eclampsia, cerebral vascular accident, other organ damage, dialysis, prolonged hospitalization admission including high dependency or intensive care unit, and mortality. Perinatal outcomes included low birth weight, prematurity, respiratory distress syndrome, jaundice, admission to NCU and/or NICU, and mortality. Pre-term births include all live births prior to 37 weeks’ gestation. Extremely pre-term babies occur prior to 28 weeks, very pre-term between 28 and 32 weeks, and moderate to late pre-term between 32 and 37 weeks [18,19].

Descriptive statistics (frequency and percentage) and measures of central tendency (mean, standard deviations, median) are reported. We used chi square, t-test, and calculated odds ratios to determine any significant differences between the EO-PE and LO-PE cohorts. Descriptive statistics and bivariate analysis compared between EO-PE and LO-PE for maternal outcomes and neonatal outcomes respectively using Stata® 15.

Results

Background characteristics

A total of 620 records were reviewed. Forty-four (44%) of the records (n = 273; 45 had eclampsia) exhibited EO-PE, while 56 percent (n = 347; 74 had eclampsia) had LO-PE. Among women presenting with EO-PE, 124 (45.4%) were less than 30 weeks pregnant, and 149 (54.6%) were between 30 to 33 weeks. For women presenting with LO-PE, 39 percent were of 34 to 36 weeks’ gestation, while 61 percent were more than 36 weeks. There were no statistically significant differences in the socio-demographic characteristics (parity, marital status, education, work status, and place of residence) between the EO-PE and LO-PE groups. A total of 126 (20.3%) women with pre-eclampsia and eclampsia resided in other counties while the rest lived in Nairobi county (Table 1).

Table 1. Background characteristics of study participants.

Characteristics Early Onset (PE) (N = 273) Late Onset (PE) (N = 347) Total (N = 620) P-value
Age (years)
Mean [SD] 29.0 [6.1] 28.0 [6.4] 28.0 [6.3] 0.008
n % n % n %
Parity
0 30 11.0 42 12.1 72 11.6 0.060
1 88 32.2 143 41.2 231 37.3
2 78 28.6 73 21.0 151 24.4
3+ 77 28.2 89 25.6 166 26.8
Gravidity
1 72 26.4 150 43.2 222 35.8 <0.001
2 80 29.3 83 23.9 163 26.3
3 66 24.2 59 17.0 125 20.2
4+ 55 20.1 55 15.9 110 17.7
Formal Education
< = Primary^ 82 30.0 110 31.7 192 31.0 0.700
Secondary 112 41.0 133 38.3 245 39.5
Tertiary 79 28.9 104 30.0 183 29.5
Employment
Employed 134 49.1 161 46.4 295 47.6 0.500
Unemployed 139 50.9 186 53.6 325 52.4
Marital Status
Married 220 80.6 291 83.9 511 82.4 0.300
Single 53 19.4 56 16.1 109 17.6
Place of Residence
Nairobi County 205 75.1 289 83.3 494 79.7 0.010
Others 68 24.9 58 16.7 126 20.3
Gestational age at onset, weeks
273 SD 347 SD 620 SD <0.001
Mean (SD) 29.2 3.2 37.3 2.1 33.7 4.8

Significant results (P<0.05) in bold color

* (n/N*100)

^None and primary education

† Includes Business, self-employed

‡ includes housewife

**includes spontaneous vaginal delivery, assisted delivery and breech delivery

Obstetric risk factors

Women with EO-PE were more likely to have chronic hypertension or family history of hypertension compared to those with LO-PE (Fig 3). Prior experience of PE was also a major risk factor (1 in 10) for both EO-PE and LO-PE. Overall, only a few women had gestational diabetes mellitus, pre-gestational diabetes mellitus and prior eclampsia (< 2%).

Fig 3. Proportion of women experiencing obstetric risk factors by onset of pre-eclampsia at KNH, September 2015 to October 2017.

Fig 3

Pre-eclampsia characteristics

Women with EO-PE were more likely to experience pre-eclampsia with severe complications than women with LO-PE. Eclampsia incidence was not statistically significantly associated with the onset of pre-eclampsia. However, women with EO-PE were more likely to experience severe pre-eclampsia and show highest systolic blood pressure (sBP), that is, sBP greater than 180 mmHg, than women with LO-PE. On the other hand, women with LO-PE were more likely than those with EO-PE to experience non-severe pre-eclampsia, have highest SGOT (>70) and highest Creatine (>100) and show lowest Platelets (<100000), higher diastolic blood pressure (dBP), and lower creatinine. Results show no significant differences among women with low hemoglobin (i.e. hemoglobin level <10) between EO-PE and LO-PE (Table 2)

Table 2. Proportion of women by severity of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia and blood results by onset of disease.

Severity of disease and blood results EO-PE (n = 273) LO-PE (n = 347) OR [95% CI] p-value
n (%) n (%)
    Pre-Eclampsia 11 (4.2) 63 (18.1) 0.2(0.1–0.4) <0.001
    Severe Pre-Eclampsia 217 (79.3) 210 (60.5) 2.5(1.7–3.7) <0.001
    Eclampsia 45 (16.5) 74 (21.5) 0.7(0.5–1.1) 0.160
    Highest sBP >180 mmHG 128 (46.7) 113 (32.6) 1.9(1.3–2.6) <0.001
    Lowest dBP <90 mmHG 67 (24.5) 145 (44.4) 0.4(0.3–0.6) <0.001
    Highest SGOT (>70) 77 (28.2) 130 (37.5) 0.7(0.5–0.9) 0.020
    Highest Creatine (>100) 160 (58.6) 274 (79.9) 0.4(0.3–0.5) <0.001
    Lowest Hemoglobin levels (<10) 18 (6.7) 30 (9.5) 0.7(0.4–1.4) 0.340
    Lowest Platelets (<100000) 68 (24.9) 110 (31.7) 0.7(0.5–1.0) 0.060

SGOT—serum glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase; OR—Odds Ratios; CI—Confidence Interval

Pregnancy and fetal outcomes

As expected, mean gestational age at delivery was lower for women with EO-PE than women with LO-PE. Live births and cesarean sections were more frequent among women with LO-PE than those with EO-PE. Poor fetal outcomes were more frequent among women with EO-PE including deaths, stillbirths, low birth weight and admission to the NBU (Table 3)

Table 3. Pregnancy and fetal outcomes among women presenting with EO-PE and LO-PE.

