Communication coaching for sonographers (CCS): Preliminary evaluation of a novel intervention to improve unexpected news delivery.

Objective: Obstetric ultrasound scans provide real-time results. In some organisations and countries, the immediate communication of results by sonographers to patients is standard practice, but there is a lack of evidence-based training to support them with this challenging task. This pilot study evaluated a novel communication coaching intervention to improve sonographer communication. Methods: Coaches met with sonographers(N = 15) three times. Sonographers collected three audio recordings of scans involving unexpected news communication at baseline(R1), post-Session 1(R2) and post-Session 2(R3), which were rated for communication skills. Participants self-reported communication confidence and burnout before(T1) and after(T2) the intervention. Feedback was collected at T2. Data were analysed using paired-samples t-tests with bootstrapped significance estimates. Results: N = 10 sonographers completed the intervention. There were significant increases in communication skills(R1 m = 4.85, SD = 1.07; R3 m = 6.73, SD = 1.80, p = 0.003) and communication confidence(T1 m = 28.00, SD = 6.27; T2 m = 32.80, SD = 6.05, p = 0.005). There were no significant changes in burnout(p > 0.05). All respondents said they would recommend the intervention and most strongly agreed it was engaging(n = 8; 89%) and imparted useful skills(n = 8; 89%). Conclusion: Communication coaching is an acceptable, potentially effective tool for improving communication of unexpected news by sonographers in ultrasound. Innovation: This is the first evaluation of an intervention to support obstetric sonographers with news delivery.

Adapting a communication coaching intervention for obstetric sonographers delivering unexpected news: A qualitative study.

Introduction: Despite widespread recognition that communicating unexpected news during obstetric ultrasound examinations is challenging, there is a dearth of research investigating how to teach evidence-based communication to sonographers. Communication Coaching is a supportive, positive method that has previously been associated with improvements in communication, patient satisfaction, and reduced burnout in clinicians. However, to date, no study has coached sonographers. This study explored stakeholders' views on a proposed Communication Coaching intervention and used these data to adapt the intervention for use with qualified obstetric sonographers. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with people who have a vested interest in unexpected news delivery and thematic analysis was conducted on the data. Eight sonographers, six people with lived experience of receiving unexpected news and six representatives from third-sector organisations who support expectant parents were recruited (18 women; 2 men, aged between 21 and 75 years). Results: Participants viewed the planned Communication Coaching intervention favourably and suggested adaptations. The two main themes were (1) the practicalities of coaching, and (2) content. The first theme had four subthemes: (a) brief and flexible structure, (b) online modality, (c) sensitive and positive coach and (d) organisational awareness. The second theme had three subthemes: (a) specific language and behaviour recommendations, (b) adaptable to different service-users and situations and (c) confer relevant emotional skills and techniques. Conclusions: Communication Coaching could be a feasible and acceptable intervention for qualified sonographers if specific, limited adaptations are made as recommended by the stakeholders. Further evaluation of the intervention in practice is necessary.

ESHRE guideline: recurrent pregnancy loss: an update in 2022.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the updates for the recommended management of women with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) based on the best available evidence in the literature from 2017 to 2022? SUMMARY ANSWER: The guideline development group (GDG) updated 11 existing recommendations on investigations and treatments for RPL, and how care should be organized, and added one new recommendation on adenomyosis investigation in women with RPL. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A previous ESHRE guideline on RPL was published in 2017 and needs to be updated. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: The guideline was developed and updated according to the structured methodology for development and update of ESHRE guidelines. The literature searches were updated, and assessments of relevant new evidence were performed. Relevant papers published between 31 March 2017 and 28 February 2022 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 updated and discussed until consensus was reached within the GDG. A stakeholder review was organized after the updated draft was finalized. The final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The new version of the guideline provides 39 recommendations on risk factors, prevention, and investigation in couples with RPL, and 38 recommendations on treatments. These includes 62 evidence-based recommendations-of which 33 were formulated as strong recommendations and 29 as conditional-and 15 good practice points. Of the evidence-based recommendations, 12 (19.4%) were supported by moderate-quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (34 recommendations; 54.8%), or very low-quality evidence (16 recommendations; 25.8%). Owing to the lack of evidence-based investigations and treatments in RPL care, the guideline also clearly mentions those investigations and treatments that should not be used for couples with RPL. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The guidelines have been updated; however, several investigations and treatments currently offered to couples with RPL have not been well studied; for most of these investigations and treatments, a recommendation against using 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 and most recent evidence available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in RPL. Still, the absence of a unified definition of RPL is one of the most critical consequences of the limited scientific evidence in the field. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: 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.O.B.C. reports being a member of the executive board of the European Society for Reproductive Immunology and has received payment for honoraria for giving lectures about RPL in Australia in 2020. M.G. reports unconditional research and educational grant received by the Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Amsterdam UMC from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring, not related to the presented work. S.L. reports position funding from EXAMENLAB Ltd. and ownership interest by stock or partnership of EXAMENLAB Ltd (CEO). S.Q. reports being a deputy director of Tommy's National centre for miscarriage research, with payment received by the institution for research, staff time, and consumables for research. H.S.N. reports grants with payment to institution from Freya Biosciences ApS, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, BioInnovation Institute, the Danish ministry of Education, Novo Nordic Foundation, Augustinus Fonden, Oda og Hans Svenningsens Fond, Demant Fonden, Ole Kirks Fond, and Independent Research Fund Denmark and speakers' fees for lectures from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S, Astra Zeneca, IBSA Nordic and Cook Medical. She also reports to be an unpaid founder and chairman of a maternity foundation. M.-L.v.d.H. received small honoraria for lectures on RPL care. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. DISCLAIMER: This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained.Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type.ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.).

