Antiphospholipid antibodies associated with recurrent pregnancy loss: prospective, multicenter, controlled pilot study comparing treatment with low-molecular-weight heparin versus unfractionated heparin

Recurrent MiscarriageGreen-top Guideline No. 17

In this guideline, recurrent miscarriage has been defined as three or more first trimester miscarriages. However, clinicians are encouraged to use their clinical discretion to recommend extensive evaluation after two first trimester miscarriages, if there is a suspicion that the miscarriages are of pathological and not of sporadic nature. Women with recurrent miscarriage should be offered testing for acquired thrombophilia, particularly for lupus anticoagulant and anticardiolipin antibodies, prior to pregnancy. [Grade C] Women with second trimester miscarriage may be offered testing for Factor V Leiden, prothrombin gene mutation and protein S deficiency, ideally within a research context. [Grade C] Inherited thrombophilias have a weak association with recurrent miscarriage. Routine testing for protein C, antithrombin deficiency and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase mutation is not recommended. [Grade C] Cytogenetic analysis should be offered on pregnancy tissue of the third and subsequent miscarriage(s) and in any second trimester miscarriage. [Grade D] Parental peripheral blood karyotyping should be offered for couples in whom testing of pregnancy tissue reports an unbalanced structural chromosomal abnormality [Grade D] or there is unsuccessful or no pregnancy tissue available for testing. [GPP] Women with recurrent miscarriage should be offered assessment for congenital uterine anomalies, ideally with 3D ultrasound. [Grade B] Women with recurrent miscarriage should be offered thyroid function tests and assessment for thyroid peroxidase (TPO) antibodies. [Grade C] Women with recurrent miscarriage should not be routinely offered immunological screening (such as HLA, cytokine and natural killer cell tests), infection screening or sperm DNA testing outside a research context. [Grade C] Women with recurrent miscarriage should be advised to maintain a BMI between 19 and 25 kg/m2 , smoking cessation, limit alcohol consumption and limit caffeine to less than 200 mg/day. [Grade D] For women diagnosed with antiphospholipid syndrome, aspirin and heparin should be offered from a positive test until at least 34 weeks of gestation, following discussion of potential benefits versus risks. [Grade B] Aspirin and/or heparin should not be given to women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage. [Grade B] There are currently insufficient data to support the routine use of PGT-A for couples with unexplained recurrent miscarriage, while the treatment may carry a significant cost and potential risk. [Grade C] Resection of a uterine septum should be considered for women with recurrent first or second trimester miscarriage, ideally within an appropriate audit or research context. [Grade C] Thyroxine supplementation is not routinely recommended for euthyroid women with TPO who have a history of miscarriage. [Grade A] Progestogen supplementation should be considered in women with recurrent miscarriage who present with bleeding in early pregnancy (for example 400 mg micronised vaginal progesterone twice daily at the time of bleeding until 16 weeks of gestation). [Grade B] Women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage should be offered supportive care, ideally in the setting of a dedicated recurrent miscarriage clinic. [Grade C].

The pathogenesis of obstetric APS: a 2023 update

The antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune disease characterized by the persistent presence of antibodies directed against phospholipids and phospholipid-binding proteins that are associated with thrombosis and pregnancy-related morbidity. The latter includes fetal deaths, premature birth and maternal complications. In the early 1990s, a distinct set of autoantibodies, termed collectively antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL), were identified as the causative agents of this disorder. Subsequently histological analyses of the placenta from APS pregnancies revealed various abnormalities, including inflammation at maternal-fetal interface and poor placentation manifested by reduced trophoblast invasion and limited uterine spiral artery remodeling. Further preclinical investigations identified the molecular targets of aPL and the downstream intracellular pathways of key placental cell types. While these discoveries suggest potential therapeutics for this disorder, definitive clinical trials have not been completed. This concise review focuses on the recent developments in the field of basic and translational research pursuing novel mechanisms underlying obstetric APS.

Investigation and Management of Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: A Comprehensive Review of Guidelines

Importance

Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is one of the most frustrating clinical entities in reproductive medicine requiring not only diagnostic investigation and therapeutic intervention, but also evaluation of the risk for recurrence.

Objective

The aim of this study was to review and compare the most recently published major guidelines on investigation and management of RPL.

Evidence Acquisition

A descriptive review of guidelines from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, the French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians, and the German, Austrian, and Swiss Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics on RPL was carried out.

Results

There is consensus among the reviewed guidelines that the mainstays of RPL investigation are a detailed personal history and screening for antiphospholipid syndrome and anatomical abnormalities of the uterus. In contrast, inherited thrombophilias, vaginal infections, and immunological and male factors of infertility are not recommended as part of a routine RPL investigation. Several differences exist regarding the necessity of the cytogenetic analysis of the products of conception, parental peripheral blood karyotyping, ovarian reserve testing, screening for thyroid disorders, diabetes or hyperhomocysteinemia, measurement of prolactin levels, and performing endometrial biopsy. Regarding the management of RPL, low-dose aspirin plus heparin is indicated for the treatment of antiphospholipid syndrome and levothyroxine for overt hypothyroidism. Genetic counseling is required in case of abnormal parental karyotype. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, and the French College of Gynecologists and Obstetricians guidelines provide recommendations that are similar on the management of cervical insufficiency based on the previous reproductive history. However, there is no common pathway regarding the management of subclinical hypothyroidism and the surgical repair of congenital and acquired uterine anomalies. Use of heparin for inherited thrombophilias and immunotherapy and anticoagulants for unexplained RPL are not recommended, although progesterone supplementation is suggested by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the German, Austrian, and Swiss Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics.

Conclusions

Recurrent pregnancy loss is a devastating condition for couples. Thus, it seems of paramount importance to develop consistent international practice protocols for cost-effective investigation and management of this early pregnancy complication, with the aim to improve live birth rates.

Management and outcomes of women with antiphospholipid syndrome during pregnancy

Women with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) have an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes. To define clinical, serologic, and treatment factors that can predict outcomes in pregnant women with APS. Retrospective cohort study of pregnant women with APS evaluated at a university medical center between January 2006 and August 2021. Demographics, personal and family history of thrombosis, autoimmune disease, antithrombotic use, pregnancy outcomes, maternal and fetal complications were collected. We compared pregnancy outcomes in the presence or absence of lupus anticoagulant (LA), systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), prior thrombosis or pregnancy losses, and antithrombotic use. There were 169 pregnancies in 50 women; 79 (46.7%) occurred after maternal diagnosis of APS. The most common antithrombotic regimen was aspirin and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) in 26.6% of pregnancies; 55.0% of all pregnancies and 68.4% of pregnancies post-APS diagnosis resulted in a live birth. In age-adjusted analyses, aspirin plus LMWH regardless of dosage was associated with significantly higher odds of live birth compared with no antithrombotic use (OR = 7.5, p < 0.001) and compared with aspirin alone (OR = 13.2, p = 0.026). SLE increased the risk for preterm birth and preeclampsia. A positive LA did not impact the outcomes evaluated and anticardiolipin IgM decreased the risk of pre-eclampsia. The presence of SLE is a significant risk factor for adverse outcomes in pregnant women with APS. Treatment with LMWH and aspirin was superior to aspirin alone. The creation of a global registry may be useful in improving the management of these patients.