Foetal and maternal outcomes EO-PE (n = 242) LO-PE (n = 341) OR [95% CI] p-value
Mean gestational age at delivery in weeks (SD) 30.5 (3.6) 37.4 (2.1) <0.001
Mode of delivery *
Spontaneous vaginal delivery 94(38.8) 86(25.2) 1.6(1.1–2.3) 0.009
Assisted vaginal delivery 2(0.8) 0(0.0) N/A N/A
Caesarean section 145(59.9) 254(74.5) 0.4(0.3–0.6) <0.001
Breech delivery 1(0.4) 1(0.3) N/A N/A
Pregnancy outcomes
Birthweight (<2.5kg) 224(92.6) 115(33.7) 2.6(1.3–5.3) 0.003
Neonatal deaths 41(16.9) 8(2.3) 8.5(3.8–21.3) 0.002
Stillbirth 82(33.9) 32(9.4) 4.9(3.1–8.0) <0.001
Live birth 151(62.4) 310(90.6) 0.2(0.1–0.3) <0.001
NBU admissions 133(55.0) 83(24.3) 3.8(2.6–5.5) <0.001
NICU admissions 2(0.2) 2(0.6) N/A N/A

*37 women (31 EO-PE AND 6 LO-PE) were discharged from ANC; N/A-results not available due to few cases

Neonatal and maternal complications

Neonates born to women with EO-PE were more likely than those born to women with LO-PE to experience the following complications: neonatal jaundice, necrotizing enterocolitis, neonatal convulsions, birth asphyxia, and respiratory distress syndrome, and requiring breathing support through continuous positive airway pressure (Table 3). In terms of maternal complications, women with EO-PE were more likely to experience antepartum hemorrhage, and HELLP syndrome (hemolysis, elevated liver enzymes, and low platelet count) and stayed in hospital longer due to complications compared to women with LO-PE. The proportion of women with pre-eclampsia who experienced any complication was statistically significantly higher among EO-PE group than LO-PE group. Six women died (1 with EO-PE, and 5 with LO-PE; all six were admitted to KNH in an eclamptic state, Table 4).

Table 4. Neonatal and maternal complications.

Complications EO-PE (n = 96) LO-PE (n-289) OR (95% CI)
n (%) n (%)
Proportion of neonates with complications* 96(39.8) 56(16.4) 2.4(1.6–3.5)
Neonatal complications
Respiratory distress syndrome (RDS)* 56(58.3) 22(7.6) 16.9(9.0–32.2)
Neonatal jaundice 22(22.9) 15(5.2) 5.4(2.5–11.8)
Asphyxia 9(9.4) 15(5.2) 1.9(0.7–4.8)
Neonatal convulsion 3(3.1) 4(1.4) N/A
Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) 6(6.3) 0(0.0) N/A
Maternal complications (n = 232) (n = 341)
Antepartum Hemorrhage- 8 (3.3) 2 (0.6) 5.8(1.1–56.8)
HELLP* 29 (13.0) 10 (3.0) 4.3(2.0–10.1)
Postpartum Hemorrhage 9 (3.7) 15 (4.4) 0.8(0.3–2.1)
Renal Failure 14 (5.8) 12 (3.5) 1.7(0.7–4.1)
Cerebral Vascular Accident /Stroke 4 (1.7) 3 (0.9) N/A
Retinal Detachment/Blindness 0 (0.0) 0 (0.0) N/A
Disseminated Intravascular Coagulation (DIC) 0 (0.0) 2 (0.6) N/A
Pulmonary Oedema 0 (0.0) 1 (0.3) N/A
Deep Vein Thrombosis 0 (0.0) 2 (0.6) N/A
Dialysis required 8 (3.0) 6 (2.0) 1.9(0.6–6.6)
Transfusion required 24 (9.9) 23 (6.7) 1.5(0.8–2.9)
Death 1 (0.4) 5 (2.0) N/A
Proportion of women with PE who experienced any complication* 164(60.1) 104(29.9) 3.5(2.5–5.0)
Length of stay
Intensive Care Unit/ High Dependency Unit admission 8 (3.0) 10 (3.0) 1.13(0.4–3.2)
Prolonged Hospital Stay > 1 week* 155 (67.0) 81 (24.0) 5.7(3.9–8.4)

* p <0.001

† p<0.01; N/A–not available due to fewer/no cases; OR—Odds Ratios; CI—Confidence Interval. Analysis excludes 37 women discharged at ANC

Medicines used in the management of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia

Prophylaxis

Few women were prescribed prophylactic aspirin which is recommended from 12 weeks’ gestation for women at high risk of developing pre-eclampsia. Only three percent of women received calcium supplement during pregnancy—which is recommended for women with a low calcium diet, to prevent complications associated with pre-eclampsia.

Treatment of hypertension

Most women with both EO-PE and LO-PE received treatment for hypertension with oral Alpha Methyldopa (Aldomet) and Nifedipine, throughout the pregnancy continuum (ANC, labor and delivery, PNC). Alpha Methyldopa is on the WHO essential medicines list for use in pregnant women. Over 90% of women prescribed and using Nifedipine after delivery had used Methyldopa during pregnancy and labor (results not shown). If Alpha Methyldopa and Nifedipine are unavailable, intravenous Hydralazine is given as second line drug.

Management of pre-eclampsia

Magnesium sulphate (MgSO4) is recommended as the medicine of choice by WHO for preventing and managing seizures in severe pre-eclampsia and eclampsia [21]. More than half of women’s case notes reviewed showed that MgSO4 was prescribed during the antenatal period (EO-PE 60%, LO-PE 51%). However, the continued use of Diazepam and Phenytoin to manage eclamptic seizures also persist (3.2% during pregnancy, 1.4% during labor and 3.9% postnatally). Three of the women who died had received a pre-referral dose of MgSO4. Table 5 shows the use of antihypertensive drugs, MgSO4, and other drugs recorded during pregnancy, labor and delivery, and the postnatal period.

