Angiogenic factors and the lectin pathway of complement in women with secondary recurrent pregnancy loss.

The poor remodeling of placental spiral arteries seen in preeclampsia is also discussed to contribute to recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) preceded by abnormal angiogenesis and excessive complement activation. Low levels of Mannose-binding-lectin (MBL), a pattern recognition molecule (PRM) of the lectin pathway, have been found in women with RPL. We propose that pregnancy loss is connected to defective angiogenesis with reperfusion damage in the placenta and decreased levels of PRM in the lectin pathway in women with RPL. In this cohort study, we investigate the angiogenic factors and the lectin complement pathway in early pregnancy and their time-dependent relationship with pregnancy outcomes in 76 women with secondary RPL (sRPL) who have at least four prior pregnancy losses and a live birth. We evaluated levels of Angiopoietin-1 (Ang-1), Angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2), Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor (VEGF), soluble fms-like tyrosine kinase-1 (sFlt-1), and the PRMs, MBL, ficolin-1, -2, -3 and an additional soluble PRM, Pentraxin-3, during the 5th, 6th, and 7th gestational weeks. Our results showed that, compared to live births, pregnancies that ended in loss were associated with elevated VEGF levels and decreased levels of the Ang-2/Ang-1 ratio. Also, increasing levels of ficolin-2 were significantly associated with pregnancy loss, with MBL showing no association. Our research suggests that women with sRPL may have inadequate placentation with impaired angiogenesis in pregnancies ending in a loss.

HLA-DRB1 polymorphism in recurrent pregnancy loss: New evidence for an association to HLA-DRB1*07.

Many cases of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) defined as ≥3 consecutive pregnancy losses are suggested to be caused by an aberrant maternal immune response against the fetus or trophoblast. Human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-DRB1 and -DQB1 polymorphisms are associated with most autoimmune disorders and studies of HLA-DBB1 polymorphism in RPL patients are thus relevant. In previous studies, the HLA-DRB1*03 allele was found with increased prevalence in RPL patients. We wanted to clarify whether HLA-DRB1 alleles indeed were associated with RPL among women of Caucasian descent. A total of 1078 women with unexplained RPL and 2066 bone marrow donors were HLA-DRB1-typed and subsets were also HLA-DQB1 typed. All patients were initially HLA-DRB1-typed by DNA-based low-resolution techniques and subsets of patients and all controls were typed by high-resolution techniques. Among patients, the HLA-DRB1*07 allele frequency was significantly increased compared with controls; OR 1.29 (95 % CI 1.09-1.52), p < 0.0025; after correction for multiple comparisons pc = 0.031. The HLA-DRB1*07/*07 genotype was highly increased in patients with RPL compared with controls: OR 2.27 (1.31-3.93), p = 0.0027. The frequency of the HLA-DRB1*07 phenotype in RPL patients had increased significantly (p = 0.002) in three studies from our group published 1994-2021. The allele frequency of HLA-DRB1*03 was not increased in RPL patients compared with controls; OR 0.96 (0.83-1.12). In conclusion, the previous association between HLA-DRB1*03 and RPL could not be confirmed in our study whereas an association to HLA-DRB1*07 was detected for the first time. Since the latter association is a new finding, it should be confirmed in future studies.

SARS-CoV-2 in first trimester pregnancy: a cohort study.