Differences in the organisation of early pregnancy units and the effect of senior clinician presence, volume of patients and weekend opening on emergency hospital admissions: Findings from the VESPA Study.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the participation of consultant gynaecologists in delivering early pregnancy care results in a lower rate of acute hospital admissions. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study and emergency hospital care audit; data were collected as part of the national prospective mixed-methods VESPA study on the "Variations in the organization of EPAUs in the UK and their effects on clinical, Service and PAtient-centred outcomes". SETTING: 44 Early Pregnancy Assessment Units (EPAUs) across the UK randomly selected in balanced numbers from eight pre-defined mutually exclusive strata. PARTICIPANTS: 6606 pregnant women (≥16 years old) with suspected first trimester pregnancy complications attending the participating EPAUs or Emergency Departments (ED) from December 2016 to July 2017. EXPOSURES: Planned and actual senior clinician presence, unit size, and weekend opening. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Unplanned admissions to hospital following any visit for investigations or treatment for first trimester complications as a proportion of women attending EPAUs. RESULTS: 205/6397 (3.2%; 95% CI 2.8-3.7) women were admitted following their EPAU attendance. The admission rate among 44 units ranged from 0% to 13.7% (median 2.8). Neither planned senior clinician presence (p = 0.874) nor unit volume (p = 0.247) were associated with lower admission rates from EPAU, whilst EPAU opening over the weekend resulted in lower admission rates (p = 0.027). 1445/5464 (26.4%; 95%CI 25.3 to 27.6) women were admitted from ED. There was little evidence of an association with planned senior clinician time (p = 0.280) or unit volume (p = 0.647). Keeping an EPAU open over the weekend for an additional hour was associated with 2.4% (95% CI 0.1% to 4.7%) lower odds of an emergency admission from ED. CONCLUSIONS: Involvement of senior clinicians in delivering early pregnancy care has no significant impact on emergency hospital admissions for early pregnancy complications. Weekend opening, however, may be an effective way of reducing emergency admissions from ED.

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus placebo and misoprostol for resolution of miscarriage in women diagnosed with missed miscarriage: the MifeMiso RCT.