Table 5. Management of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia across pregnancy continuum.
Medicine Pregnancy Labor and Delivery* Postnatal*
EO-PE (n = 273) n (%) LO-PE (n = 347) n (%) EO-PE (n = 242) n (%) LO-PE (n = 341) n (%) EO-PE (n = 242) n (%) LO-PE (n = 341) n (%)
Antihypertensive medicines
Methyldopa (oral) 259(94.9) 289(83.3) 230(95.0) 287(84.2) 230(95.0) 295(86.5)
Nifedipine (oral) 257(94.1) 276(79.5) 227(93.8) 279(81.8) 223(92.2) 293(85.9)
Labetalol (oral) 10(3.7) 6(1.7) 4(1.7) 0.0 4(1.7) 0.0
Hydralazine (IV) 69(25.3) 33(9.5) 34(14.1) 18(5.3) 21(8.7) 15(4.4)
Anticonvulsants
MgSO4 164(60.1) 178(51.3) 99(40.9) 133(39.0) 49(20.3) 89(26.1)
Diazepam 3(1.1) 0.0 0.0 2(0.6) 1(0.4) 2(0.6)
Phenytoin 5(1.8) 1(0.3) 2(0.8) 2(0.6) 5(2.1) 6(1.8)
Lasix (diuretic) 10(3.7) 3(0.9) 6(2.5) 4(1.2) 13(5.4) 4(1.2)
Prophylaxis
Junior Aspirin 15(5.5) 3(0.9) 1(0.4) 0.0 0.0 0.0
Calcium

IV, Intravenous.

*Analysis excludes 37 women discharged at ANC

Discussion

This study contributes to our understanding of early verses late onset pre-eclampsia, including the management and outcomes of these conditions in a LMIC context. In reviewing in-patient records of women at a national referral hospital in Kenya, notable distinctions in the clinical presentation and management between EO-PE and LO-PE elucidates the complexity in trying to reduce adverse maternal and fetal outcomes in a low-resource setting. As demonstrated elsewhere [18,22], timely referral is critical in reducing poor maternal and fetal outcomes and show that if delayed, care is compromised even in a relatively well-resourced tertiary facility with clinical expertise and available equipment.

Obstetric risk factors such as prior experience of pre-eclampsia, eclampsia and chronic hypertension may elevate a woman’s risk for EO-PE. Similar to other studies [2325], Our findings show that while more women who experience LO-PE had gestational diabetes and a family history of hypertension, women with EO-PE had higher rates of chronic hypertension. Severe pre-eclampsia, high sBP (>180), and high creatinine levels were all associated with EO-PE as reported elsewhere [26,27].

A high proportion of pregnancies (more than two thirds) resulted in cesarean section—with significantly more women with LO-PE (75%) than with EO-PE (60%), although there were no significant differences in perinatal outcomes by mode of delivery. Evidence from other studies comparing outcomes for infants born to EO-PE women, through vaginal or c-section delivery, is weak [28] creating challenges for obstetricians when determining the optimal mode of delivery for women with pre-eclampsia or eclampsia [3,29,30]. Babies born to women with EO-PE were more likely to experience respiratory distress syndrome, necrotizing enterocolitis, and neonatal jaundice. This resonates with other studies that shows impaired fetal growth along with higher perinatal mortality and morbidity among women with EO-PE than among non-PE or LO-PE women [23,31]. Previous research similarly shows higher rates of premature births, NICU admission, severe neonatal morbidity and neonatal deaths among newborns of women with EO-PE [3234].

Programming that affects prevention pre-eclampsia and eclampsia

Prevention, early detection and management of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia is critical throughout the continuum of care [21]. Effective preconception care and early and regular ANC provide platforms to screen for pre-existing conditions such high blood pressure and educate soon-to-be-pregnant and pregnant woman on pre-eclampsia risk factors [27,29]. In addition to self-referrals by well-informed women, better diagnostic and surveillance capacities are necessary. ANC also involves specialized follow-up and control of chronic and gestational hypertension, availability and correct administration of drugs, timely delivery with optimum neonatal care, and critical and intensive maternal care [3537]. Adherence to stricter treatment protocols for controlling hypertension in pregnancy and appropriate use of recommended drugs regimens for women exhibiting blood pressure of 150/100, has been shown to reduce pregnancy risks especially in EO-PE [3840].

More women with EO-PE experienced maternal complications such as HELLP syndrome and antepartum hemorrhage than LO-PE women. Sub-optimal management, particularly at earlier stages of pregnancy, can lead to death [41]. Moreover, delays in seeking care from home and late referral from lower level facilities to the tertiary level also contributes to poor maternal outcomes [42]. Around one fifth of women diagnosed with PE/E (20%) were referred to KNH from outside Nairobi County, most from neighboring counties. A study in Tanzania showed a higher risk of maternal mortality among eclamptic women when they presented in a critically ill or moribund state [43]. In other studies, most women received at a referral hospital with eclampsia had not received any ANC or had been poorly managed in lower level facilities, with poor fetal and maternal outcomes [28,30,31,44,45]. These results lend credence to the importance of early referral for women with pre-eclampsia and eclampsia. A health system approach, focused on skilled provider availability, specifically midwives, with training in emergency obstetric and neonatal care, in addition to facility preparedness for measuring blood pressure, effective blood pressure management, and close follow up throughout pregnancy, with timely referrals, can contribute to reductions in maternal (and newborn) deaths [4648].

Contrary to other studies, our study shows similar use of antihypertensives and MgSO4 among the two cohorts (e.g. EO-PE and LO-PE) throughout pregnancy, labor and delivery, and postnatal period. Discontinuity in HDP management often occurs in the postnatal period, highlighting the need to build on studies reporting incidences of postnatal hypertension [17,49]. Satisfactory PNC includes careful clinical evaluation of blood pressure, among other postnatal vital signs, during the hospital stay, with delayed discharge if hypertension continues. In addition to women’s awareness of danger signs, such as headache and dizziness, and continued use of antihypertensives after they return home [21,5052]. Our study shows that over 90% of women that had used Alpha Methyldopa in pregnancy and labor used Nifedipine in the postnatal period. Despite this, 80% of women appeared to continue to be prescribed Alpha Methyldopa in the postnatal period. Alpha Methyldopa increases the likelihood of postnatal depression and other maternal side-effects such as sedation, postural hypotension and postnatal depression and women should therefore switch to another antihypertensive medicine if their blood pressure remains high [5254] Clinical evaluation and diligent use of antihypertensive drugs for pre-eclampsia and eclampsia management throughout the extended continuum of care is important in reducing poor fetal and maternal outcomes.