Risk of Thrombosis, Pregnancy Morbidity or Death in Antiphospholipid Syndrome

The antiphospholipid syndrome is an autoimmune disease characterized by thrombosis and pregnancy morbidity. The manifestations are caused by antibodies targeting cell membrane phospholipids and/or associated proteins. The triggers leading to these antibodies' production are unknown but recent work suggests cross-reactivity between the autoantigens and peptides produced by the intestinal microbiome. Work on how the autoantibodies could cause clinical manifestations implicates different mechanisms. Binding to surface proteins of different cell types can induce intracellular signaling leading to cell activation and tissue factor expression. Complement activation and neutrophil extracellular-traps are also involved, and recent evidence implicates endothelial protein C receptor-lysobisphosphatidic acid complex. Pregnancy is a high-risk situation for antiphospholipid syndrome patients due to the increased risk of thrombosis and obstetric complications. Epidemiological and clinical research on APS is hampered by heterogeneity in populations, testing and treatment strategies. About one in 10 to one in fifty APS pregnancies is complicated by thrombosis, despite treatment. Pregnant patients with prior thrombosis are prescribed therapeutic dose heparins and low dose aspirin. Without prior thrombosis a prophylactic dose is used. The most frequent obstetrical manifestation is recurrent early pregnancy loss. The association of APS antibodies with late pregnancy loss is stronger, however. Prevention of recurrence is achieved with aspirin and prophylactic dose heparin, although the evidence is of low certainty. The third obstetrical classifying manifestation comprises preterm delivery due to placenta-mediated complications and is treated in subsequent pregnancies with aspirin with or without prophylactic dose heparin, again based on low quality evidence. New therapies are under investigation.

Comparison of treatments for the prevention of fetal growth restriction in obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

Women with criteria and non-criteria obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) carry an increased risk of pregnancy complications, including fetal growth restriction (FGR). The management of obstetric APS traditionally involves clinicians, obstetricians and gynaecologists; however, the most appropriate prophylactic treatment strategy for FGR prevention in APS is still debated. We performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NetMA) to summarize current evidence on pharmacological treatments for the prevention of FGR in APS. We searched PubMed and Embase from inception until July 2020, for randomized controlled trials and prospective studies on pregnant women with criteria or non-criteria obstetric APS. NetMA using a frequentist framework were conducted for the primary outcome (FGR) and for secondary outcomes (fetal or neonatal death and preterm birth). Adverse events were narratively summarised. Out of 1124 citations, we included eight studies on 395 pregnant patients with obstetric APS treated with low-dose aspirin (LDA) + unfractionated heparin (UFH) (n = 132 patients), LDA (n = 115), LDA + low molecular weight heparin (n = 100), LDA + corticosteroids (n = 29), LDA + UFH + intravenous immunoglobulin (n = 7), or untreated (n = 12). No difference among treatments emerged in terms of FGR prevention, but estimates were largely imprecise, and most studies were at high/unclear risk of bias. An increased risk of fetal or neonatal death was found for LDA monotherapy as compared to LDA + heparin, and for no treatment as compared to LDA + corticosteroids. The risk of preterm birth was higher for LDA + UFH + IVIg as compared to LDA or LDA + heparin, and for LDA + corticosteroids as compared to LDA or LDA + LMWH. No treatment was associated with an increased risk of bleeding, thrombocytopenia or osteopenia.

Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis for women at risk during pregnancy and the early postnatal period

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), although rare, is a major cause of maternal mortality and morbidity. Some women are at increased risk of VTE during pregnancy and the early postnatal period (e.g. caesarean section, family history of VTE, or thrombophilia), and so prophylaxis may be considered. As some methods of prophylaxis carry risks of adverse effects, and risk of VTE is often low, benefits of thromboprophylaxis may be outweighed by harms.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy and the early postnatal period on the risk of venous thromboembolic disease and adverse effects in women at increased risk of VTE.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (18 October 2019). In addition, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for unpublished, planned and ongoing trial reports (18 October 2019).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing one method of thromboprophylaxis with placebo or no treatment, or two (or more) methods of thromboprophylaxis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and judged certainty of evidence for selected critical outcomes (using GRADE). We conducted fixed-effect meta-analysis and reported data (all dichotomous) as summary risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-nine trials (involving 3839 women), overall at moderate to high risk of bias were included. Trials were conducted across the antenatal, peripartum and postnatal periods, with most in high-income countries. Interventions included types and regimens of heparin (low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) and unfractionated heparin (UFH)), hydroxyethyl starch (HES), and compression stockings or devices. Data were limited due to a small number of trials in comparisons and/or few or no events reported. All critical outcomes (assessed for comparisons of heparin versus no treatment/placebo, and LMWH versus UFH) were considered to have very low-certainty evidence, downgraded mainly for study limitations and imprecise effect estimates.  Maternal death was not reported in most studies. Antenatal (± postnatal) prophylaxis For the primary outcomes symptomatic thromboembolic events pulmonary embolism (PE) and/or deep vein thrombosis (DVT), and the critical outcome of adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment, the evidence was very uncertain.  Symptomatic thromboembolic events: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.08 to 1.98; 4 trials, 476 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.09 to 2.49; 4 trials, 404 women; very low-certainty evidence); Symptomatic PE: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.02 to 7.14; 3 trials, 187 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (no events; 3 trials, 287 women); Symptomatic DVT: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.04 to 3.10; 4 trials, 227 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (no events; 3 trials, 287 women); Adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 0.49; 95% CI 0.05 to 5.31; 1 trial, 139 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54; 2 trials, 226 women; very low-certainty evidence). Peripartum/postnatal prophylaxis Vaginal or caesarean birth When UFH and no treatment were compared, the effects on symptomatic thromboembolic events (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.36; 1 trial, 210 women; very low-certainty evidence), symptomatic PE (RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.01 to 3.34; 1 trial, 210 women; very low-certainty evidence), and symptomatic DVT  (RR 0.27; 95% CI 0.03 to 2.55; 1 trial, 210 women; very low-certainty evidence) were very uncertain.  Maternal death and adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment were not reported. Caesarean birth Symptomatic thromboembolic events: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.39 to 4.27; 4 trials, 840 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; 3 trials, 217 women; very low-certainty evidence); Symptomatic PE: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 1.10; 95% CI 0.25 to 4.87; 4 trials, 840 women; very low-certainty evidence); - LMWH versus UFH (no events; 3 trials, 217 women);  Symptomatic DVT: - heparin versus no treatment/placebo (RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.24 to 6.94; 5 trials, 1140 women; very low-certainty evidence); LMWH versus UFH (RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99; 3 trials, 217 women; very low-certainty evidence); Maternal death: - heparin versus placebo (no events, 1 trial, 300 women); Adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment: - heparin versus placebo (no events;  1 trial, 140 women). Postnatal prophylaxis No events were reported for LMWH versus no treatment/placebo for: symptomatic thromboembolic events, symptomatic PE and symptomatic DVT (all 2 trials, 58 women), or maternal death (1 trial, 24 women). Adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment were not reported. We were unable to conduct subgroup analyses due to lack of data. Sensitivity analysis including the nine studies at low risk of bias did not impact overall findings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The evidence is very uncertain about benefits and harms of VTE thromboprophylaxis in women during pregnancy and the early postnatal period at increased risk of VTE. Further high-quality very large-scale randomised trials are needed to determine effects of currently used treatments in women with different VTE risk factors. As sufficiently large definitive trials are unlikely to be funded, secondary data analyses based on high-quality registry data are important.