TRIAL DESIGN: A randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre study with health economic and nested qualitative studies to determine if mifepristone (Mifegyne®, Exelgyn, Paris, France) plus misoprostol is superior to misoprostol alone for the resolution of missed miscarriage. METHODS: Women diagnosed with missed miscarriage in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy were randomly assigned (1 : 1 ratio) to receive 200 mg of oral mifepristone or matched placebo, followed by 800 µg of misoprostol 2 days later. A web-based randomisation system allocated the women to the two groups, with minimisation for age, body mass index, parity, gestational age, amount of bleeding and randomising centre. The primary outcome was failure to pass the gestational sac within 7 days after randomisation. The prespecified key secondary outcome was requirement for surgery to resolve the miscarriage. A within-trial cost-effectiveness study and a nested qualitative study were also conducted. Women who completed the trial protocol were purposively approached to take part in an interview to explore their satisfaction with and the acceptability of medical management of missed miscarriage. RESULTS: A total of 711 women, from 28 hospitals in the UK, were randomised to receive either mifepristone plus misoprostol (357 women) or placebo plus misoprostol (354 women). The follow-up rate for the primary outcome was 98% (696 out of 711 women). The risk of failure to pass the gestational sac within 7 days was 17% (59 out of 348 women) in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, compared with 24% (82 out of 348 women) in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.98; p = 0.04). Surgical intervention to resolve the miscarriage was needed in 17% (62 out of 355 women) in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, compared with 25% (87 out of 353 women) in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 0.94; p = 0.02). There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. A total of 42 women, 19 in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group and 23 in the placebo plus misoprostol group, took part in an interview. Women appeared to have a preference for active management of their miscarriage. Overall, when women experienced care that supported their psychological well-being throughout the care pathway, and information was delivered in a skilled and sensitive manner such that women felt informed and in control, they were more likely to express satisfaction with medical management. The use of mifepristone and misoprostol showed an absolute effect difference of 6.6% (95% confidence interval 0.7% to 12.5%). The average cost per woman was lower in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, with a cost saving of £182 (95% confidence interval £26 to £338). Therefore, the use of mifepristone and misoprostol for the medical management of a missed miscarriage dominated the use of misoprostol alone. LIMITATIONS: The results from this trial are not generalisable to women diagnosed with incomplete miscarriage and the study does not allow for a comparison with expectant or surgical management of miscarriage. FUTURE WORK: Future work should use existing data to assess and rank the relative clinical effectiveness and safety profiles for all methods of management of miscarriage. CONCLUSIONS: Our trial showed that pre-treatment with mifepristone followed by misoprostol resulted in a higher rate of resolution of missed miscarriage than misoprostol treatment alone. Women were largely satisfied with medical management of missed miscarriage and would choose it again. The mifepristone and misoprostol intervention was shown to be cost-effective in comparison to misoprostol alone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN17405024. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 25, No. 68. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Miscarriage is a common complication of pregnancy, affecting approximately one in four women. Sometimes, medical treatment (i.e. tablets) may be offered to start or speed up the miscarriage process in order for the womb to empty itself. A drug called misoprostol (a tablet that makes the womb contract) is currently recommended for this treatment. However, the addition of another drug called mifepristone [a tablet that reduces pregnancy hormones (Mifegyne^®, Exelgyn, Paris, France)] might help the miscarriage to resolve more quickly. Therefore, we carried out the MifeMiso trial to test if mifepristone plus misoprostol is more effective than misoprostol alone in resolving miscarriage within 7 days. Women were randomly allocated by a computer to receive either mifepristone or placebo, followed by misoprostol 2 days later. Neither the women nor their health-care professionals knew which treatment they received. Some women also talked to the researchers about their experiences of taking part in the study. In total, 711 women were randomised to receive either mifepristone plus misoprostol or placebo plus misoprostol. Overall, 83% of women who received mifepristone plus misoprostol had miscarriage resolution within 7 days, compared with 76% of the women who received a placebo plus misoprostol. Surgery was required less often in women who received mifepristone plus misoprostol: 17% of women who received it required surgery, compared with 25% of women who received the placebo. Treatment with mifepristone did not appear to have any negative effects. Treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol was more cost-effective than misoprostol alone, with an average saving of £182 per woman. Having taken part in the study, most women would choose medical management again and would recommend it to someone they knew who was experiencing a miscarriage.

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriage (MifeMiso): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The anti-progesterone drug mifepristone and the prostaglandin misoprostol can be used to treat missed miscarriage. However, it is unclear whether a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is more effective than administering misoprostol alone. We investigated whether treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol would result in a higher rate of completion of missed miscarriage compared with misoprostol alone. METHODS: MifeMiso was a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial in 28 UK hospitals. Women were eligible for enrolment if they were aged 16 years and older, diagnosed with a missed miscarriage by pelvic ultrasound scan in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, chose to have medical management of miscarriage, and were willing and able to give informed consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a single dose of oral mifepristone 200 mg or an oral placebo tablet, both followed by a single dose of vaginal, oral, or sublingual misoprostol 800 µg 2 days later. Randomisation was managed via a secure web-based randomisation program, with minimisation to balance study group assignments according to maternal age (<30 years vs ≥30 years), body-mass index (<35 kg/m2vs ≥35 kg/m2), previous parity (nulliparous women vs parous women), gestational age (<70 days vs ≥70 days), amount of bleeding (Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score; ≤2 vs ≥3), and randomising centre. Participants, clinicians, pharmacists, trial nurses, and midwives were masked to study group assignment throughout the trial. The primary outcome was failure to spontaneously pass the gestational sac within 7 days after random assignment. Primary analyses were done according to intention-to-treat principles. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN17405024. FINDINGS: Between Oct 3, 2017, and July 22, 2019, 2595 women were identified as being eligible for the MifeMiso trial. 711 women were randomly assigned to receive either mifepristone and misoprostol (357 women) or placebo and misoprostol (354 women). 696 (98%) of 711 women had available data for the primary outcome. 59 (17%) of 348 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group did not pass the gestational sac spontaneously within 7 days versus 82 (24%) of 348 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio [RR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·54-0·99; p=0·043). 62 (17%) of 355 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group required surgical intervention to complete the miscarriage versus 87 (25%) of 353 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (0·71, 0·53-0·95; p=0·021). We found no difference in incidence of adverse events between the study groups. INTERPRETATION: Treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol was more effective than misoprostol alone in the management of missed miscarriage. Women with missed miscarriage should be offered mifepristone pretreatment before misoprostol to increase the chance of successful miscarriage management, while reducing the need for miscarriage surgery. FUNDING: UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Progesterone to prevent miscarriage in women with early pregnancy bleeding: the PRISM RCT.

BACKGROUND: Progesterone is essential for a healthy pregnancy. Several small trials have suggested that progesterone therapy may rescue a pregnancy in women with early pregnancy bleeding, which is a symptom that is strongly associated with miscarriage. OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess the effects of vaginal micronised progesterone in women with vaginal bleeding in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. (2) To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of progesterone in women with early pregnancy bleeding. DESIGN: A multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of progesterone in women with early pregnancy vaginal bleeding. SETTING: A total of 48 hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 16-39 years with early pregnancy bleeding. INTERVENTIONS: Women aged 16-39 years were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily vaginal suppositories containing either 400 mg of progesterone or a matched placebo from presentation to 16 weeks of gestation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was live birth at ≥ 34 weeks. In addition, a within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from an NHS and NHS/Personal Social Services perspective. RESULTS: A total of 4153 women from 48 hospitals in the UK received either progesterone (n = 2079) or placebo (n = 2074). The follow-up rate for the primary outcome was 97.2% (4038 out of 4153 participants). The live birth rate was 75% (1513 out of 2025 participants) in the progesterone group and 72% (1459 out of 2013 participants) in the placebo group (relative rate 1.03, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.07; p = 0.08). A significant subgroup effect (interaction test p = 0.007) was identified for prespecified subgroups by the number of previous miscarriages: none (74% in the progesterone group vs. 75% in the placebo group; relative rate 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.04; p = 0.72); one or two (76% in the progesterone group vs. 72% in the placebo group; relative rate 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.12; p = 0.07); and three or more (72% in the progesterone group vs. 57% in the placebo group; relative rate 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.51; p = 0.004). A significant post hoc subgroup effect (interaction test p = 0.01) was identified in the subgroup of participants with early pregnancy bleeding and any number of previous miscarriage(s) (75% in the progesterone group vs. 70% in the placebo group; relative rate 1.09, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.15; p = 0.003). There were no significant differences in the rate of adverse events between the groups. The results of the health economics analysis show that progesterone was more costly than placebo (£7655 vs. £7572), with a mean cost difference of £83 (adjusted mean difference £76, 95% confidence interval -£559 to £711) between the two arms. Thus, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of progesterone compared with placebo was estimated as £3305 per additional live birth at ≥ 34 weeks of gestation. CONCLUSIONS: Progesterone therapy in the first trimester of pregnancy did not result in a significantly higher rate of live births among women with threatened miscarriage overall, but an important subgroup effect was identified. A conclusion on the cost-effectiveness of the PRISM trial would depend on the amount that society is willing to pay to increase the chances of an additional live birth at ≥ 34 weeks. For future work, we plan to conduct an individual participant data meta-analysis using all existing data sets. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14163439, EudraCT 2014-002348-42 and Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) 158326. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Miscarriage is a common complication of pregnancy that affects one in five pregnancies. Several small studies have suggested that progesterone, a hormone essential for maintaining a pregnancy, may reduce the risk of miscarriage in women presenting with early pregnancy bleeding. This research was undertaken to test whether or not progesterone given to pregnant women with early pregnancy bleeding would increase the number of live births when compared with placebo (dummy treatment). The women participating in the study had an equal chance of receiving progesterone or placebo, as determined by a computer; one group received progesterone (400 mg twice daily as vaginal pessaries) and the other group received placebo with an identical appearance. Treatment began when women presented with vaginal bleeding, were < 12 weeks of gestation and were found to have at least a pregnancy sac on an ultrasound scan. Treatment was stopped at 16 weeks of gestation, or earlier if the pregnancy ended before 16 weeks. Neither the participants nor their health-care professionals knew which treatment was being received. In total, 23,775 women were screened and 4153 women were randomised to receive either progesterone or placebo pessaries. Altogether, 2972 participants had a live birth after at least 34 weeks of gestation. Overall, the live birth rate in the progesterone group was 75% (1513 out of 2025 participants), compared with 72% (1459 out of 2013 participants) in the placebo group. Although the live birth rate was 3% higher in the progesterone group than in the placebo group, there was statistical uncertainty about this finding. However, it was observed that women with a history of one or more previous miscarriages and vaginal bleeding in their current pregnancy may benefit from progesterone. For women with no previous miscarriages, our analysis showed that the live birth rate was 74% (824 out of 1111 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 75% (840 out of 1127 participants) in the placebo group. For women with one or more previous miscarriages, the live birth rate was 75% (689 out of 914 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 70% (619 out of 886 participants) in the placebo group. The potential benefit appeared to be most strong for women with three or more previous miscarriages, who had a live birth rate of 72% (98 out of 137 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 57% (85 out of 148 participants) in the placebo group. Treatment with progesterone did not appear to have any negative effects.

The Prevalence of Thyroid Dysfunction and Autoimmunity in Women With History of Miscarriage or Subfertility.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence of and factors associated with different thyroid dysfunction phenotypes in women who are asymptomatic preconception. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: A total of 49 hospitals across the United Kingdom between 2011 and 2016. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 16 to 41years with history of miscarriage or subfertility trying for a pregnancy. METHODS: Prevalences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using the binomial exact method. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify risk factors for thyroid disease. INTERVENTION: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Rates of thyroid dysfunction. RESULTS: Thyroid function and thyroid peroxidase antibody (TPOAb) data were available for 19213 and 19237 women, respectively. The prevalence of abnormal thyroid function was 4.8% (95% CI, 4.5-5.1); euthyroidism was defined as levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) of 0.44 to 4.50 mIU/L and free thyroxine (fT4) of 10 to 21 pmol/L. Overt hypothyroidism (TSH > 4.50 mIU/L, fT4 < 10 pmol/L) was present in 0.2% of women (95% CI, 0.1-0.3) and overt hyperthyroidism (TSH < 0.44 mIU/L, fT4 > 21 pmol/L) was present in 0.3% (95% CI, 0.2-0.3). The prevalence of subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) using an upper TSH concentration of 4.50 mIU/L was 2.4% (95% CI, 2.1-2.6). Lowering the upper TSH to 2.50 mIU/L resulted in higher rates of SCH, 19.9% (95% CI, 19.3-20.5). Multiple regression analyses showed increased odds of SCH (TSH > 4.50 mIU/L) with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 35.0 kg/m2 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.71; 95% CI, 1.13-2.57; P = 0.01) and Asian ethnicity (aOR 1.76; 95% CI, 1.31-2.37; P < 0.001), and increased odds of SCH (TSH ≥ 2.50 mIU/L) with subfertility (aOR 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04-1.29; P = 0.008). TPOAb positivity was prevalent in 9.5% of women (95% CI, 9.1-9.9). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of undiagnosed overt thyroid disease is low. SCH and TPOAb are common, particularly in women with higher BMI or of Asian ethnicity. A TSH cutoff of 2.50 mIU/L to define SCH results in a significant proportion of women potentially requiring levothyroxine treatment.

A Randomized Trial of Progesterone in Women with Bleeding in Early Pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Bleeding in early pregnancy is strongly associated with pregnancy loss. Progesterone is essential for the maintenance of pregnancy. Several small trials have suggested that progesterone therapy may improve pregnancy outcomes in women who have bleeding in early pregnancy. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate progesterone, as compared with placebo, in women with vaginal bleeding in early pregnancy. Women were randomly assigned to receive vaginal suppositories containing either 400 mg of progesterone or matching placebo twice daily, from the time at which they presented with bleeding through 16 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome was the birth of a live-born baby after at least 34 weeks of gestation. The primary analysis was performed in all participants for whom data on the primary outcome were available. A sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome that included all the participants was performed with the use of multiple imputation to account for missing data. RESULTS: A total of 4153 women, recruited at 48 hospitals in the United Kingdom, were randomly assigned to receive progesterone (2079 women) or placebo (2074 women). The percentage of women with available data for the primary outcome was 97% (4038 of 4153 women). The incidence of live births after at least 34 weeks of gestation was 75% (1513 of 2025 women) in the progesterone group and 72% (1459 of 2013 women) in the placebo group (relative rate, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.07; P = 0.08). The sensitivity analysis, in which missing primary outcome data were imputed, resulted in a similar finding (relative rate, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.07; P = 0.08). The incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among women with bleeding in early pregnancy, progesterone therapy administered during the first trimester did not result in a significantly higher incidence of live births than placebo. (Funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment program; PRISM Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN14163439.).

Levothyroxine in Women with Thyroid Peroxidase Antibodies before Conception.

BACKGROUND: Thyroid peroxidase antibodies are associated with an increased risk of miscarriage and preterm birth, even when thyroid function is normal. Small trials indicate that the use of levothyroxine could reduce the incidence of such adverse outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to investigate whether levothyroxine treatment would increase live-birth rates among euthyroid women who had thyroid peroxidase antibodies and a history of miscarriage or infertility. A total of 19,585 women from 49 hospitals in the United Kingdom underwent testing for thyroid peroxidase antibodies and thyroid function. We randomly assigned 952 women to receive either 50 µg once daily of levothyroxine (476 women) or placebo (476 women) before conception through the end of pregnancy. The primary outcome was live birth after at least 34 weeks of gestation. RESULTS: The follow-up rate for the primary outcome was 98.7% (940 of 952 women). A total of 266 of 470 women in the levothyroxine group (56.6%) and 274 of 470 women in the placebo group (58.3%) became pregnant. The live-birth rate was 37.4% (176 of 470 women) in the levothyroxine group and 37.9% (178 of 470 women) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.14, P = 0.74; absolute difference, -0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -6.6 to 5.8). There were no significant between-group differences in other pregnancy outcomes, including pregnancy loss or preterm birth, or in neonatal outcomes. Serious adverse events occurred in 5.9% of women in the levothyroxine group and 3.8% in the placebo group (P = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: The use of levothyroxine in euthyroid women with thyroid peroxidase antibodies did not result in a higher rate of live births than placebo. (Funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research; TABLET Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN15948785.).

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 INTERESTS: 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.

A Randomized Trial of Progesterone in Women with Recurrent Miscarriages.

BACKGROUND: Progesterone is essential for the maintenance of pregnancy. However, whether progesterone supplementation in the first trimester of pregnancy would increase the rate of live births among women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriages is uncertain. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial to investigate whether treatment with progesterone would increase the rates of live births and newborn survival among women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage. We randomly assigned women with recurrent miscarriages to receive twice-daily vaginal suppositories containing either 400 mg of micronized progesterone or matched placebo from a time soon after a positive urinary pregnancy test (and no later than 6 weeks of gestation) through 12 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome was live birth after 24 weeks of gestation. RESULTS: A total of 1568 women were assessed for eligibility, and 836 of these women who conceived naturally within 1 year and remained willing to participate in the trial were randomly assigned to receive either progesterone (404 women) or placebo (432 women). The follow-up rate for the primary outcome was 98.8% (826 of 836 women). In an intention-to-treat analysis, the rate of live births was 65.8% (262 of 398 women) in the progesterone group and 63.3% (271 of 428 women) in the placebo group (relative rate, 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94 to 1.15; rate difference, 2.5 percentage points; 95% CI, -4.0 to 9.0). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Progesterone therapy in the first trimester of pregnancy did not result in a significantly higher rate of live births among women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriages. (Funded by the United Kingdom National Institute of Health Research; PROMISE Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN92644181.).