Limitations

Our findings need to be interpreted with caution. In certain cases, onset of pre-eclampsia may have occurred a few days before hospital referral or admission. The lag between onset of pre-eclampsia and diagnosis during referral or admission may have resulted in misclassifying some EO-PE as LO-PE at 34 weeks–particularly in the last week of EO-PE and the beginning of first week of LO-PE. We were unable to get robust data on the gestation age at ANC booking due to missing data within the in-patient records. Due to a lack of routine record-keeping (e.g. scant information on referral and clinical forms), we were also unable to collect specific data that would have helped assess more of the clinical management aspects of women referred to KNH from elsewhere, particularly prior drug dosages, administration routes, and treatment. This information would have allowed better understanding of which women received a pre-referral loading dose of MgSO4, as well as other treatment or clinical management. It was also difficult to retrieve and match newborn files to those of their mothers due to the siloed filing systems. Because KNH is a national referral hospital for the most complex cases, there is a relatively high proportion of NICU infants, regardless of pre-eclampsia or eclampsia onset. On reflection, it might have been helpful to collect information on the proportions of women with EO-PE and LO-PE who came to KNH with a live baby and those who had a stillbirth before arriving, and to understand variations and effects of pre-eclampsia management across the pregnancy continuum.

Conclusion

Early onset pre-eclampsia is associated with greater disease severity as well as adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes. Moreover, women presenting with eclampsia during the postnatal period are also at risk of poor maternal outcomes. It is critical for women and their families to be more aware of danger signs, but also for lower level facilities to be able to recognize symptoms early and refer in a timely manner. In order to mitigate adverse outcomes, it is critical for providers to recognize the importance of early screening and history-taking, blood pressure measurement, and consistent and effective management according to international and national guidelines.

List of abbreviations and acronyms

ANC

Antenatal Care

dBP

Diastolic Blood pressure

EO-PE

Early Onset Pre-Eclampsia

HDP

Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy

KNH

Kenyatta National Hospital

LMIC

Low- and Middle-Income Country

LO-PE

Late Onset Pre-Eclampsia

MgSO4

Magnesium Sulphate

NCU

Newborn Care Unit

NICU

Neonatal Intensive Care Unit

Ob/Gyn

Obstetricians and Gynecologists

OR

Odds Ratio

PNC

Postnatal Care

sBP

Dystolic Blood pressure

WHO

World Health Organization

Data Availability

There are institutional legal restrictions on sharing de-identified data sets, however data is available on request. Request may be sent to Population Council, Dataverse, email; publications@popcouncil.org for information on data access.

Funding Statement

The study is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) under the terms of USAID APS-OAA-14-00048. The contents of this manuscript are the sole responsibility of the authors, Ending Eclampsia project and Population Council and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