Evaluation of etiology and pregnancy outcome in recurrent miscarriage patients

The purpose of this study was to evaluate etiology and pregnancy outcome of recurrent miscarriage women. The enrolled patients (280) were evaluated for Triiodothyronine, Thyroxine, Thyroid stimulating hormone, prolactin, chromosomal analysis, Haemoglobin A1C, blood sugar, Magnetic resonance imaging, 3D-ultrasound, auto-antibodies profile (antiphospholipid antibodies, anticardiolipin antibodies, lupus anticoagulant, antinuclear antibodies, anti-thyroid antibodies and β2 glycoprotein1), torch profile (Toxoplasmo gondii, rubella, cytomegalo virus and herpes simplex virus), blood vitamin D3 levels, psychological factors, Body mass index and thrombotic factors (protein S and C deficiency, Prothrombin G20210A mutation, anti-thrombin III, Factor V Leiden and Methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase mutation), uterosalpingography (hysteronsalpingography) and hysteroscopy. The therapeutic regimens either singly or combined were employed for the treatment of recurrent miscarriage patients on the basis of etiology (single or multiple) and include intravenous immunoglobulin, low molecular weight heparin, low dose aspirin, levothyroxine, progesterone, folic acid, human chorionic gonadotrophin, vitamin D3, psychotherapy, genetic counselling. However, patients with idiopathic recurrent miscarriage were treated with progesterone supplementation, anticoagulation and/or immune modulatory agents. The incidence of primary recurrent miscarriage was highest and most of the women experienced recurrent miscarriage during first trimester. Endocrinological disorders (39%) were found as the major pathological factor for recurrent miscarriage. Other factors include uterine abnormalities (5.7%), vitamin D3 deficiency (3.5%), psychological factors (3.2%) infection (3.6%), autoimmune abnormalities (1.8%) and protein S deficiency (1.8%). However, 40% cases were idiopathic. The overall live birth rate achieved after the management of recurrent miscarriage patients was 75.7%. Enocrinopathy was the major cause of recurrent miscarriage. The overall live birth rate achieved was 75.7% with highest pregnancy outcome in secondary recurrent miscarriage patients after the management.

Aspirin or heparin or both for improving pregnancy outcomes in women with persistent antiphospholipid antibodies and recurrent pregnancy loss

BACKGROUND

Aspirin and heparin are widely used as preventive strategy to reduce the high risk of recurrent pregnancy loss in women with antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL). This review supersedes a previous, out-of-date review that evaluated all potential therapies for preventing recurrent pregnancy loss in women with aPL. The current review focusses on a narrower scope because current clinical practice is restricted to using aspirin or heparins, or both for women with aPL in an attempt to reduce pregnancy complications.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of aspirin or heparin, or both for improving pregnancy outcomes in women with persistent (on two separate occasions) aPL, either lupus anticoagulant (LAC), anticardiolipin (aCL) or aβ₂-glycoprotein-I antibodies (aβ₂GPI) or a combination, and recurrent pregnancy loss (two or more, which do not have to be consecutive).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (3 June 2019), and reference lists of retrieved studies. Where necessary, we attempted to contact trial authors.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, cluster-randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials that assess the effects of aspirin, heparin (either low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) or unfractionated heparin (UFH]), or a combination of aspirin and heparin compared with no treatment, placebo or another, on pregnancy outcomes in women with persistent aPL and recurrent pregnancy loss were eligible. All treatment regimens were considered.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for inclusion criteria and risk of bias. Two review authors independently extracted data and checked them for accuracy and the certainty of the evidence was assessed using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

Eleven studies (1672 women) met the inclusion criteria; nine randomised controlled trials and two quasi-RCTs. The studies were conducted in the USA, Canada, UK, China, New Zealand, Iraq and Egypt. One included trial involved 1015 women, all other included trials had considerably lower numbers of participants (i.e. 141 women or fewer). Some studies had high risk of selection and attrition bias, and many did not include sufficient information to judge the risk of reporting bias. Overall, the certainty of evidence is low to very low due to the small numbers of women in the studies and to the risk of bias. The dose and type of heparin and aspirin varied among studies. One study compared aspirin alone with placebo; no studies compared heparin alone with placebo and there were no trials that had a no treatment comparator arm during pregnancy; five studies explored the efficacy of heparin (either UFH or LMWH) combined with aspirin compared with aspirin alone; one trial compared LMWH with aspirin; two trials compared the combination of LMWH plus aspirin with the combination of UFH plus aspirin; two studies evaluated the combination of different doses of heparin combined with aspirin. All trials used aspirin at a low dose. Aspirin versus placebo We are very uncertain if aspirin has any effect on live birth compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71 to 1.25, 1 trial, 40 women, very low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain if aspirin has any effect on the risk of pre-eclampsia, pregnancy loss, preterm delivery of a live infant, intrauterine growth restriction or adverse events in the child, compared to placebo. We are very uncertain if aspirin has any effect on adverse events (bleeding) in the mother compared with placebo (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.77, 1 study, 40 women). The certainty of evidence for these outcomes is very low because of imprecision, due to the low numbers of women involved and the wide 95% CIs, and also because of risk of bias. Venous thromboembolism and arterial thromboembolism were not reported in the included studies. Heparin plus aspirin versus aspirin alone Heparin plus aspirin may increase the number of live births (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.49, 5 studies, 1295 women, low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if heparin plus aspirin has any effect on the risk of pre-eclampsia, preterm delivery of a live infant, or intrauterine growth restriction, compared with aspirin alone because of risk of bias and imprecision due to the low numbers of women involved and the wide 95% CIs. We are very uncertain if heparin plus aspirin has any effect on adverse events (bleeding) in the mother compared with aspirin alone (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.19 to 14.03, 1 study, 31 women). No women in either the heparin plus aspirin group or the aspirin alone group had heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, allergic reactions, or venous or arterial thromboembolism. Similarly, no infants had congenital malformations. Heparin plus aspirin may reduce the risk of pregnancy loss (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.71, 5 studies, 1295 women, low-certainty evidence). When comparing LMWH plus aspirin versus aspirin alone the pooled RR for live birth was 1.20 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.38, 3 trials, 1155 women). In the comparison of UFH plus aspirin versus aspirin alone, the RR for live birth was 1.74 (95% CI 1.28 to 2.35, 2 trials, 140 women).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The combination of heparin (UFH or LMWH) plus aspirin during the course of pregnancy may increase live birth rate in women with persistent aPL when compared with aspirin treatment alone. The observed beneficial effect of heparin was driven by one large study in which LMWH plus aspirin was compared with aspirin alone. Adverse events were frequently not, or not uniformly, reported in the included studies. More research is needed in this area in order to further evaluate potential risks and benefits of this treatment strategy, especially among women with aPL and recurrent pregnancy loss, to gain consensus on the ideal prevention for recurrent pregnancy loss, based on a risk profile.

Safety and Efficacy of Enoxaparin in Pregnancy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction

International guidelines support the use of low molecular weight heparins for the treatment of thromboembolism and thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy. However, evidence of the benefit and harm associated with specific low molecular weight heparins such as enoxaparin is dated. No current systematic review and meta-analysis describing the safety and efficacy of enoxaparin for thromboembolism and thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy exists.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane databases were searched on August 17, 2018 for clinical trials or observational studies in pregnant women receiving enoxaparin; patients with a prosthetic heart valve were excluded. Risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model, and heterogeneity was measured using the I² statistic.

