Role of infections in miscarriage

Infections with certain pathogens can lead to perinatal complications. Several infections have also been associated with an increased likelihood of a miscarriage. This manuscript discusses these infections, their modes of transmission, the evidence linking them to an increased risk of miscarriage, and whether prevention or treatment strategies are available.</p

Methotrexate versus expectant management for treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy: An individual participant data meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION: Ectopic pregnancy is an important health condition which affects up to 1 in 100 women. Women who present with mild symptoms and low serum human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) are often treated with methotrexate (MTX), but expectant management with close monitoring is a feasible alternative. Studies comparing the two treatments have not shown a statistically significant difference in uneventful resolution of ectopic pregnancy, but these studies were too small to define whether certain subgroups could benefit more from either treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) of randomized controlled trials comparing systemic MTX and expectant management in women with tubal ectopic pregnancy and low hCG (<2000 IU/L). A one-stage IPD-MA was performed to assess overall treatment effects of MTX and expectant management to generate a pooled intervention effect. Subgroup analyses and exploratory multivariable analyses were undertaken according to baseline serum hCG and progesterone levels. Primary outcome was treatment success, defined as resolution of clinical symptoms and decline in level of serum hCG to <20 IU/L, or a negative urine pregnancy test by the initial intervention strategy, without any additional treatment. Secondary outcomes were need for blood transfusion, surgical intervention, additional MTX side-effects and hCG resolution times. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO: CRD42021214093. RESULTS: 1547 studies reviewed and 821 remained after duplicates removed. Five studies screened for eligibility and three IPD requested. Two randomized controlled trials supplied IPD, leading to 153 participants for analysis. Treatment success rate was 65/82 (79.3%) after MTX and 48/70 (68.6%) after expectant management (IPD risk ratio [RR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.95-1.40). Surgical intervention rates were not significantly different: 8/82 (9.8%) vs 13/70 (18.6%) (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.23-1.14). Mean time to success was 19.7 days (95% CI 17.4-22.3) after MTX and 21.2 days (95% CI 17.8-25.2) after expectant management (P = 0.25). MTX specific side-effects were reported in 33 MTX compared to four in the expectant group. CONCLUSIONS: Our IPD-MA showed no statistically significant difference in treatment efficacy between MTX and expectant management in women with tubal ectopic pregnancy with low hCG. Initial expectant management could be the preferred strategy due to fewer side-effects

Review of the safety, efficacy, costs and patient acceptability of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone for injection in assisting ovulation induction in infertile women

Anovulation is a common cause of female subfertility. Treatment of anovulation is aimed at induction of ovulation. In women with clomiphene-citrate resistant WHO group II anovulation, one of the treatment options is ovulation induction with exogenous follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH or follitropin). FSH is derived from urine or is produced as recombinant FSH. Two forms of recombinant FSH are available – follitropin alpha and follitropin beta. To evaluate the efficacy, safety, costs and acceptability of recombinant FSH, we performed a review to compare recombinant FSH with urinary-derived FSH products. Follitropin alpha, beta and urinary FSH products appeared to be equally effective in terms of pregnancy rates. Patient safety was also found to be comparable, as the incidence of side effects including multiple pregnancies was similar for all FSH products. In practice follitropin alpha and beta may be more convenient to use due to the ease of self-administration, but they are also more expensive than the urinary products

Methotrexate versus expectant management for treatment of tubal ectopic pregnancy : An individual participant data meta-analysis