References

  • 1.Janani F, Changaee F. Seasonal variation in the prevalence of preeclampsia. J Family Med Prim Care. 2017;6(4):766–9. 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_132_17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hutcheon JA, Lisonkova S, Joseph KS. Epidemiology of pre-eclampsia and the other hypertensive disorders of pregnancy—ScienceDirect [Internet]. 2011. [cited 2018 Aug 31]. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1521693411000198 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Duley L, Meher S, Abalos E. Management of pre-eclampsia. BMJ. 2006. February 23;332(7539):463–8. 10.1136/bmj.332.7539.463 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Duley L. The Global Impact of Pre-eclampsia and Eclampsia. Seminars in Perinatology. 2009. June 1;33(3):130–7. 10.1053/j.semperi.2009.02.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ministry of Health Kenya. Saving Mothers Lives 2017. First Confidential Report into Maternal Deaths in Kenya. 2017.
  • 6.KNH. The prevalence of hypertensive diseases in pregnancy at the Kenyatta National Hospital, Kenya 2007. 2007.
  • 7.Agha Khan. The prevalence of hypertensive diseases in pregnancy at Agha Khan University Hospital, Kenya 2007. 2007. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, Task Force on Hypertension in Pregnancy. Hypertension in pregnancy. Report of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ Task Force on Hypertension in Pregnancy. Obstet Gynecol. 2013. November;122(5):1122–31. 10.1097/01.AOG.0000437382.03963.88 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Paruk F, Moodley J. Maternal and neonatal outcome in early- and late-onset pre-eclampsia—Seminars in Neonatology [Internet]. 2000. [cited 2018 Aug 31]. Available from: https://www.sfnmjournal.com/article/S1084-2756(00)90023-X/abstract [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Paruk F, Moodley J. Maternal and neonatal outcome in early- and late-onset pre-eclampsia. Seminars in Neonatology. 2000. August 1;5(3):197–207. 10.1053/siny.2000.0023 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.von Dadelszen P, Sawchuck D, Justus Hofmeyr G, Magee LA, Bracken H, Mathai M, et al. PRE-EMPT (PRE-eclampsia-Eclampsia Monitoring, Prevention and Treatment): A low and middle income country initiative to reduce the global burden of maternal, fetal and infant death and disease related to pre-eclampsia. Pregnancy Hypertens. 2013. October;3(4):199–202. 10.1016/j.preghy.2013.06.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.W Szymonowicz V Yu Y. Severe pre-eclampsia and infants of very low birth weight. | Archives of Disease in Childhood [Internet]. [cited 2018 Dec 7]. Available from: https://adc.bmj.com/content/62/7/712 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Xiong X, Demianczuk NN, Saunders LD, Wang F-L, Fraser WD. Impact of Preeclampsia and Gestational Hypertension on Birth Weight by Gestational Age. Am J Epidemiol. 2002. February 1;155(3):203–9. 10.1093/aje/155.3.203 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Kiondo et al. , 2011. Risk factors for pre‐eclampsia in Mulago Hospital, Kampala, Uganda. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2014; [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Bilano VL, Ota E, Ganchimeg T, Mori R, Souza JP. Risk Factors of Pre-Eclampsia/Eclampsia and Its Adverse Outcomes in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A WHO Secondary Analysis. Young RC, ed. Risk Factors of Pre-Eclampsia/Eclampsia and Its Adverse Outcomes in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A WHO Secondary Analysis. PLOS ONE [Internet]. 2014; Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3962376/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.L.Tranquillia Mark A.Brownbc Gerda G.Zeemand Gustaaf Dekkere Baha M.Sibaif. The definition of severe and early-onset preeclampsia. Statements from the International Society for the Study of Hypertension in Pregnancy (ISSHP) [Internet]. 2013. [cited 2018 Aug 31]. Available from: 10.1016/j.preghy.2012.11.001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Brown Mark A., Magee Laura A., Kenny Louise C., Karumanchi S. Ananth, McCarthy Fergus P., Saito Shigeru, et al. Hypertensive Disorders of Pregnancy. Hypertension. 2018. July 1;72(1):24–43. 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.117.10803 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Sri Sulistyowati. Early and Late Onset Preeclamsia: What did really Matter? Sri Sulistyowati. 2017. June 27; [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Silvia Iacobelli, Francesco Bonsante, Pierre-Yves Robillard. Comparison of risk factors and perinatal outcomes in early onset and late onset preeclampsia: A cohort based study in Reunion Island—ScienceDirect [Internet]. 2017. [cited 2018 Aug 29]. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165037817301857 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Donner A. Approaches to sample size estimation in the design of clinical trials—a review. Statistics in Medicine. 1984. July 1;3(3):199–214. 10.1002/sim.4780030302 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.World Health Organization. WHO recommendations for prevention and treatment of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia. [Internet]. 2011. [cited 2019 Sep 17]. Available from: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2011/9789241548335_eng.pdf [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Ndwiga Charity, Sripad Pooja, Warren Charlotte, Charlotte E Warren. Ending eclampsia project addressing barriers to quality of underutilized commodities and services for prevention and management of pre-eclampsia and eclampsia in Kenya: Study report. 2018. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Lisonkova S, Joseph KS. Incidence of preeclampsia: risk factors and outcomes associated with early- versus late-onset disease. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2013. December 1;209(6):544.e1–544.e12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Joris J. A. van Esch, Arno F. van Heijst, Anton F. J. de Haan& Olivier W. H. van der Heijden (2017. Early-onset preeclampsia is associated with perinatal mortality and severe neonatal morbidity,. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine, [Internet]. 2017; Available from: 10.1080/14767058.2016.1263295 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.You S-H, Cheng P-J, Chung T-T, Kuo C-F, Wu H-M, Chu P-H. Population-based trends and risk factors of early- and late-onset preeclampsia in Taiwan 2001–2014. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth [Internet]. 2018. December [cited 2018 Aug 30];18(1). Available from: https://bmcpregnancychildbirth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12884-018-1845-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Gulec UK, Ozgunen FT, Buyukkurt S, Guzel AB, Urunsak IF, Demir SC, et al. Comparison of clinical and laboratory findings in early- and late-onset preeclampsia. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal & Neonatal Medicine. 2013. August 1;26(12):1228–33. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Duckitt K, Harrington D. Risk factors for pre-eclampsia at antenatal booking: systematic review of controlled studies. BMJ. 2005;330(7491):565 10.1136/bmj.38380.674340.E0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Alanis MC, Robinson CJ, Hulsey TC, Ebeling M, Johnson DD. Early-onset severe preeclampsia: induction of labor vs elective cesarean delivery and neonatal outcomes. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2008. September 1;199(3):262.e1–262.e6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Barros FC, Bhutta ZA, Batra M, Hansen TN, Victora CG, Rubens CE, et al. Global report on preterm birth and stillbirth (3 of 7): evidence for effectiveness of interventions. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2010. February 23;10(1):S3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Berzan E, Doyle R, Brown CM. Treatment of Preeclampsia: Current Approach and Future Perspectives. Curr Hypertens Rep. 2014. September 1;16(9):473 10.1007/s11906-014-0473-5 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Kovo M, Schreiber L, Elyashiv O, Ben-Haroush A, Abraham G, Bar J. Pregnancy Outcome and Placental Findings in Pregnancies Complicated by Fetal Growth Restriction With and Without Preeclampsia. Reprod Sci. 2015. March 1;22(3):316–21. 10.1177/1933719114542024 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Markin L., Medvyedyeva O. Early–versus late-onset preeclampsia: differences in risk factors and birth outcomes [Internet]. viv clinical bulletin 2017, 4(20): 30–34; 2017. Available from: http://lkv.biz/ISSN 2520–2898 (online) [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Duhig K, Vandermolen B, Shennan A. Recent advances in the diagnosis and management of pre-eclampsia. F1000Res [Internet]. 2018. February 28 [cited 2019 Jan 15];7 Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5832913/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Iacobelli S, Bonsante F, Robillard P-Y. Comparison of risk factors and perinatal outcomes in early onset and late onset preeclampsia: A cohort based study in Reunion Island. Journal of Reproductive Immunology. 2017. September 1;123:12–6. 10.1016/j.jri.2017.08.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Dora SK, Nayak L, Pande B, Dandapat AB. A prospective observational study for the evaluation of maternal and fetal outcome in patient with eclampsia. International Journal of Research in Medical Sciences. 2017. April 26;5(5):1785–9. [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Bohren MA, Vogel JP, Fawole B, Maya ET, Maung TM, Baldé MD, et al. Methodological development of tools to measure how women are treated during facility-based childbirth in four countries: labor observation and community survey. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2018. November 15;18(1):132 10.1186/s12874-018-0603-x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Pauli JM, Repke JT. Pitfalls With the New American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists Task Force on Hypertension in Pregnancy. Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2017;60(1):141–52. 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000247 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Townsend R, O’Brien P, Khalil A. Current best practice in the management of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy. Integr Blood Press Control. 2016. July 27;9:79–94. 10.2147/IBPC.S77344 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Andrea G.Kattah Vesna D.Garovic. The Management of Hypertension in Pregnancy—ScienceDirect [Internet]. 2013. [cited 2018 Nov 8]. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1548559513000281 [Google Scholar]
  • 40.World Health Organization, editor. WHO recommendations on antenatal care for a positive pregnancy experience. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2016. 152 p. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Edgar M Ndaboine, Albert Kihunrwa, Richard Rumanyika, Im H Beatrice, Anthony N Massinde. Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes among Eclamptic Patients Admitted to Bugando Medical Centre, Mwanza, Tanzania. African Journal of Reproductive Health [Internet]. 2012; Available from: https://scholar.google.com/scholar [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Riza MadazliEmail authorMehmet Aytaç YukselMetehan ImamogluAbdullah TutenMahmut OnculBurcu AydinGokhan Demirayak. Comparison of clinical and perinatal outcomes in early- and late-onset preeclampsia. Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics. 2014;Volume 290, Issue 1, pp 53–57. 10.1007/s00404-014-3176-x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Urassa DP, Carlstedt A, Nyström L, Massawe SN, Lindmark G. Eclampsia in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania—incidence, outcome, and the role of antenatal care. Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica. 2006;85(5):571–8. 10.1080/00016340600604880 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Ramesh K, Sangeetha Gandhi, and Vishwas Rao. Socio-Demographic and Other Risk Factors of Pre Eclampsia at a Tertiary Care Hospital, Karnataka: Case Control Study [Internet]. 2018. [cited 2018 Aug 29]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4225915/ [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Tessema GA, Tekeste A, Ayele TA. Preeclampsia and associated factors among pregnant women attending antenatal care in Dessie referral hospital, Northeast Ethiopia: a hospital-based study. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2015. March 29;15(1):73. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Gomathy E., Lahari Akurati, Kondareddy Radhika. Early onset and late onset preeclampsia-maternal and perinatal outcomes in a rural teritiary health center. 2018; Available from: http://www.ijrcog.org/index.php/ijrcog/article/view/4744 [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Renfrew J. Mary et al. Midwifery and quality care: findings from a new evidence-informed framework for maternal and newborn care—ScienceDirect [Internet]. 2014. [cited 2019 Jan 14]. Available from: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673614607893 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Hanson C, Cox J, Mbaruku G, Manzi F, Gabrysch S, Schellenberg D, et al. Maternal mortality and distance to facility-based obstetric care in rural southern Tanzania: a secondary analysis of cross-sectional census data in 226 000 households. The Lancet Global Health. 2015. July 1;3(7):e387–95. 10.1016/S2214-109X(15)00048-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Bramham K, Nelson-Piercy C, Brown MJ, Chappell LC. Postpartum management of hypertension. BMJ. 2013; [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Magee L, Dadelszen P von. Prevention and treatment of postpartum hypertension. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews [Internet]. 2013. [cited 2018 Nov 13];(4). Available from: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD004351.pub3/abstract [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Sibai BM. Etiology and management of postpartum hypertension-preeclampsia. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2012. June 1;206(6):470–5. 10.1016/j.ajog.2011.09.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.James PR, Nelson-Piercy C. Management of hypertension before, during, and after pregnancy. Heart. 2004. December 1;90(12):1499–504. 10.1136/hrt.2004.035444 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Mbarak B, Kilewo C, Kuganda S, Sunguya BF. Postpartum depression among women with pre-eclampsia and eclampsia in Tanzania; a call for integrative intervention. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth. 2019. July 29;19(1):270 10.1186/s12884-019-2395-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Smith M, Waugh J, Nelson-Piercy C. Management of postpartum hypertension. Obstet Gynecol. 2013. January;15(1):45–50. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Frank T Spradley

