Use of human menopausal gonadotropins in the treatment of endometrial defects associated with recurrent miscarriage: preliminary report

The effect of low-dose ovarian stimulation with HMG plus progesterone on pregnancy outcome in women with history of recurrent pregnancy loss and secondary infertility: a retrospective cohort study

We assessed the outcome of pregnancy in women with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) following treatment with low-dose human menopausal gonadotropin (HMG)+progesterone or progesterone alone. This single-center retrospective cohort study included data from women diagnosed with RPL and treated between February 2005 and December 2012 with one cycle of HMG + progesterone or progesterone alone. Primary endpoint was the rate of ongoing pregnancies and losses by treatment, age (<38 vs. ≥38 years) and in the subgroup with unexplained RPL. Of 169 RPL patients, 35.5% (n = 60) received HMG + progesterone and 64.5% (n = 109) progesterone alone. Compared to progesterone alone, HMG + progesterone led to a lower, although not significant, frequency of losses (3.3% vs. 11.9%, p = .09) and a twofold higher rate of ongoing pregnancies (41.7% vs. 19.3%, p = .002). Similar results were obtained in the subgroup of patients with unexplained RPL (ongoing pregnancies: 48.1% upon HMG + progesterone vs. 21.3% upon progesterone, p = .03; losses: 0% vs. 8.5%, respectively, p = .29) and in those <38 years (ongoing pregnancies: 47.4% vs. 18.8%, respectively, p = .003; losses: 5.3% vs. 10.9% respectively, p = .47). These findings suggest that HMG in women with RPL may reduce the rate of miscarriages and increase that of live births regardless of RPL cause and in women aged <38 years.

ESHRE guideline: recurrent pregnancy loss

STUDY QUESTION

What is the recommended management of women with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) based on the best available evidence in the literature?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The guideline development group formulated 77 recommendations answering 18 key questions on investigations and treatments for RPL, and on how care should be organized.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

A previous guideline for the investigation and medical treatment of recurrent miscarriage was published in 2006 and is in need of an update.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. After formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 31 March 2017 and written in English were included. Cumulative live birth rate, live birth rate and pregnancy loss rate (or miscarriage rate) were considered the critical outcomes.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline group. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the guideline group and the ESHRE Executive Committee.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The guideline provides 38 recommendations on risk factors, prevention and investigations in couples with RPL, and 39 recommendations on treatments. These include 60 evidence-based recommendations – of which 31 were formulated as strong recommendations and 29 as conditional – and 17 good practice points. The evidence supporting investigations and treatment of couples with RPL is limited and of moderate quality. Of the evidence-based recommendations, only 10 (16.3%) were supported by moderate quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (35 recommendations: 57.4%), or very low quality evidence (16 recommendations: 26.2%). There were no recommendations based on high quality evidence. Owing to the lack of evidence-based investigations and treatments in RPL care, the guideline also clearly mentions investigations and treatments that should not be used for couples with RPL.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Several investigations and treatments are offered to couples with RPL, but most of them are not well studied. For most of these investigations and treatments, a recommendation against the intervention or treatment was formulated based on insufficient evidence. Future studies may require these recommendations to be revised.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in RPL, based on the best evidence available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in RPL. One of the most important consequences of the limited evidence is the absence of evidence for a definition of RPL.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. J.E. reports position funding from CARE Fertility. S.L. reports position funding from SpermComet Ltd. S.M. reports research grants, consulting and speaker’s fees from GSK, BMS/Pfizer, Sanquin, Aspen, Bayer and Daiichi Sankyo. S.Q. reports speaker’s fees from Ferring. The other authors report no conflicts of interest.

ESHRE Pages are not externally peer reviewed. This article has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

Progesterone and the luteal phase: a requisite to reproduction

Progesterone production from the corpus luteum is critical for natural reproduction. Progesterone supplementation seems to be an important aspect of any assisted reproductive technology treatment. Luteal phase deficiency in natural cycles is a plausible cause of infertility and pregnancy loss, though there is no adequate diagnostic test. This article describes the normal luteal phase of the menstrual cycle, investigates the controversy surrounding luteal phase deficiency, and presents the current literature for progesterone supplementation during assisted reproductive technologies.

RETRACTED: Oral dydrogesterone treatment during early pregnancy to prevent recurrent pregnancy loss and its role in modulation of cytokine production: a double-blind, randomized, parallel, placebo-controlled trial

This article has been retracted: please see Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal (https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal). This article has been retracted at the request of the ASRM Publications Committee. The Committee reviewed concerns related to the accuracy of data reported in Table 2 and the authors acknowledged significant errors that could not be corrected because they were unable to provide the original data. As the Committee cannot vouch for the accuracy of the data, we have issued a retraction of this article.

Dydrogesterone in threatened abortion: pregnancy outcome

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether therapy with dydrogesterone in threatened abortion during the first trimester of pregnancy will improve pregnancy outcome.

DESIGN

Prospective open study.

SUBJECTS

Pregnant women presenting to the obstetric and gynaecology clinic admitting center with vaginal bleeding before 13 weeks gestation were evaluated for entry into the study. Women were excluded if they had a history of recurrent miscarriage.

METHOD

Eligible subjects were randomized to receive either dydrogesterone 40 mg stat dose followed by 10 mg twice a day for one week or conservative therapy.

RESULTS

One hundred and 54 women were recruited. There was no statistically significant differences between the two groups with regard to pre-treatment status. The continuing pregnancy success rate was significantly (p=0.037) higher in women treated with dydrogesterone (95.9%) compared with women who received conservative treatment (86.3%). The odds ratio of the success rate between dydrogesterone treatment and non-treatment was 3.773 (95% confidence interval: 1.009-14.108).

CONCLUSION

Corpus luteal support with dydrogesterone has been shown to reduce the incidence of pregnancy loss in threatened abortion during the first trimester in women without a history of recurrent abortion.

Luteal phase defect: myth or reality

Although the diagnosis of luteal phase defect (LPD) has been described convincingly in the research setting, it remains a controversial clinical entity. Apart from many uncertainties that surround the diagnosis of LPD, there is no convincing evidence that LPD is associated with infertility and recurrent abortion. Once diagnosed, the treatment options are empiric and include those that are recommended for unexplained infertility. The efforts to diagnose LPD in patients who have infertility or recurrent abortion are not justified.

An analysis of the pattern of pregnancy loss in women with recurrent miscarriage

OBJECTIVE

To describe the pattern of pregnancy loss in women with a history of recurrent miscarriage (RM).

DESIGN

Retrospective, observational study.

SETTING

A tertiary referral center for RM.

PATIENT(S)

Five hundred thirty-eight subjects with RM.

INTERVENTION(S)

Women with antiphospholipid syndrome were treated with clexane and aspirin; some patients with uterine anomalies underwent corrective surgery, and some cases of retarded endometrium were treated with hMG.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Pregnancy outcome, including the stage of pregnancy at which pregnancy loss occurred.

RESULT(S)

In women with a prothrombotic state, the miscarriage rate before the detection of fetal heart activity (early loss) in the untreated group (50%) was significantly higher than in the treatment group (17.5%). In women with a uterine anomaly, the early loss rate and the later loss rate (after detection of fetal heart activity) were both increased. Women with retarded endometrium, women with >/=6 losses, and older women (>/=41 years) are more likely to have a further early loss but not a later loss.

CONCLUSION(S)

An understanding of the patterns of pregnancy loss provides further insight into the mechanism of the reproductive failure, which has implications for treatment.