ACKNOWLEDGMENTSThe authors thank Amsterdam University Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands, King's College Hospital, London, UK and the authors of the original studies for their collaboration and provision of IPD.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Recurrent pregnancy loss : diagnostic workup after two or three pregnancy losses? A systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) occurs in 1–3% of all couples trying to conceive. No consensus exists regarding when to perform testing for risk factors in couples with RPL. Some guidelines recommend testing if a patient has had two pregnancy losses whereas others advise to test after three losses. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current evidence on the prevalence of abnormal test results for RPL amongst patients with two versus three or more pregnancy losses. We also aimed to contribute to the debate regarding whether the investigations for RPL should take place after two or three or more pregnancy losses. SEARCH METHODS Relevant studies were identified by a systematic search in OVID Medline and EMBASE from inception to March 2019. A search for RPL was combined with a broad search for terms indicative of number of pregnancy losses, screening/testing for pregnancy loss or the prevalence of known risk factors. Meta-analyses were performed in case of adequate clinical and statistical homogeneity. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. OUTCOMES From a total of 1985 identified publications, 21 were included in this systematic review and 19 were suitable for meta-analyses. For uterine abnormalities (seven studies, odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.79–1.27, I2 = 0%) and for antiphospholipid syndrome (three studies, OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86–1.25, I2 = 0%) we found low quality evidence for a lack of a difference in prevalence of abnormal test results between couples with two versus three or more pregnancy losses. We found insufficient evidence of a difference in prevalence of abnormal test results between couples with two versus three or more pregnancy losses for chromosomal abnormalities (10 studies, OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.55–1.10), inherited thrombophilia (five studies) and thyroid disorders (two studies, OR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.06–4.56). WIDER IMPLICATIONS A difference in prevalence in uterine abnormalities and antiphospholipid syndrome is unlikely in women with two versus three pregnancy losses. We cannot exclude a difference in prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities, inherited thrombophilia and thyroid disorders following testing after two versus three pregnancy losses. The results of this systematic review may support investigations after two pregnancy losses in couples with RPL, but it should be stressed that additional studies of the prognostic value of test results used in the RPL population are urgently needed. An evidenced-based treatment is not currently available in the majority of cases when abnormal test results are present

Treatment strategies for women with WHO group II anovulation : systematic review and network meta-analysis

Funding: The work was supported by an Australian government research training programme scholarship (held by RW) and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council funded Centre for Research Excellence in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (APP1078444).Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Atosiban versus placebo in the treatment of threatened preterm birth between 30 and 34 weeks gestation:Study protocol of the 4-year APOSTEL 8 follow-up

Introduction: Currently, the majority of women worldwide with threatened preterm birth are treated with tocolytics. Although tocolytics can effectively delay birth for 48 hours, no tocolytic drug has convincingly been shown to improve neonatal outcomes and effects on long-term child development are unknown. The aim of this follow-up study of a placebo controlled randomised trial is to investigate the long-term effects of atosiban administration in case of threatened preterm birth on child's neurodevelopment and behaviour development, overall health and mortality.Methods and analysis: This protocol concerns a follow-up study of the multicentre randomised double-blind placebo controlled APOSTEL 8 trial (NL61439.018.17, EudraCT-number 2017-001007-72). In this trial, women with threatened preterm birth (between 30 and 34 weeks of gestation) defined as uterine contractions with (1) a cervical length of &lt;15 mm or (2) a cervical length of 15-30 mm and a positive fibronectin test or (3) in centres where cervical length measurement is not part of the local protocol: a positive fibronectin test or Actim-Partus test or (4) ruptured membranes, are randomised to atosiban or placebo for 48 hours. The primary outcome is a composite of perinatal mortality and severe neonatal morbidity. Children born to mothers who participated in the APOSTEL 8 study (n=760) will be eligible for follow-up at 4 years of corrected age and assessed using four parent-reported questionnaires. Primary outcomes are neurodevelopment and behaviour problems. Secondary outcomes are on child growth and general health. All outcomes will be compared between the atosiban and placebo group with OR and corresponding 95% CI. Analyses will be performed using the intention-to-treat approach.Ethics and dissemination: The Medical Research Ethics Committee from Amsterdam UMC confirmed that de Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act (Dutch WMO-law) did not apply to our study (W21_386 # 21.431). Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and shared with stakeholders and participants. This protocol is published before analysis of the results.</p

IVF versus IUI with ovarian stimulation for unexplained infertility : a collaborative individual participant data meta-analysis

Funding Information: WL is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT2016729). RW is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT20009767). BWM is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437) and he reports consultancy for ObsEva and Merck and travel support from Merck.Peer reviewe