30 Jan 2020

PONE-D-20-01091

Clinical Presentation and Outcomes of Pre-Eclampsia and Eclampsia at a National Hospital, Kenya: A Retrospective Cohort Study

PLOS ONE

Dear Mrs Ndwiga,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

SPECIFIC ACADEMIC EDITOR COMMENTS: Two experts in the field reviewed your manuscript. Your study was deemed important, however major comments were raised that require the authors' attention. These comments include the need to clearly phrase the aims of this study and clarify some comments including the conclusion; there are questions about the sample size and randomization; and several of the findings need to be discussed in more detail.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Mar 15 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Frank T. Spradley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.plosone.org/attachments/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please note that all PLOS journals ask authors to adhere to our policies for sharing of data and materials: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability. According to PLOS ONE’s Data Availability policy, we require that the minimal dataset underlying results reported in the submission must be made immediately and freely available at the time of publication. As such, please remove any instances of 'unpublished data' or 'results not shown' in your manuscript and replace these with either the relevant data (in the form of additional figures, tables or descriptive text, as appropriate), a citation to where the data can be found, or remove altogether any statements supported by data not presented in the manuscript.

3. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

4. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

5. Please include a caption for Figures 1, 2, 3.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study demonstrates an extensive exploration of the clinical outcomes of both preeclampsia and eclampsia, which are major hypertensive disorders associated with maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. All ethical considerations have been adhered to. Sufficient details have been provided for the study design, sampling and data analyses. Data presented is aligned to the aims of the study and highlights the seriousness of these disorders based on its onset (early vs late) during pregnancy. The statistical analyses and presentation of the data, is described sufficiently and relevant to the aim of the study.

The discussion supports the results presented and provides a landscape of both preeclampsia and eclampsia based on the largest referral hospital in Kenya.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript – I commend the authors on their contribution to an extremely important yet understudied area of health research. These data add to the evidence to improve understanding of maternal morbidity and mortality due to pre-eclampsia in Sub-Saharan Africa. I have a few suggestions to enhance the study.

I think the purpose of the study could be more clearly outlined in the background. Are the authors trying to identify risk factors to stratify care or deficits in care which could be targeted for improvement? Or simply to characterise the disease burden and compare to other reported studies?

Late onset pre-eclampsia is usually defined as >37 weeks – could the authors clarify if this is what they have assessed, and add to the abstract. This would be preferable to allow comparison with other studies.

How are 100 babies admitted to NBU daily if there are only 60 beds?!

Were ISSHP criteria used to diagnose PE – please elaborate on ‘end organ damage’

Sample size – first sentence please clarify that you are trying to detect a difference between early and late. However, this seems to be an unusual approach to a sample size calculation. I would have thought that an approach to report how representative the results are of the true population would be more appropriate

Please give details about randomisation and justify why all women with eclampsia were included. I am not convinced that this will not confound your findings!

It would be helpful to give information to the uninformed reader about the funding for maternal care in Kenya – were all the women self-funding or were some state funded. Is NBU care provided for all?

The majority of women with early onset PE were multiparous – which is an important finding and should be discussed in more details.

I also note that the proportion of women with creatinine >100 were very high – especially in the late onset PE group. This could be highlighted and discussed in more detail. Were these cases AKI or CKD or unknown?

I am very surprised at the low proportion of women with Hb <10 - even in the context of 31% HELLP syndrome – this should be discussed.

Why were so many women with LO-PE delivered by CS? Were there differences in care l complications?

I am confused about the number of women with renal failure and those needing dialysis being different. Please could this be clarified.

What were the definitions of neonatal complications?

Some of the detail in the hypertension treatment section could be moved to the discussion or omitted.

The authors suggest that early referral would improve outcomes – but I am not clear how these data support that recommendation (although I am sure it is correct!). Are any information available about pathways of referral, and women from outlying districts having worse outcomes?

I am also unclear about the conclusion that women with postpartum presentation have worse outcomes – could this be highlighted more in the results?

Minor Comments

First line paragraph 2 background is repetitive and could be omitted

Was LMP used to calculate gestational age – when the methods describe ‘date’

Table 1 – Gestational age at onset – do the n= values need to be repeated here?

Figure 3 – How many women had two risk factors e.g. both previous PE and Chronic hypertension?

Table 2 – why is lowest dBP reported?

Results – pre-eclampsia characteristics – please add units. Suggest rewrite the last two sentences are currently unclear.