Results

Of the 485 records identified in the search, 24 studies published clinical trials, and observational studies were found dating back to 2000. Only one observational cohort and one randomized control trial focused on the use of enoxaparin for thromboprophylaxis and therefore efficacy was not assessed; the other studies included women with recurrent pregnancy loss (15 studies), history of placental vascular complications (five studies), and recurrent in vitro fertilization failure (two studies) and were therefore analyzed in terms of safety only. Bleeding events were non-significantly more often reported for enoxaparin compared to untreated controls (RR 1.35 [0.88–2.07]) but less often reported for enoxaparin versus aspirin (RR 0.93 [0.62–1.39]); thromboembolic events, thrombocytopenia, and teratogenicity were rarely reported events; in patients with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss, encouragingly the rates of pregnancy loss were significantly lower for enoxaparin compared to untreated controls (RR 0.58 [0.34–0.96]) and enoxaparin + aspirin versus aspirin alone (RR 0.42 [0.32–0.56]) as well as observably lower for enoxaparin versus aspirin alone (RR 0.39 [0.15–1.01]), though significant heterogeneity was observed (I² > 60).

Conclusion

Literature on the efficacy and safety of enoxaparin for thromboembolism and thromboprophylaxis remains scanty, and therefore efficacy was not assessed; in terms of safety, when including other indications for enoxaparin in pregnancy, we found that enoxaparin was associated with significantly lower complications than aspirin. Given differences in study design and study heterogeneity, pregnancy loss results should be interpreted with caution. Moreover, reports of thromboembolic events, thrombocytopenia, and congenital malformations were rare.

Funding

Sanofi.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-019-01124-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Management of thrombotic and obstetric antiphospholipid syndrome: a systematic literature review informing the EULAR recommendations for the management of antiphospholipid syndrome in adults

Objective

To perform a systematic literature review (SLR) informing the European Lmmendations for the management of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) in adults.

Methods

A SLR through January 2018 was performed. Research questions were constructed using the Patient, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome (PICO) format. We included data from articles that reported on each relevant intervention. Summary effect estimates were calculated for direct comparison studies that matched the PICO question exactly, and for studies with the relevant intervention and comparator. When meta-analyses were available, we used these estimates.

Results

From 7534 retrieved articles (+15 from hand searches), 188 articles were included in the review. In individuals with high-risk antiphospholipid antibody (aPL) profile without prior thrombotic or obstetric APS, two meta-analyses showed a protective effect of low-dose aspirin (LDA) against thrombosis. Two randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and three cohort studies showed no additional benefit of treatment with vitamin K antagonists at target international normalised ratio (INR) 3–4 versus INR 2–3 in patients with venous thrombosis. In patients with arterial thrombosis, two RCTs and two cohort studies showed no difference in risk of recurrent thrombosis between the two target INR groups. One open-label trial showed higher rates of thrombosis recurrences in triple aPL-positive patients treated with rivaroxaban than those treated with warfarin. RCTs and cohort studies showed that combination treatment with LDA and heparin was more effective than LDA alone in several types of obstetric APS. SLR results were limited by the indirect evidence and the heterogeneity of patient groups for some treatments, and only a few high-quality RCTs.

Conclusion

Well-designed studies of homogeneous APS patient populations are needed.

Low molecular weight heparin monotherapy for recurrent abortion with antiphospholipid system: A protocol of a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Previous clinical studies reported low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) monotherpay has been utilized for the treatment of recurrent abortion (RCA) with antiphospholipid system (APS). However, its efficacy is still inconclusive. This systematic review aims to assess its efficacy and safety for patients with RCA and APS.

METHODS

A systematic literature search for article up to February 2019 will be conducted in 9 databases: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDILINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Information, and Wanfang Data. Inclusion criteria are randomized control trials of LMWH monotherpay for patients with RCA and APS. The Cochrane risk of bias tool will be used to evaluate the methodological quality for each qualified study. The summary results will be showed by using fixed-effects and random-effects models for pooling the data based on the heterogeneity of included studies.

RESULTS

This systematic review will assess the clinical efficacy and safety of LMWH monotherpay in treating RCA with APS. The primary outcome is pregnancy loss. The secondary outcomes include frequency of preterm delivery, live birth rates, maternal and fetal complications, as well as adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study will summarize the present evidence to judge whether LMWH monotherpay is an effective therapy for patients with RCA and APS.

DISSEMINATION AND ETHICS

The findings of this study will be published by through peer-reviewed journals. This study does not needs ethic documents, because it will not analyze individual patient data.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42019121064.

Timing of initiation of low-molecular-weight heparin administration in pregnant women with antiphospholipid syndrome: a randomized clinical trial of efficacy and safety

Objective

We aimed to evaluate the effect of different timing of initiation of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) administration on the pregnancy outcomes in women with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).

Materials and methods

A randomized controlled study was conducted on women with obstetrical APS. All participants were randomly divided at documentation of positive pregnancy test into two groups; early initiation group in which LMWH therapy was started once positive pregnancy test was established (in the fifth week of gestation), and later initiation group in which LMWH therapy was started after sonographic confirmation of fetal cardiac pulsation (in the seventh week of gestation). In both groups, LMWH (enoxaparin) was given at a dose of 40 mg/day subcutaneously and the therapy continued until end of pregnancy. The primary outcome measure was ongoing pregnancy rate and the secondary outcome measures were fetal loss, live birth rate, preterm labor before 34 weeks of gestation, intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), and congenital fetal malformations.

Results

Ninety-four women (48 in the early initiation group and 46 in the later initiation group) were subjected to final analysis. The ongoing pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the early initiation group than in the later initiation group (81.2% vs 60.9%; P=0.040). However, both groups were similar in the incidences of fetal loss, preterm labor before 34 weeks of gestation, and IUGR, and live birth rate. No recorded congenital fetal malformations in both groups.

Conclusion

Early administration of LMWH for pregnant women with obstetrical APS reduces early pregnancy loss, but does not affect the incidence of late obstetrical complications.

Care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth for improving outcomes