STUDY QUESTION: Does maternal infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in first trimester pregnancy have an impact on the fetal development as measured by nuchal translucency thickness and pregnancy loss? SUMMARY ANSWER: Nuchal translucency thickness at the first trimester scan was not significantly different in pregnant women with versus without SARS-CoV-2 infection in early pregnancy and there was no significantly increased risk of pregnancy loss in women with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first trimester. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Pregnant women are more vulnerable to viral infections. Previous coronavirus epidemics have been associated with increased maternal morbidity, mortality and adverse obstetric outcomes. Currently, no evidence exists regarding possible effects of SARS-CoV-2 in first trimester pregnancies. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Cohort study of 1019 women with a double test taken between 17 February and 23 April 2020, as a part of the combined first trimester risk assessment, and 36 women with a first trimester pregnancy loss between 14 April and 21 May 2020, prior to the double test. The study period was during the first SARS-CoV-2 epidemic wave in Denmark. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Cohort 1 included pregnant women with a double test taken within the study period. The excess serum from each double test was analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Results were correlated to the nuchal translucency thickness and the number of pregnancy losses before or at the time of the first trimester scan. Cohort 2 included women with a pregnancy loss before the gestational age for double test sample. Serum from a blood test taken the day the pregnancy loss was identified was analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The study was conducted at a public university hospital serving ∼12% of pregnant women and births in Denmark. All participants in the study provided written informed consent. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Eighteen (1.8%) women had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the serum from the double test suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection in early pregnancy. There was no significant difference in nuchal translucency thickness for women testing positive for previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 16) versus negative (n = 966) (P = 0.62). There was no significantly increased risk of pregnancy loss for women with antibodies (n = 1) (OR 3.4, 0.08-24.3 95% CI, P = 0.27). None of the women had been hospitalized due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. None of the women with pregnancy loss prior to the double test (Cohort 2) had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: These results may only apply to similar populations and to patients who do not require hospitalization due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. A limitation of the study is that only 1.8% of the study population had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies suggestive of previous infection. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS: Maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection had no effect on the nuchal translucency thickness and there was no significantly increased risk of pregnancy loss for women with SARS-CoV-2 infection in first trimester pregnancy. Evidence concerning COVID-19 in pregnancy is still limited. These data indicate that infection with SARS-CoV-2 in not hospitalized women does not pose a significant threat in first trimester pregnancies. Follow-up studies are needed to establish any risk to a fetus exposed to maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Prof. H.S.N. and colleagues received a grant from the Danish Ministry of Research and Education for research of COVID-19 among pregnant women. The Danish government was not involved in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report or decision to submit the paper for publication. A.I., J.O.-L., J.B.-R., D.M.S., J.E.-F. and E.R.H. received funding from a Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF) Young Investigator Grant (NNF15OC0016662) and a Danish National Science Foundation Center Grant (6110-00344B). A.I. received a Novo Scholarship. J.O.-L. is funded by an NNF Pregraduate Fellowship (NNF19OC0058982). D.W. is funded by the NNF (NNF18SA0034956, NNF14CC0001, NNF17OC0027594). A.M.K. is funded by a grant from the Rigshospitalet's research fund. H.S.N. has received speaker's fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck Denmark A/S and Ibsa Nordic (outside the submitted work). N.l.C.F. has received a grant from Gedeon Richter (outside the submitted work). A.M.K. has received speaker's fee from Merck (outside the submitted work). The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Chance of live birth in the first pregnancy after referral among patients with recurrent pregnancy loss is not influenced by their relatives' reproductive history.

Purpose: Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is defined as three or more consecutive pregnancy losses and affects 1-3% of couples trying to conceive. Pregnancy loss is more common among RPL patients' siblings than in the general population. Our objective was to investigate whether first-degree relatives with pregnancy losses influenced the chance of live birth in the first pregnancy after referral among women with RPL.Materials and methods: This is a cohort study of 2138 women with RPL seen at the Danish RPL Unit at Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet between January 1st 2000 and December 31st 2017 with follow-up until December 2018. Pregnancies among first-degree relatives were reported by patients at their first consultation. Chance of live birth after referral was compared by logistic regression analysis.Results: Overall, 76% of the referred women achieved a pregnancy after referral and of these, 58% delivered a live born child. Women whose mother had experienced pregnancy loss were referred at a younger age than women with no pregnancy losses among first-degree relatives (mean age 33.6 (SD 4.6) versus 34.3 (SD 4.5), p = 0.002). Pregnancy losses among first-degree relatives did not influence chance of live birth.Conclusions: Our results indicate that pregnancy losses among first-degree family members is not an important risk factor for outcome of the first pregnancy after referral among women with RPL.

Pregnancy outcomes after recurrent pregnancy loss: a longitudinal cohort study on stress and depression.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Are self-reported symptoms of stress and depression associated with pregnancy outcomes within the first year after referral to a tertiary recurrent pregnancy loss unit? DESIGN: Prospective cohort study with online questionnaires using the Major Depression Inventory (MDI) and Cohen's Stress Scale (PSS) at referral and after 1 year. The study was conducted between 2010 and 2014. A total of 301 women who had experienced recurrent pregnancy loss completed the first questionnaire. One year after referral, 185 women (61%) completed a follow-up questionnaire. RESULTS: A score above the threshold for major depression on the MDI at referral was not a predictor for outcome in the first pregnancy after referral; OR (95% CI) for live birth 1.71 (0.66 to 4.44), neither was increasing scores on the PSS: OR 0.98 (95% CI 0.94 to 1.02). At follow-up, women who had achieved a pregnancy resulting in a live birth had significantly lower scores on both the MDI: 13.45 (11.05) versus 11.04 (11.07); difference -2.41 (95% CI -4.60 to -0.23); and the PSS: mean 17.69 (7.59) versus 13.03 (6.83); difference -4.66 (95% CI -6.04 to -3.28), respectively. This was not the case for women who did not have a successful pregnancy. Women who experienced recurrent pregnancy loss after a successful birth were less likely to report symptoms corresponding to major depression than women who had only experienced losses (n = 7 [5%] versus 19 [12%]; P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: Self-reported emotional distress did not affect future chance of live birth. A live born child decreased emotional distress.

Recurrent pregnancy loss: couples' perspectives on their need for treatment, support and follow up.

STUDY QUESTION: What do couples referred to or attending a recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) clinic believe they need in terms of treatment, support and follow up? SUMMARY ANSWER: Men and women wish for more information, earlier access to treatment, support and follow up that is sensitive to their history of pregnancy loss (PL), includes both members of the couple, and acknowledges the psychological impact of RPL. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Previous research has highlighted women's dissatisfaction with medical care provided post-PL and their desire for medical professionals to have increased awareness about PL and recognition of the psychological impact of PL. Less is known about the needs of the male partner, the needs of those experiencing RPL and whether the needs differ during different reproductive stages. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Over a 2-month period in 2017-2018, 13 couples who were referred to the national RPL program in Copenhagen, Denmark were qualitatively interviewed. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Inclusion criteria were heterosexual couples with at least three consecutive PLs before 12 weeks' gestation with no children or one child prior to the PLs, not currently pregnant, and willing to be interviewed in English. Couples were interviewed together in a semi-structured format. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Invitations (n = 30) were sent to couples recently referred to the RPL program who indicated an interest in participating and 17 couples contacted the interviewer to schedule an interview. Due to cancellations, 15 interviews were held. Data from 13 interviews that met the study criteria were used for the current analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The participants had experienced a median of three PLs (range 3-6). Both men and women described the cumulative effect of RPL with an increase in pressure and exhaustion by the third and subsequent losses. Inclusion of the male partner in consultations and treatment was seen as important. Men felt pressured to remain positive and support their partners despite their own feelings of loss. The findings showed that couples desired reliable and accurate information about RPL. They wished for recognition from the medical community that RPL has a significant psychological impact, and stressed that effective treatment should include both members of the couple, with attention to both physical and psychological aspects of the RPL and should be tailored to their current reproductive stage, in order to help them cope with the negative impact of RPL and the anxiety associated with conception and another pregnancy. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Participants were self-selected thus findings cannot be generalized to all couples with RPL. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first study addressing the needs of the female and male partners in couples suffering from RPL. The findings highlight a disconnect between couples' perceived needs and their experience of medical care after RPL. This may be partly due to a discrepancy in couples' and medical professionals' perceptions of the PLs. The findings highlight that medical professionals need to take a holistic and couple-focused approach in their treatment of RPL and include attention to the psychological impact and cumulative effect of the multiple PLs on the couple. The results underscore the need for informational resources and psychological support for couples experiencing RPL, tailored to their reproductive stage. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): EK was funded by a Travel/Training Fellowship from ReproUnion, co-financed by the European Union, Interreg V ÖKS. No other competing interests were declared. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Recurrent pregnancy loss: what is the impact of consecutive versus non-consecutive losses?

STUDY QUESTION: Is there a different prognostic impact for consecutive and non-consecutive early pregnancy losses in women with secondary recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Only consecutive early pregnancy losses after the last birth have a statistically significant negative prognostic impact in women with secondary RPL. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The risk of a new pregnancy loss increases with the number of previous pregnancy losses in patients with RPL. Second trimester losses seem to exhibit a stronger negative impact than early losses. It is unknown whether the sequence of pregnancy losses plays a role for the prognosis in patients with a prior birth. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This retrospective cohort study of pregnancy outcome in patients with unexplained secondary RPL included in three previously published, Danish double-blinded placebo-controlled trials of intravenous immunoglobulin (IvIg) conducted from 1991 to 2014. No other treatments were given. Patients with documented explained pregnancy losses (ectopic pregnancies and aneuploid miscarriages) were excluded. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Of the 168 patients included in the trials, 127 had secondary RPL and experienced a subsequent live birth or unexplained pregnancy loss in the first pregnancy after giving informed consent to participate in the trials (the index pregnancy). Data analyzed by multivariate analysis included the independent variables age, the number of early pregnancy losses before and after the last birth, respectively and a second trimester pregnancy loss before or after the last birth, respectively. The outcome variable was unexplained loss in the index pregnancy. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In patients with secondary RPL, both a late and each early loss before the last birth did not significantly influence the risk of a new pregnancy loss in the index pregnancy: incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.31 (95% CI 0.62-2.77) and IRR 0.88 (95% CI 0.70-1.11), respectively. In contrast, the impact on risk of pregnancy loss conferred by a late and by each early pregnancy loss occurring after the birth was significant: IRR 2.15 (95% CI 1.57-2.94, P < 0.0001) and IRR 1.14 (95% CI 1.04-1.24, P = 0.002), respectively. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Of the patients, 48% were treated with IvIg, which could influence the results. However, allocation to IvIg was random and prognostic variables were equally distributed in IvIg and placebo-treated patients. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: A birth in women with secondary RPL eradicates the negative prognostic impact of previous pregnancy losses and this finding is important for our understanding of the pathogenesis. It indicates that only consecutive pregnancy losses should count in the definition of RPL. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: There was no particular funding for this study. The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable for two of the included randomized controlled trials. For the last trial: Clinical.Gov NCT00722475.

Depression and emotional stress is highly prevalent among women with recurrent pregnancy loss.

STUDY QUESTION: Is the prevalence of psychological stress and moderate/severe depression higher for women with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) than pregnancy planners trying to conceive naturally? SUMMARY ANSWER: Both psychological stress and major depression are significantly more common among women with RPL than in those trying to conceive naturally. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: RPL has a significant emotional impact on couples, especially the woman. Previous studies have shown inconclusive results. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In this cross-sectional study, we compared the prevalence of stress and depression among 301 women with RPL and 1813 women attempting to conceive naturally. We defined RPL as three or more pregnancy losses before 12 weeks' gestation. RPL patients were enrolled from 2010 to 2013 and the comparison group from 2011 to 2014. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: RPL patients completed an online questionnaire before their first consultation at the Danish RPL Unit. In addition, we included data from a comparison group of 1813 women who participated in the Soon Parents Study (www.SnartForældre.dk). The Major Depression Index (MDI) was used to assess symptoms of depression, and Cohen's Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) was used to measure stress. Relevant demographic data were also retrieved. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the RPL patients, 26 (8.6%) had a score on the MDI corresponding to moderate/severe depression, as did 40 (2.2%) of the women in Soon Parents Study (adjusted odds ratio (OR) 5.53 (95% confidence interval (CI): 2.09; 14.61)). A high stress level, defined as ≥19 on the PSS scale, was reported by 124 (41.2%) of the patients and 420 (23.2%) in the comparison group (adjusted OR 1.59 (95% CI 1.03; 2.44)). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used online questionnaires, and have no interview data. We were unaware if any of the women in the comparison group suffer from RPL. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study should entail a heightened awareness of mental distress among care providers for women with RPL. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No specific funding was sought for this study. The Soon Parents Study is funded by National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01 HD060680-01A4). No authors have competing interests to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Terminology for pregnancy loss prior to viability: a consensus statement from the ESHRE early pregnancy special interest group.

Pregnancy loss prior to viability is common and research in the field is extensive. Unfortunately, terminology in the literature is inconsistent. The lack of consensus regarding nomenclature and classification of pregnancy loss prior to viability makes it difficult to compare study results from different centres. In our opinion, terminology and definitions should be based on clinical findings, and when possible, transvaginal ultrasound. With this Early Pregnancy Consensus Statement, it is our goal to provide clear and consistent terminology for pregnancy loss prior to viability.

Non-visualized pregnancy losses are prognostically important for unexplained recurrent miscarriage.

STUDY QUESTION: Are non-visualized pregnancy losses (biochemical pregnancy loss and failed pregnancy of unknown location combined) in the reproductive history of women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage (RM) negatively associated with the chance of live birth in a subsequent pregnancy? SUMMARY ANSWER: Non-visualized pregnancy losses contribute negatively to the chance for live birth: each non-visualized pregnancy loss confers a relative risk (RR) for live birth of 0.90 (95% CI 0.83; 0.97), equivalent to the RR conferred by each additional clinical miscarriage. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The number of clinical miscarriages prior to referral is an important determinant for live birth in women with RM, whereas the significance of non-visualized pregnancy losses is unknown. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A retrospective cohort study comprising 587 women with RM seen in a tertiary RM unit 2000-2010. Data on the outcome of the first pregnancy after referral were analysed for 499 women. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The study was conducted in the RM Unit at Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark. We included all women with unexplained RM, defined as ≥3 consecutive clinical miscarriages or non-visualized pregnancy losses following spontaneous conception or homologous insemination. The category 'non-visualized pregnancy losses' combines biochemical pregnancy loss (positive hCG, no ultrasound performed) and failed PUL (pregnancy of unknown location, positive hCG, but on ultrasound, no pregnancy location established). Demographics were collected, including BMI, age at first pregnancy after referral and outcome of pregnancies prior to referral. Using our own records and records from other Danish hospitals, we verified the outcome of the first pregnancy after referral. For each non-visualized pregnancy loss and miscarriage in the women's reproductive history, the RR for live birth in the first pregnancy after referral was determined by robust Poisson regression analysis, adjusting for risk factors for negative pregnancy outcome. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Non-visualized pregnancy losses constituted 37% of reported pregnancies prior to referral among women with RM. Each additional non-visualized pregnancy loss conferred an RR for live birth of 0.90 (95% CI 0.83; 0.97), which was not statistically significantly different from the corresponding RR of 0.87 (95% CI 0.80; 0.94) conferred by each clinical miscarriage. Among women with ≥2 clinical miscarriages, a reduced RR for live birth was also shown: 0.82 (95% CI 0.74; 0.92) for each clinical miscarriage and 0.89 (95% CI 0.80; 0.98) for each non-visualized pregnancy loss, respectively. Surgically treated ectopic pregnancies (EPs) were significantly more common for women with primary RM and no confirmed clinical miscarriages, compared with women with primary RM and ≥1 clinical miscarriage (22 versus 6%, difference 16% (95% CI 9.1%; 28.7%); RR for ectopic pregnancy was 4.0 (95% CI 1.92; 8.20). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: RM was defined as ≥3 consecutive pregnancy losses before 12 weeks' gestation, and we included only women with unexplained RM after thorough evaluation. It is uncertain whether the findings apply to other definitions of RM and among women with known causes for their miscarriages. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive investigation of prior non-visualized pregnancy losses and their prognostic significance for live birth in a subsequent pregnancy in women with unexplained RM. We show that a prior non-visualized pregnancy loss has a negative prognostic impact on subsequent live birth and is thus clinically significant. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): None. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

A genome-wide scan in affected sibling pairs with idiopathic recurrent miscarriage suggests genetic linkage.

Previously, siblings of patients with idiopathic recurrent miscarriage (IRM) have been shown to have a higher risk of miscarriage. This study comprises two parts: (i) an epidemiological part, in which we introduce data on the frequency of miscarriage among 268 siblings of 244 patients with IRM and (ii) a genetic part presenting data from a genome-wide linkage study of 38 affected sibling pairs with IRM. All IRM patients (probands) had experienced three or more miscarriages and affected siblings two or more miscarriages. The sibling pairs were genotyped by the Affymetrix GeneChip 50K XbaI platform and non-parametric linkage analysis was performed via the software package Merlin. We find that siblings of IRM patients exhibit a higher frequency of miscarriage than population controls regardless of age at the time of pregnancy. We identify chromosomal regions with LOD scores between 2.5 and 3.0 in subgroups of affected sibling pairs. Maximum LOD scores were identified in four occurrences: for rs10514716 (3p14.2) when analyzing sister-pairs only; for rs10511668 (9p22.1) and rs341048 (11q13.4) when only analyzing families where the probands have had four or more miscarriages; and for rs10485275 (6q16.3) when analyzing one sibling pair from each family only. We identify no founder mutations. Concluding, our results imply that IRM patients and their siblings share factors which increase the risk of miscarriage. In this first genome-wide linkage study of affected sibling pairs with IRM, we identify regions on chromosomes 3, 6, 9 and 11 which warrant further investigation in order to elucidate their putative roles in the genesis of IRM.