Table 3 should be Table 4 in the text

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2020 Jun 5;15(6):e0233323. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0233323.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


1 Apr 2020

Thank you.

please find attached authors response to reviewers comments attached at "general information tab" on authors submission menu

Authors response to reviewers' comments 3/2/2020

Reviewers' comments:

4. Your ethics statement must appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please move it to the Methods section and delete it from any other section. Please also ensure that your ethics statement is included in your manuscript, as the ethics section of your online submission will not be published alongside your manuscript.

Authors’ response:

Thank you. The ethics statement has been moved from the abstract and take to the method section page 6 line 133- 135.

Reviewers' comments:

5. Please include a caption for Figures 1, 2, 3.

Authors’ response:

This has been done as follows: Figure 1; page 5 line 11-118, Figure 2; page 7, line 198-201, Figure 3; page 9, line 256-259.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

Reviewers' comments:

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Partly

Authors’ response:

Thank you. The conclusion draws from the data presented.

 Reviewers' comments:

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Authors’ response:

Thank you

Major comments

 Reviewers' comments:

2. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Authors’ response:

Thank you

Reviewers' comments:

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Authors’ response:

Thank you

 5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study demonstrates an extensive exploration of the clinical outcomes of both preeclampsia and eclampsia, which are major hypertensive disorders associated with maternal and neonatal morbidity and mortality. All ethical considerations have been adhered to. Sufficient details have been provided for the study design, sampling and data analyses. Data presented is aligned to the aims of the study and highlights the seriousness of these disorders based on its onset (early vs late) during pregnancy. The statistical analyses and presentation of the data is described sufficiently and relevant to the aim of the study.

Authors’ response:

Thank you for your review and positive feedback.

Review Comments to the Author

The discussion supports the results presented and provides a landscape of both preeclampsia and eclampsia based on the largest referral hospital in Kenya.

Authors’ response:

Thank you for your comments

Review Comments to the Author

Reviewer #2: Thank you for the opportunity to review this interesting manuscript – I commend the authors on their contribution to an extremely important yet understudied area of health research. These data add to the evidence to improve understanding of maternal morbidity and mortality due to pre-eclampsia in Sub-Saharan Africa. I have a few suggestions to enhance the study.

I think the purpose of the study could be more clearly outlined in the background. Are the authors trying to identify risk factors to stratify care or deficits in care which could be targeted for improvement? Or simply to characterise the disease burden and compare to other reported studies?

Authors’ response:

Thanks for your review and feedback. Our study aims to describe the characteristics and compares the outcomes between early onset of pre-eclampsia and late onset of pre-eclampsia. We are describing the disease burden which has not been described before in this setting, to raise awareness about the two sub-types of PE and the associated outcomes that can be compared with other reported studies. Please see our study objectives page 2 line 34 and 35.

Review Comments to the Author

Late onset pre-eclampsia is usually defined as >37 weeks – could the authors clarify if this is what they have assessed and add to the abstract. This would be preferable to allow comparison with other studies.

Authors’ response:

Regarding the classification of PE, we used ISSHP criteria for diagnosis and classification os pre-eclampsia- early onset pre-eclampsia (EO-PE: less than 34 weeks gestation) while late onset pre-eclampsia, (LO-PE: greater than or equal to 34 weeks gestation) based on Tranquilli AL, etal 2013 and Brown et al., 2018 recommendation. We inserted the weeks in the abstract, as you have suggested, to help distinguish early versus late onset of pre-eclampsia. Please see page 2, line 39 and 40 and at the background section page 5, line 104 to 105.

Review Comments to the Author

How are 100 babies admitted to NBU daily if there are only 60 beds?!

Authors’ response:

Thank you for highlighting the number of babies admitted at the NBU. We wanted to indicate that the NBU at the referral hospital is sometimes overstretched, admitting more that its carrying capacity. We have added a sentence that reads; “As the largest referral hospital in this Country, patients are never turned away and sometimes, the NBU ward admits patients more than its capacity.’ Please see page 6, line 143 -145.

Review Comments to the Author

Were ISSHP criteria used to diagnose PE – please elaborate on ‘end organ damage’

Authors’ response:

Thank you for highlighting this. Indeed, ISSHP criteria was used to diagnose and classify pre-eclampsia based on Brown M.A et al., 2018. Similarly, we used ISSHP criteria to diagnose end organ damage such as chest pain that may be as a result of myocardial ischemia or infarction, back pain may denote aortic dissection; and dyspnea may suggest pulmonary edema or congestive heart failure was used. In addition, a patient with these symptoms may present with neurologic symptoms such seizures, visual disturbances, and altered level of consciousness and may be indicative of hypertensive encephalopathy. We have added more explanation in the paper, please see page 6, line 159 to 162.

Review Comments to the Author

Sample size – first sentence please clarify that you are trying to detect a difference between early and late. However, this seems to be an unusual approach to a sample size calculation. I would have thought that an approach to report how representative the results are of the true population would be more appropriate

Authors’ response:

Our study is based on retrospective review of the patients records, as expected, we do have some limitations considering secondary review of the patient records. We believe our sampling approach would be representative

Review Comments to the Author

It would be helpful to give information to the uninformed reader about the funding for maternal care in Kenya – were all the women self-funding or were some state funded.

Authors’ response:

Thank you for your helpful suggestion. We have added texts below about funding maternal care in Kenya as follows; Maternal and newborn services KNH are free to the user since Kenya introduced free maternal and newborn, child health services in June 2013. This aims at promoting health facility delivery service utilization and reducing pregnancy-related mortality in the country (Bourbonnais, 2013 Gitobu et al., 2018). However, this fee does not cater for medical investigations beyond the recommend ANC profile hence women pay for extra cost when required. Please see page 6, line 142 to 153.

Review Comments to the Author

Please give details about randomization and justify why all women with eclampsia were included. I am not convinced that this will not confound your findings!

Authors’ response:

Thank you for your comment. We randomly sampled the inpatient records describing pre-eclampsia, stratified by month and year of observation. All Eclampsia cases were included because they were very few. Since we are only interested in the characteristics, we the effects confounders are likely to be minimal.

Review Comments to the Author

Is NBU care provided for all?

Authors’ response:

Not all babies receive NBU care, only babies with complications get admitted to NBU while well babies’ room-in with their mothers’ in the postnatal ward. Please see page 6, line 143 -144.