BACKGROUND

Stillbirth affects at least 2.6 million families worldwide every year and has enduring consequences for parents and health services. Parents entering a subsequent pregnancy following stillbirth face a risk of stillbirth recurrence, alongside increased risks of other adverse pregnancy outcomes and psychosocial challenges. These parents may benefit from a range of interventions to optimise their short- and longer-term medical health and psychosocial well-being.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of different interventions or models of care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following stillbirth on maternal, fetal, neonatal and family health outcomes, and health service utilisation.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (6 June 2018), along with ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) (18 June 2018).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-randomised controlled trials (qRCTs). Trials using a cluster-randomised design were eligible for inclusion, but we found no such reports. We included trials published as abstract only, provided sufficient information was available to allow assessment of trial eligibility and risk of bias. We excluded cross-over trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility and undertook data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessments. We extracted data from published reports, or sourced data directly from trialists. We checked the data for accuracy and resolved discrepancies by discussion or correspondence with trialists, or both. We conducted an assessment of the quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine RCTs and one qRCT, and judged them to be at low to moderate risk of bias. Trials were carried out between the years 1964 and 2015 and took place predominantly in high-income countries in Europe. All trials assessed medical interventions; no trials assessed psychosocial interventions or incorporated psychosocial aspects of care. Trials evaluated the use of antiplatelet agents (low-dose aspirin (LDA) or low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH), or both), third-party leukocyte immunisation, intravenous immunoglobulin, and progestogen. Trial participants were women who were either pregnant or attempting to conceive following a pregnancy loss, fetal death, or adverse outcome in a previous pregnancy.We extracted data for 222 women who had experienced a previous stillbirth of 20 weeks' gestation or more from the broader trial data sets, and included them in this review. Our GRADE assessments of the quality of evidence ranged from very low to low, due largely to serious imprecision in effect estimates as a result of small sample sizes, low numbers of events, and wide confidence intervals (CIs) crossing the line of no effect. Most of the analyses in this review were not sufficiently powered to detect differences in the outcomes assessed. The results presented are therefore largely uncertain.Main comparisonsLMWH versus no treatment/standard care (three RCTs, 123 women, depending on the outcome)It was uncertain whether LMWH reduced the risk of stillbirth (risk ratio (RR) 2.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 16.62; 3 trials; 122 participants; low-quality evidence), adverse perinatal outcome (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.32; 2 trials; 77 participants; low-quality evidence), adverse maternal psychological effects (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.07 to 14.90; 1 trial; 40 participants; very low-quality evidence), perinatal mortality (RR 2.58, 95% CI 0.40 to 16.62; 3 trials; 122 participants; low-quality evidence), or any preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (RR 1.01, 0.58 to 1.74; 3 trials; 114 participants; low-quality evidence). No neonatal deaths were reported in the trials assessed and no data were available for maternal-infant attachment. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups among the remaining secondary outcomes.LDA versus placebo (one RCT, 24 women)It was uncertain whether LDA reduced the risk of stillbirth (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.06 to 12.01), neonatal death (RR 0.29, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.38), adverse perinatal outcome (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.03 to 2.34), perinatal mortality, or any preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (both of the latter RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.04 to 4.06; all very low-quality evidence). No data were available for adverse maternal psychological effects or maternal-infant attachment. LDA appeared to be associated with an increase in birthweight (mean difference (MD) 790.00 g, 95% CI 295.03 to 1284.97 g) when compared to placebo, but this result was very unstable due to the extremely small sample size. Whether LDA has any effect on the remaining secondary outcomes was also uncertain.Other comparisonsLDA appeared to be associated with an increase in birthweight when compared to LDA + LMWH (MD -650.00 g, 95% CI -1210.33 to -89.67 g; 1 trial; 29 infants), as did third-party leukocyte immunisation when compared to placebo (MD 1195.00 g, 95% CI 273.35 to 2116.65 g; 1 trial, 4 infants), but these results were again very unstable due to extremely small sample sizes. The effects of the interventions on the remaining outcomes were also uncertain.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence in this review to inform clinical practice about the effectiveness of interventions to improve care prior to and during subsequent pregnancies following a stillbirth. There is a clear and urgent need for well-designed trials addressing this research question. The evaluation of medical interventions such as LDA, in the specific context of stillbirth prevention (and recurrent stillbirth prevention), is warranted. However, appropriate methodologies to evaluate such therapies need to be determined, particularly where clinical equipoise may be lacking. Careful trial design and multicentre collaboration is necessary to carry out trials that would be sufficiently large to detect differences in statistically rare outcomes such as stillbirth and neonatal death. The evaluation of psychosocial interventions addressing maternal-fetal attachment and parental anxiety and depression is also an urgent priority. In a randomised-trial context, such trials may allocate parents to different forms of support, to determine which have the greatest benefit with the least financial cost. Importantly, consistency in nomenclature and in data collection across all future trials (randomised and non-randomised) may be facilitated by a core outcomes data set for stillbirth research. All future trials should assess short- and longer-term psychosocial outcomes for parents and families, alongside economic costs of interventions.

Antiplatelet and anticoagulant agents for primary prevention of thrombosis in individuals with antiphospholipid antibodies

BACKGROUND

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune disease characterised by the presence of antiphospholipid (aPL) antibodies that have prothrombotic activity. Antiphospholipid antibodies are associated with an increased risk of pregnancy complications (recurrent miscarriage, premature birth, intrauterine growth retardation) and thrombotic events (both arterial and venous). The most common thrombotic events include brain ischaemia (stroke or transient ischaemic attack) and deep vein thrombosis. To diagnose APS, the presence of aPL antibodies in two measurements and at least one thrombotic event or pregnancy complication are required. It is unclear if people with positive aPL antibodies but without any previous thrombotic events should receive primary antithrombotic prophylaxis.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents versus placebo or no intervention or other intervention on the development of thrombosis in people with aPL antibodies who have not had a thrombotic event. We did not address obstetric outcomes in this review as these have been thoroughly addressed by other Cochrane Reviews.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register (4 December 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (last search 29 November 2017), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, CINAHL, and AMED (searched 4 December 2017), and trials registries (searched 29 November 2017). We also checked reference lists of included studies, systematic reviews, and practice guidelines, and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents, or their combinations, at any dose and mode of delivery with placebo, no intervention, or other intervention. We also included RCTs that compared antiplatelet or anticoagulant agents with each other or that compared two different doses of the same drug. We included studies performed in people of any age and with no history of thrombosis (as defined by APS Sapporo classification criteria or updated Sydney classification criteria), but with aPL antibodies confirmed on at last two separate measurements. The studies included both pregnant women who tested positive for aPL antibodies and had a history of recurrent obstetric complications, as well as non-pregnancy related cases with positive screening for antibodies, in accordance with the criteria mentioned above.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Pairs of authors independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias for the included studies and quality of evidence using GRADE. Any discrepancies were resolved through discussion or by consulting a third review author when necessary. In addition, one review author checked all the extracted numerical data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included nine studies involving 1044 randomised participants. The studies took place in several countries and had different funding sources. No study was at low risk of bias in all domains. We classified all included studies as at unclear or high risk of bias in two or more domains. Seven included studies focused mainly on obstetric outcomes. One study included non-pregnancy-related cases, and one study included both pregnancy-related cases and other patients with positive results for aPL antibodies. The remaining studies concerned women with aPL antibodies and a history of pregnancy failure. Four studies compared anticoagulant with or without acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) versus ASA only and observed no clear difference in thrombosis risk (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 3.77; 4 studies; 493 participants; low-quality evidence). No major bleeding was reported, but minor bleeding risk (nasal bleeding, menorrhagia) was higher in the anticoagulant with ASA group as compared with ASA alone in one study (RR 22.45, 95% CI 1.34 to 374.81; 1 study; 164 participants; low-quality evidence). In one study ASA was compared with placebo, and there were no clear differences in thrombosis (RR 5.21, 95% CI 0.63 to 42.97; 1 study; 98 participants; low-quality evidence) or minor bleeding risk between the groups (RR 3.13, 95% CI 0.34 to 29.01; 1 study; 98 participants; low-quality evidence), and no major bleeding was observed. Two studies compared ASA with low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) versus placebo or intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG), and no thrombotic events were observed in any of the groups. Moreover, there were no clear differences in the risk of bleeding requiring transfusion (RR 9.0, 95% CI 0.49 to 164.76; 1 study; 180 participants; moderate-quality evidence) or postpartum bleeding (RR 1.30, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.81; 1 study; 180 participants; moderate-quality evidence) between the groups. Two studies compared ASA with high-dose LMWH versus ASA with low-dose LMWF or unfractionated heparin (UFH); no thrombotic events or major bleeding was reported. Mortality and quality of life data were not reported for any of the comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate benefit or harm of using anticoagulants with or without ASA versus ASA alone in people with aPL antibodies and a history of recurrent pregnancy loss and with no such history; ASA versus placebo in people with aPL antibodies; and ASA with LMWH versus placebo or IVIG, and ASA with high-dose LMWH versus ASA with low-dose LMWH or UFH, in women with aPL antibodies and a history of recurrent pregnancy loss, for the primary prevention of thrombotic events. In a mixed population of people with a history of previous pregnancy loss and without such a history treated with anticoagulant combined with ASA, the incidence of minor bleeding (nasal bleeding, menorrhagia) was increased when compared with ASA alone. Studies that are adequately powered and that focus mainly on thrombotic events are needed to draw any firm conclusions on the primary prevention of thrombotic events in people with antiphospholipid antibodies.

The treatment of anti-phospholipid syndrome: A comprehensive clinical approach

Anti-phospholipid syndrome (APS) is an acquired pro-thrombotic autoimmune disease that predisposes to thrombotic events and/or obstetric complications, in the persistent presence of anti-phospholipid antibodies (aPL). Life long moderate-intensity anticoagulation is the option of choice for aPL-positive patients with a previous thrombosis; critical issues concern the management of those with a history of arterial event due to the high rate of recurrence. Alternatives comprise anti-platelet agents and high-intensity anticoagulation. Low dose aspirin (LDASA) and low molecular weight heparin provide the mainstay of the treatment of obstetric APS, allowing a birth rate in 70% of cases. The management of refractory APS, thrombotic as well as obstetric, is highly debated, but an increasing burden of evidence points towards the beneficial effects of multiple treatments. Similarly, a management envisaging multiple drugs (anticoagulation, steroids, plasma exchange and/or intravenous immunoglobulins) is the most effective approach in catastrophic APS. Asymptomatic aPL carriers are at higher risk of thrombotic and obstetric complications compared to the general population, thus potentially benefitting of a pharmacological intervention. LDASA and hydroxychloroquine can be considered as options, in particular in case of high risk aPL profile, concomitant cardiovascular risk factors or associated autoimmune disease. APS is apparently a simple condition, but its multifaceted nature requires a complex and tailored treatment.

Antiphospholipid syndrome

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an autoimmune disease characterized by the presence of antiphospholipid antibodies, such as lupus anticoagulant, anticardiolipin antibodies and anti-β2-glycoprotein 1 antibodies. APS can present with a variety of clinical phenotypes, including thrombosis in the veins, arteries and microvasculature as well as obstetrical complications. The pathophysiological hallmark is thrombosis, but other factors such as complement activation might be important. Prevention of thrombotic manifestations associated with APS includes lifestyle changes and, in individuals at high risk, low-dose aspirin. Prevention and treatment of thrombotic events are dependent mainly on the use of vitamin K antagonists. Immunosuppression and anticomplement therapy have been used anecdotally but have not been adequately tested. Pregnancy morbidity includes unexplained recurrent early miscarriage, fetal death and late obstetrical manifestation such as pre-eclampsia, premature birth or fetal growth restriction associated with placental insufficiency. Current treatment to prevent obstetrical morbidity is based on low-dose aspirin and/or low-molecular-weight heparin and has improved pregnancy outcomes to achieve successful live birth in >70% of pregnancies. Although hydroxychloroquine and pravastatin might further improve pregnancy outcomes, prospective clinical trials are required to confirm these findings.

The physiologic anticoagulant and anti-inflammatory role of heparins and their utility in the prevention of pregnancy complications

Accumulating evidence supports the concept of increased thrombin generation, placental vascular lesions, and inflammation as crucial points in the development of the great obstetrical syndromes [preeclampsia, intrauterine growth restriction (IUGR), preterm labor (PTL), preterm prelabor rupture of membranes (PROM), fetal demise and recurrent abortions]. In light of this, the role of heparins for primary or secondary prevention of these syndromes is becoming more and more apparent, mainly due to the antithrombotic and anti-inflammatory effects of heparins. There is agreement regarding the use of heparin in the prevention of gestational complications in patients with antiphospholipid syndrome, while its use for other obstetrical complications is under debate. In the present review we will describe the physiologic role of heparins on coagulation and inflammation and we will discuss current evidence regarding the use of heparins for the prevention/ treatment of obstetrical syndromes.

Recurrent pregnancy loss: current perspectives

Recurrent pregnancy loss is an important reproductive health issue, affecting 2%–5% of couples. Common established causes include uterine anomalies, antiphospholipid syndrome, hormonal and metabolic disorders, and cytogenetic abnormalities. Other etiologies have been proposed but are still considered controversial, such as chronic endometritis, inherited thrombophilias, luteal phase deficiency, and high sperm DNA fragmentation levels. Over the years, evidence-based treatments such as surgical correction of uterine anomalies or aspirin and heparin for antiphospholipid syndrome have improved the outcomes for couples with recurrent pregnancy loss. However, almost half of the cases remain unexplained and are empirically treated using progesterone supplementation, anticoagulation, and/or immunomodulatory treatments. Regardless of the cause, the long-term prognosis of couples with recurrent pregnancy loss is good, and most eventually achieve a healthy live birth. However, multiple pregnancy losses can have a significant psychological toll on affected couples, and many efforts are being made to improve treatments and decrease the time needed to achieve a successful pregnancy. This article reviews the established and controversial etiologies, and the recommended therapeutic strategies, with a special focus on unexplained recurrent pregnancy losses and the empiric treatments used nowadays. It also discusses the current role of preimplantation genetic testing in the management of recurrent pregnancy loss.

Impact of haemostatic mechanisms on pathophysiology of preeclampsia

Preeclampsia (PE) is disorder of new onset hypertension and proteinuria during the second half of pregnancy. There is increasing evidence to implicate placental over-expression of tissue factor and PAR-1 in the pathophysiology of PE. Excessive activation of platelets, neutrophils and the complement system may also contribute to the placental pathology and maternal endothelial responsible for the symptoms of PE. Increased knowledge in this field may identify new therapeutic strategies for the treatment of PE.

The role of anti-phospholipid antibodies in autoimmune reproductive failure

Anti-phospholipid antibodies (aPL) are autoantibodies that are associated with thrombosis and a range of pregnancy complications including recurrent pregnancy loss and pre-eclampsia. The three clinically relevant, well-characterized aPL are anti-cardiolipin antibodies, lupus anticoagulant and anti-beta-2-glycoprotein I (β2GPI) antibodies. aPL do not bind directly to phospholipids but instead bind to a plasma-binding ‘cofactor’. The most extensively studied cofactor is β2GPI, whose role in pregnancy is not fully elucidated. Although the pathogenicity of aPL in recurrent pregnancy loss is well established in humans and animal models, the association of aPL with infertility does not appear to be causative. aPL may exert their detrimental effects during pregnancy by directly binding trophoblast cells of the placenta, altering trophoblast signalling, proliferation, invasion and secretion of hormones and cytokines, and by increasing apoptosis. Heparin is commonly used to treat pregnant women with aPL; however, as thrombotic events do not occur in the placentae of all women with aPL, it may exert a protective effect by preventing the binding of aPL to β2GPI or by acting through non-thrombotic pathways. The aim of this review is to present evidence summarizing the current understanding of this field.

Recurrent thrombosis prevention with intravenous immunoglobulin and hydroxychloroquine during pregnancy in a patient with history of catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome and pregnancy loss

We report a case of a 36-year old patient with prior history of thrombosis in a setting of antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS) as well as pregnancy-associated catastrophic antiphospholipid syndrome (CAPS), resulting in multi-organ infarction and pregnancy loss. The episode of CAPS occurred while she was receiving antepartum low-dose aspirin and therapeutic-dose enoxaparin. This patient presented again at 6 weeks gestation and ultrasounds were consistent with fetal growth restriction, concerning for placental insufficiency and thrombosis. This time, hydroxychloroquine and monthly intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) infusions were added to her prophylaxis regimen, resulting in a successful delivery. Platelet count and antiphospholipid antibody titers were routinely monitored throughout pregnancy as markers of disease activity for APS. Current thromboprophylaxis guidelines do not address therapeutic options to prevent further pregnancy morbidity in women who develop recurrent episodes of thrombosis or CAPS despite receiving adequate anti-thrombotic treatment. Use of hydroxychloroquine and IVIG has been associated with good outcomes in this subset of patients.

Recurrent spontaneous miscarriage is still a challenging diagnostic and therapeutic quagmire

Recurrent spontaneous miscarriage (RSM), affecting 1-2% of women of reproductive age seeking pregnancy, has been a clinical quagmire and a formidable challenge for the treating physician. There are many areas of controversy in the definition, aetiology, investigations and treatment of RSM. This review will address the many factors involved in the aetiology of RSM which is multifactorial in many patients, with antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) being the most recognized aetiological factor. There is no identifiable cause in about 40-60% of these patients, in which case the condition is classified as idiopathic or unexplained RSM. The RSM investigations are extensive and should be undertaken in dedicated, specialized, well-equipped clinics/centres where services are provided by trained specialists. The challenges faced by the treating physician are even more overwhelming regarding the decision of what should be the most appropriate therapy offered to patients with RSM. Our review will cover the diverse modalities of therapy available including the role of preimplantation genetic testing using recent microarray technology, such as single nucleotide polymorphism and comparative genomic hybridization, as well as preimplantation genetic diagnosis; the greatest emphasis will be on the treatment of APS, and there will be important comments on the management of patients presenting with idiopathic RSM. The controversial areas of the role of natural killer cells in RSM, the varied modalities in the management of idiopathic RSM and the need for better-planned studies will be covered as well.

Prophylaxis for venous thromboembolic disease in pregnancy and the early postnatal period

BACKGROUND

Venous thromboembolism (VTE), although rare, is a major cause of maternal mortality and morbidity, and methods of prophylaxis are therefore often used for women considered to be at risk. This may include women who have given birth by caesarean section, those with a personal or family history of VTE and women with inherited or acquired thrombophilias (conditions that predispose people to thrombosis). Many methods of prophylaxis carry risks of adverse effects, and as the risk of VTE is often low, it is possible that the benefits of thromboprophylaxis may be outweighed by harms. Guidelines for clinical practice have been based on expert opinion rather than high-quality evidence from randomised trials.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of thromboprophylaxis in women who are pregnant or have recently given birth and are at increased risk of VTE on the incidence of VTE and adverse effects of treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (27 November 2013). 

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised trials comparing one method of thromboprophylaxis with placebo or no treatment, and randomised trials comparing two (or more) methods of thromboprophylaxis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors assessed trial eligibility and quality and extracted the data.

MAIN RESULTS

Nineteen trials, at an overall moderate risk of bias, met the inclusion criteria for the review. Only 16 trials, involving 2592 women, assessing a range of methods of thromboprophylaxis, contributed data to the review. Six trials compared methods of antenatal prophylaxis: heparin versus no treatment/placebo (two trials), and low molecular weight heparin (LMWH) versus unfractionated heparin (UFH) (four trials). Nine trials assessed prophylaxis after caesarean section: four compared heparin with placebo; three compared LMWH with UFH; one compared hydroxyethyl starch (HES) with UFH; and one compared five-day versus 10-day LMWH. One study examined prophylaxis with UFH in the postnatal period (including following vaginal births).For antenatal prophylaxis, none of the included trials reported on maternal mortality, and no differences were detected for the other primary outcomes of symptomatic thromboembolic events, symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) and symptomatic deep venous thrombosis (DVT) when LMWH or UFH was compared with no treatment/placebo or when LMWH was compared with UFH. The risk ratios (RR) for symptomatic thromboembolic events were: antenatal LMWH/UFH versus no heparin, RR 0.33; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.04 to 2.99 (two trials, 56 women); and antenatal LMWH versus UFH, RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.09 to 2.49 (four trials, 404 women). No differences were shown when antenatal LMWH or UFH was compared with no treatment/placebo for any secondary outcomes. Antenatal LMWH was associated with fewer adverse effects sufficient to stop treatment (RR 0.07; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.54; two trials, 226 women), and fewer fetal losses (RR 0.47; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.95; three trials, 343 women) when compared with UFH. In two trials, antenatal LMWH compared with UFH was associated with fewer bleeding episodes (defined in one trial of 121 women as bruises > 1 inch (RR 0.18, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.36); and in one trial of 105 women as injection site haematomas of ≥ 2 cm, bleeding during delivery or other bleeding (RR 0.28; 95% CI 0.15 to 0.53)), however in a further trial of 117 women no difference between groups was shown for bleeding at delivery. The results for these secondary outcomes should be interpreted with caution, being derived from small trials that were not of high methodological quality.For post-caesarean/postnatal prophylaxis, only one trial comparing five-day versus 10-day LMWH after caesarean section reported on maternal mortality, observing no deaths. No differences were seen across any of the comparisons for the other primary outcomes (symptomatic thromboembolic events, symptomatic PE and symptomatic DVT). The RRs for symptomatic thromboembolic events were: post-caesarean LMWH/UFH versus no heparin, RR 1.30; 95% CI 0.39 to 4.27 (four trials, 840 women); post-caesarean LMWH versus UFH, RR 0.33; 95% CI 0.01 to 7.99 (three trials, 217 women); post-caesarean five-day versus 10-day LMWH, RR 0.36; 95% CI 0.01 to 8.78 (one trial, 646 women); postnatal UFH versus no heparin, RR 0.16; 95% CI 0.02 to 1.36 (one trial, 210 women). For prophylaxis after caesarean section, in one trial (of 580 women), women receiving UFH and physiotherapy were more likely to have bleeding complications ('complications hémorragiques') than women receiving physiotherapy alone (RR 5.03; 95% CI 2.49 to 10.18). In two additional trials, that compared LMWH with placebo, no difference between groups in bleeding episodes (major bleeding; major bruising; bleeding/bruising reported at discharge) were detected. No other differences in secondary outcomes were shown when LMWH was compared with UFH post-caesarean, nor when post-caesarean HES was compared with UFH, post-caesarean five-day LMWH was compared with 10-day LMWH, or when UFH was compared to no heparin postnatally.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence on which to base recommendations for thromboprophylaxis during pregnancy and the early postnatal period, with the small number of differences detected in this review being largely derived from trials that were not of high methodological quality. Large scale, high-quality randomised trials of currently used interventions are warranted.

Preventing thrombophilia-related complications of pregnancy: an update

Approximately half of all pregnancy-related venous thromboembolic events are associated with thrombophilia. Although the most compelling data for a link between thrombophilia and other adverse pregnancy outcomes derive from women with antiphospholipid antibodies, some studies also suggest an association between these pregnancy complications and hereditary thrombophilias. Management of thrombophilia often involves anticoagulant therapy; however, use of these agents during pregnancy is challenging. There is a paucity of high-quality studies and consequently, recommendations are based largely on extrapolation from data in nonpregnant women, in addition to observational studies and a few small randomized studies. This article will review the impact of the thrombophilias on pregnancy and its outcome, evidence for therapies aimed at the prevention of thrombophilia-related pregnancy complications, and the most recent recommendations contained in the 9th Edition of the American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Antithrombotic therapy for pregnancy loss

BACKGROUND Although an association between thrombophilia and pregnancy loss has been observed in many studies, little is known about the pathophysiological mechanisms behind this association. Considering the association between thrombophilia and pregnancy loss, the efficacy of antithrombotic therapy for women with pregnancy loss (with or without thrombophilia) has been studied for the past 30 years. METHODS We performed a comprehensive review of the literature on the strength of the association between thrombophilia and pregnancy loss, the pathophysiological mechanisms and the efficacy of antithrombotic therapy to increase the chance of live birth. RESULTS The association between pregnancy loss and thrombophilia varies according to the type of thrombophilia (e.g. antiphospholipid syndrome versus forms of inherited thrombophilia) and according to the type of pregnancy loss (single versus recurrent pregnancy loss and early versus late pregnancy loss). Thrombophilia may induce thrombosis in decidual vessels or impair placentation through hypercoagulability and inflammation, but these hypotheses need further verification. For women with antiphospholipid syndrome, evidence from small-sized trials suggests a beneficial effect of antithrombotic therapy but additional randomized controlled trials are essential to confirm this. Whether antithrombotic therapy increases the chance of live birth in women with inherited thrombophilia is unknown. Recent randomized controlled trials have consistently shown that antithrombotic therapy does not increase the chance of live birth in women with unexplained recurrent miscarriage. CONCLUSIONS There are large gaps in knowledge and a lack of evidence for treatment of women with pregnancy loss with thrombophilia. To provide a solid base for clinical practice, further studies on the role of coagulation in reproduction, as well as international collaborations in randomized controlled trials of antithrombotic therapy in women with pregnancy loss, and antiphospholipid syndrome or inherited thrombophilia are urgently needed.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs during pregnancy and the initiation of lactation

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) and aspirin, which are available as "over-the counter" medications in most countries, are widely used by both pregnant and lactating women. They are popular non-opioid analgesics for the treatment of pain after vaginal and operative delivery. In addition, NSAIDs are used for tocolysis in premature labor, and low-dose aspirin has a role in the prevention of preeclampsia and recurrent miscarriage in antiphospholipid syndrome. NSAIDs and aspirin may affect fertility and increase the risk of early pregnancy loss. In the second trimester their use is considered reasonably safe, but has been associated with fetal cryptorchism. In the third trimester, NSAIDs and aspirin are usually avoided because of significant fetal risks such as renal injury, oligohydramnios, constriction of the ductus arteriosus (with potential for persistent pulmonary hypertension in the newborn), necrotizing enterocolitis, and intracranial hemorrhage. Maternal administration or ingestion of most NSAIDs results in low infant exposure via breastmilk, such that both cyclooxygenase-1 and cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors are generally considered safe, and preferable to aspirin, when breastfeeding.

Management of women with recurrent pregnancy losses and antiphospholipid antibody syndrome

Antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) have been associated with recurrent pregnancy losses (RPL) and other obstetrical complications. The diagnostic criteria for the classical antiphospholipid antibody syndrome (APS) have been utilized for the detection of obstetrical APS in women with RPL. However, laboratory findings and immunopathology of obstetrical APS are significantly different from those of classical APS. In addition, many women with RPL who have positive aPL do not have symptoms consistent with the current APS criteria. The induction of a proinflammatory immune response from trophoblasts and complement activation by aPL rather than thromboembolic changes has been reported as a major immunopathological feature of obstetrical APS. Heparin treatment has been reported to be effective in prevention of early pregnancy loss with APS but not for the late pregnancy loss or complications. The complex effects of heparin may explain the limited efficacy of heparin treatment in RPL. New diagnostic criteria for obstetrical APS are needed urgently, and new therapeutic approaches should be explored further.

Evaluating patient values and preferences for thromboprophylaxis decision making during pregnancy: a study protocol

BACKGROUND

Pregnant women with prior venous thromboembolism (VTE) are at risk of recurrence. Low molecular weight heparin (LWMH) reduces the risk of pregnancy-related VTE. LMWH prophylaxis is, however, inconvenient, uncomfortable, costly, medicalizes pregnancy, and may be associated with increased risks of obstetrical bleeding. Further, there is uncertainty in the estimates of both the baseline risk of pregnancy-related recurrent VTE and the effects of antepartum LMWH prophylaxis. The values and treatment preferences of pregnant women, crucial when making recommendations for prophylaxis, are currently unknown. The objective of this study is to address this gap in knowledge.

METHODS

We will perform a multi-center cross-sectional interview study in Canada, USA, Norway and Finland. The study population will consist of 100 women with a history of lower extremity deep vein thrombosis (DVT) or pulmonary embolism (PE), and who are either pregnant, planning pregnancy, or may in the future consider pregnancy (women between 18 and 45 years). We will exclude individuals who are on full dose anticoagulation or thromboprophylaxis, who have undergone surgical sterilization, or whose partners have undergone vasectomy. We will determine each participant's willingness to receive LMWH prophylaxis during pregnancy through direct choice exercises based on real life and hypothetical scenarios, preference-elicitation using a visual analog scale ("feeling thermometer"), and a probability trade-off exercise. The primary outcome will be the minimum reduction (threshold) in VTE risk at which women change from declining to accepting LMWH prophylaxis. We will explore possible determinants of this choice, including educational attainment, the characteristics of the women's prior VTE, and prior experience with LMWH. We will determine the utilities that women place on the burden of LMWH prophylaxis, pregnancy-related DVT, pregnancy-related PE and pregnancy-related hemorrhage. We will generate a "personalized decision analysis" using participants' utilities and their personalized risk of recurrent VTE as inputs to a decision analytic model. We will compare the personalized decision analysis to the participant's stated choice.

DISCUSSION

The preferences of pregnant women at risk of VTE with respect to the use of antithrombotic therapy remain unexplored. This research will provide explicit, quantitative expressions of women's valuations of health states related to recurrent VTE and its prevention with LMWH. This information will be crucial for both guideline developers and for clinicians.

VTE, thrombophilia, antithrombotic therapy, and pregnancy: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND

The use of anticoagulant therapy during pregnancy is challenging because of the potential for both fetal and maternal complications. This guideline focuses on the management of VTE and thrombophilia as well as the use of antithrombotic agents during pregnancy.

METHODS

The methods of this guideline follow the Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in this supplement.

RESULTS

We recommend low-molecular-weight heparin for the prevention and treatment of VTE in pregnant women instead of unfractionated heparin (Grade 1B). For pregnant women with acute VTE, we suggest that anticoagulants be continued for at least 6 weeks postpartum (for a minimum duration of therapy of 3 months) compared with shorter durations of treatment (Grade 2C). For women who fulfill the laboratory criteria for antiphospholipid antibody (APLA) syndrome and meet the clinical APLA criteria based on a history of three or more pregnancy losses, we recommend antepartum administration of prophylactic or intermediate-dose unfractionated heparin or prophylactic low-molecular-weight heparin combined with low-dose aspirin (75-100 mg/d) over no treatment (Grade 1B). For women with inherited thrombophilia and a history of pregnancy complications, we suggest not to use antithrombotic prophylaxis (Grade 2C). For women with two or more miscarriages but without APLA or thrombophilia, we recommend against antithrombotic prophylaxis (Grade 1B).

CONCLUSIONS

Most recommendations in this guideline are based on observational studies and extrapolation from other populations. There is an urgent need for appropriately designed studies in this population.