Review Comments to the Author

The majority of women with early onset PE were multiparous – which is an important finding and should be discussed in more details. High parity may have been associated with early onset and more likely recurrent PE since we receive a high number of referred patients with prior history of preeclampsia.

Authors’ response:

Thank you, for this observation.

Our study shows that multiparous women were slightly more likely to present with EOPE compared to non-multiparous women. Unlike our findings, pre-eclampsia is associated with first pregnancies (Kimberly and Nagaraj 2017; Luo etal 2007; Macdonald-Wallis etal 2011). While change in paternity is risk factor in multi parous women (Tubbergen P. etal 1999). Other studies (Muniro, Z., etal., 2019; Kashanian, M. etal 2011) history of pre-eclampsia and hypertension are risk factors to pre-eclampsia. Our results show 317 women (51%) had 2 or more births, multiparous women were more likely to experience chronic HTN (75%) and prior pre-eclampsia (91%) compared to non-multiparous women Please see discussion page 12 line, 312 -330.

Review Comments to the Author

I also note that the proportion of women with creatinine >100 were very high – especially in the late onset PE group. This could be highlighted and discussed in more detail. Were these cases AKI or CKD or unknown? I am very surprised at the low proportion of women with Hb <10 g/dL- even in the context of 31% HELLP syndrome – this should be discussed.

Authors’ response:

Also, the study site routinely receives critical patients with organ failure including renal dysfunction. Majority of the renal dysfunction are acute and are resolved on observation. severe forms of AKI require dialysis. However, specifics of organ dysfunction, management and subsequent outcomes is beyond the scope of this current publication. The proportion of women in our sample that had HELLP syndrome were 16% (39 women), out of these, 20 of these women had Hb<10. Our results therefore agree with what is documented in literature that women HELLP are more likely to associated with low HB. Please see page 14, line 363 to 370.

Review Comments to the Author

Why were so many women with LO-PE delivered by CS? Were there differences in care l complications?

Authors’ response:

Thank you, this discussed as follows:

We did not explore the reasons but other studies - Parmar D et al 2018 -over 40%: Akech

etal.,2012 show high prevalence of C/S in KNH due to co-morbidities and late referrals from other facilities. Please see page 12, line 341 -344.

Review Comments to the Author

I am confused about the number of women with renal failure and those needing dialysis being different. Please could this be clarified.

Authors’ response:

Thank for your comment.

Our results show that 26 women were diagnosed with renal failure. Out of these, 14 had dialysis performed. It appears some of the renal failure cases were conservatively managed. Please see page 11, line 276 to 276 and Table 4, titled “Neonatal and maternal complications renal failure and dialysis highlighted in red line 278 to 280.

Review Comments to the Author

What were the definitions of neonatal complications?

Authors’ response:

Thank you for your comments

Neonatal complications were defined as respiratory distress syndrome (RDS), neonatal jaundice, asphyxia, neonatal convulsion, encephalopathy, intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH), neonatal convulsion or sepsis and necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC). Some of these complications are not reported in this manuscript.

Reviewer comments:

Review Comments to the Author

Some of the detail in the hypertension treatment section could be moved to the discussion or omitted.

Thank you. We have omitted some of the hypertension treatment details. Please see page 11& 12, line 288 to 299.

Review Comments to the Author

The authors suggest that early referral would improve outcomes – but I am not clear how these data support that recommendation (although I am sure it is correct!). Are any information available about pathways of referral, and women from outlying districts having worse outcomes? I am also unclear about the conclusion that women with postpartum presentation have worse outcomes – could this be highlighted more in the results?

Authors’ response:

We did no capture data on referral process; however, we have information on place of residence which was used as a proxy for referral. Women residing from other counties outside Nairobi were considered referrals. Further analysis (result not shown) shows that women from residing from other counties (126) had relatively poor maternal outcomes (deaths and PPH) compared to their counterparts in Nairobi. This may be attributed to delay in referrals as some of the cases arrived very late at KNH. Please see page 14, line 373 to 373.

Minor Comments

Review Comments to the Author

First line paragraph 2 background is repetitive and could be omitted

Authors’ response:

Thank you for your comment. This has been omitted.

Review Comments to the Author

Was LMP used to calculate gestational age – when the methods describe ‘date’

Authors’ response:

Yes, LMP was used to calculate gestational age. We have in include this “determined by the last monthly period and ultrasound where available” to clarify see page 8 line 202.

Review Comments to the Author

Table 1 – Gestational age at onset – do the n= values need to be repeated here?

Authors’ response:

Thank you, this has been removed

Review Comments to the Author

Figure 3 – How many women had two risk factors e.g. both previous PE and Chronic hypertension?

Authors’ response:

Thank you. We have Included proportion of women who experienced both previous PE and Chronic hypertension. In Figure 3 page 9, line 256 - 259

Review Comments to the Author

Table 2 – why is lowest dBP reported? It import

Authors’ response:

Thank you for noting this inconsistency.

We have reported the Highest dBP in lieu of Lowest dBP. Please see page 11, line 270 -271 in track changes and in Table 2, same page line 274- 275 highlighted in red.

Review Comments to the Author

Review Comments to the Author Results – pre-eclampsia characteristics – please add units. Suggest rewrite the last two sentences are currently unclear.

Authors’ response:

We have added units to alter the sentence to read; Results show no significant differences among women with low hemoglobin level <10 g/dL between EO-PE and LO-PE line 253 and 254.

Review Comments to the Author

Table 3 should be Table 4 in the text

Authors’ response:

Thank you. We find that Table 3 is correctly labelled in the text. Please see Table 3 page 10, line 281- 282 and Table 4 on page 11, line 274- 298.

Decision Letter 1

Frank T Spradley

4 May 2020

Clinical Presentation and Outcomes of Pre-Eclampsia and Eclampsia at a National Hospital, Kenya: A Retrospective Cohort Study

PONE-D-20-01091R1

Dear Dr. Ndwiga,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Frank T. Spradley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: No further comments to add - the authors have sufficiently addressed my concerns and the manuscript is improved.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: Yes: Dr Kate Bramham

Acceptance letter

Frank T Spradley

11 May 2020

PONE-D-20-01091R1

Clinical Presentation and Outcomes of Pre-Eclampsia and Eclampsia at a National Hospital, Kenya: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Dear Dr. Ndwiga:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Frank T. Spradley

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Data Availability Statement

    There are institutional legal restrictions on sharing de-identified data sets, however data is available on request. Request may be sent to Population Council, Dataverse, email; publications@popcouncil.org for information on data access.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES