Use of oral progestogen in women with threatened miscarriage in the first trimester: a randomized double-blind controlled trial

Association of serum vitamin D concentration and miscarriage rate in women with first-trimester threatened miscarriage

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is low serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) associated with an increased risk of miscarriage in women who presented with threatened miscarriage to the Early Pregnancy Assessment Clinic (EPAC)?

DESIGN

This was a secondary retrospective analysis using archived serum samples from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Stored serum samples from 371 women presenting to the EPAC with threatened miscarriage during the first trimester were assayed for 25(OH)D by liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry.

RESULTS

The overall miscarriage rate was 45/371 (12.1%) in the whole cohort. After grouping vitamin D insufficiency and vitamin D sufficiency together into a 'non-deficient' group and excluding participants who underwent termination of pregnancy, there was no difference in the miscarriage rate between those who were vitamin D deficient compared with those who were not (25/205, 12.2% versus 20/157, 12.7%, P= 0.877, odds ratio 0.951, 95% CI 0.507-1.784). When analysed according to the number of gestational weeks, the miscarriage rate was significantly higher in the vitamin D non-deficient group than the vitamin D-deficient group in women who presented at 6 gestational weeks or earlier (13/33 [39.4%] versus 10/58 [17.2%], P= 0.019), but there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups presenting at later gestations. There was no difference in the vitamin D level in women who had a miscarriage compared with those who had a live birth (48 [37-57] versus 47 [37-58] nmol/l, P= 0.725 median [25th-75th percentile]).

CONCLUSIONS

A low serum vitamin D concentration was not associated with an increased risk of miscarriage in women with threatened miscarriage presenting to the EPAC.

Progestogens in women with threatened miscarriage or recurrent miscarriage: A meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Clinical practice guidelines provide inconsistent recommendations regarding progestogen supplementation for threatened and recurrent miscarriage. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the effectiveness and safety of progestogens for these patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We searched Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Registry of Controlled Trials up to October 6, 2023 for randomized control trials (RCTs) comparing progestogen supplementation to placebo or no treatment for pregnant women with threatened or recurrent miscarriage. We assessed the risk of bias using a modified version of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

Of 15 RCTs (6616 pregnancies) reporting on threatened or recurrent miscarriage, 12 (5610 pregnancies) reported on threatened miscarriage with or without a prior history of miscarriage. Results indicated that progesterone probably increases live births (relative risk (RR) 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.99-1.10, absolute increase 3.1%, moderate certainty). Of these RCTs, three (1973 pregnancies) reporting on threatened miscarriage with a prior history of miscarriage indicated that progesterone possibly increases live births (RR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.97-1.16, absolute increase 4.4%; low certainty), while four (2540 pregnancies) reporting on threatened miscarriage and no prior miscarriage left the effect very uncertain (RR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.96-1.10, absolute increase 1.7%; very low certainty). Three trials reporting on 1006 patients with a history of two or more prior miscarriages indicated progesterone probably increases live births (RR 1.08, 95% CI: 0.98-1.19, absolute increase 5.7%, moderate certainty). Six RCTs that reported on 2979 patients with at least one prior miscarriage indicated that progesterone probably increases live births (RR 1.07, 95% CI: 1.01-1.13, absolute increase 5.0%; moderate certainty). Progesterone probably has little or no effect on congenital anomalies (RR 1.06, 95% CI: 0.76-1.48, absolute increase 0.1%; moderate certainty), and other serious adverse pregnancy events (RR 1.07, 95% CI: 0.83-1.40, absolute increase 0.2%, moderate certainty).

CONCLUSIONS

In women at increased risk of pregnancy loss, progestogens probably increase live births without increasing adverse maternal and neonatal events. It remains possible that the benefit is restricted to those with prior miscarriages.

No additional risk of congenital anomalies after first-trimester dydrogesterone use: a systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY QUESTION

Is exposure to dydrogesterone a risk factor for congenital anomalies when given in the first trimester for recurrent/threatened pregnancy loss or as luteal support in assisted reproductive technology (ART)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Dydrogesterone, when given in the first trimester for recurrent/threatened pregnancy loss or as luteal support in ART, is not a relevant additional risk factor for congenital anomalies.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Despite large clinical trials and meta-analyses that show no association between dydrogesterone and congenital anomalies, some recently retracted publications have postulated an association with teratogenicity. Dydrogesterone is also often rated as less safe than bioidentical progestins.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

A systematic review was conducted according to a pre-specified protocol with searches on Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and Clinicaltrials.gov. The search was limited to human studies, with no restrictions on language, geographical region, or date. The search algorithm used a PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome)-style approach combining both simple search terms and medical subject heading terms. As congenital anomalies are mostly reported as secondary outcomes, the search term 'safety' was added.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

Interventional study and observational study (OS) designs were eligible for inclusion. Inclusion criteria were: women >17 years old treated for threatened miscarriage, recurrent pregnancy loss, and/or ART; the use of dydrogesterone in the first trimester compared with placebo, no treatment or other interventions; and reporting of congenital anomalies in newborns or infants ≤12 months old (primary outcome). Two authors (A.K., M.R.N.) independently extracted the following data: general study information, study population details, intervention and comparator(s), and frequencies of congenital anomalies (classification, time of determination, and type). Risk of bias focused on the reporting of congenital malformations and was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool Version 2 or the ROBINS-I tool. The GRADEproGDT platform was used to generate the GRADE summary of findings table.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Of the 897 records retrieved during the literature search, 47 were assessed for eligibility. Nine studies were included in the final analysis: six randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and three OSs. Among the RCTs, three had a low risk and three a high risk of bias. Two of the OSs were considered to have a serious risk of bias and one with critical risk of bias and was excluded for the evidence syntheses. The eight remaining studies included a total of 5070 participants and 2680 live births from 16 countries. In the meta-analysis of RCTs only, the overall risk ratio (RR) was 0.92 [95% CI 0.55; 1.55] with low certainty. When the two OSs were included, the overall RR was 1.11 [95% CI 0.73; 1.68] with low certainty.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

The studies included in the analysis do not report congenital anomalies as the primary outcome; reporting of congenital anomalies was often not standardized.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This systematic literature review and meta-analysis provide clear reassurance to both clinicians and patients that dydrogesterone is not associated with congenital anomalies above the rate that might be expected due to environmental and genetic factors. The results of this work represent the highest current level of evidence for the question of congenital anomalies, which removes the existing uncertainty caused by poor quality and retracted studies.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

Editorial support was provided by Highfield Communication Consultancy, Oxford, UK, sponsored by Abbott Products Operations AG, Allschwil, Switzerland. A.K., J.A.G.-V., L.P.S., J.N.v.d.A., and J.F.S. received honoraria from Abbott for preparation and participation in an advisory board. J.A.G.-V. received grants and lecture fees from Merck, Organon, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, and Theramex. M.R.N. has no conflicts of interest. J.N.v.d.A. and J.A.G.-V. have no other conflicts of interest. A.K. received payment from Abbott for a talk at the IVF Worldwide congress on 22 September 2023. J.F.S. has received grants from the National Institutes of Health, royalties/licences from Elsevier and Prescient Medicine (SOLVD Health), consulting fees from Burroughs Wellcome Fund (BWF) and Bayer, honoraria from Magee Women's Research Institute, Wisconsin National Primate Research Centre, University of Kansas and Oakridge National Research Laboratory, Agile, Daiichi Sankyo/American Regent, and Bayer, and travel support to attend meetings for the International Academy of Human Reproduction (IAHR). J.F.S. has patents related to diagnosis and treatment of PCOS and prediction of preterm birth. J.F.S. participates on advisory boards for SOLVD Health, Wisconsin National Primate Research Centre, and FHI360, was the past President board member of the Society for Reproductive Investigation, has a leadership role for the following organizations: Scientific Advisory Board, SOLVD Health, EAB Chair for contraceptive technology initiative, FHI360, EAB member, Wisconsin National Primate Research Centre, Advisory Board for MWRI Summit, Chair of BWF NextGen Pregnancy Research Panel, Medical Executive Committee at the Howard, and Georgeanna Jones Foundation, and is Vice President, IAHR. L.P.S. has received consulting fees from Shield Pharmaceuticals, Scynexis, Organon, Natera, Celula China, AiVF, Agile, Daiichi Sankyo, American Regent, and Medicem, honoraria from Agile, Daiichi Sankyo/American Regent, and Bayer, and travel support from BD Diagnostics. L.P.S. participates on the data safety monitoring board for Astellas and is a Chair of DSMB for fezolinetant. Abbott played no role in the funding of the study or in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO 2022 CRD42022356977.

Zishen yutai pill as an adjuvant therapy in threatened Miscarriage:A meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Zishen Yutai Pill combined with western medicine for the treatment of women with threatened miscarriage during the first trimester of pregnancy.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials published before the end of Apr 1, 2023 on Zishen Yutai Pill and threatened miscarriage were systematically retrieved from China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, Sinomed, VIP, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library. The international clinical trial registration platform and the Chinese clinical trial registration platform of clinical trials was searched from their inception until Apr 1, 2023. Meta analysis of random effect model was used to combine the research data. Chi-squared test and I² statistics were used for heterogeneity test.

Results

Twenty-three trials (enrolling 2411 participants) were included in the review. Zishen Yutai pill combined with western medicine therapy showed significant improvement on human chorionic gonadotropin [MD 19.33 IU/ml, 95% CI (15.84, 22.81)], the total effective rate [RR 1.19, 95% CI (1.15-1.23)], progesterone [MD 7.14 ng/ml, 95% CI (6.14, 8.13)], estradiol [MD 33.69 pg/ml, 95% CI (27.42, 39.96)], duration of abdominal pain [MD -2.36 d, 95% CI (- 3.54, - 1.18)], duration of vaginal bleeding [MD -1.94 d, 95% CI (- 2.93, - 0.94)], and fibrinogen [MD -0.34 g/L, 95% CI (- 0.57, - 0.11)]. There was no significant difference in hematocrit [MD 0.68%, 95% CI (- 0.08, 1.44)] between the experimental and the control group. Zishen Yutai Pill may improve the clinical symptoms in women with threatened miscarriage, such as human chorionic gonadotropin the total effective rate, progesterone, estradiol, duration of abdominal pain, duration of vaginal bleeding, and fibrinogen. Especially for progesterone, the effect of treatment ≦2 weeks is significantly better than treatment of >2 weeks. For estradiol, the effect of treatment >2 weeks is significantly better than treatment of ≦ 2 weeks.

Conclusion

Zishen Yutai Pill, as a complementary therapy, significantly improved human chorionic gonadotropin, the total effective rate, progesterone, estradiol, abdominal pain, vaginal bleeding, and fibrinogen in patients with threatened miscarriage in first-trimester pregnancy. However, the systematic review has some limitations, such as degraded information quality, no blinding of patients or doctors, etc. Due to the small sample size and low quality of research, it needs to be further confirmed by large sample and high-quality randomized controlled trials, such as blinding of patients, doctors and outcome assessment should be complemented, clinical follow-up, live birth rate, fetal growth should be supplemented.

Systematic review registration

INPLASY202320039.

Prevention of Pregnancy Loss: Combining Progestogen Treatment and Psychological Support

Pregnancy loss can be defined as a loss before either 20 or 24 weeks of gestation (based on the first day of the last menstrual period) or the loss of an embryo or fetus less than 400 g in weight if the gestation age is unknown. Approximately 23 million pregnancy losses occur worldwide every year, equating to 15-20% of all clinically recognized pregnancies. A pregnancy loss is usually associated with physical consequences, such as early pregnancy bleeding ranging in severity from spotting to hemorrhage. However, it can also be associated with profound psychological distress, which can be felt by both partners and may include feelings of denial, shock, anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, and suicide. Progesterone plays a key part in the maintenance of a pregnancy, and progesterone supplementation has been assessed as a preventative measure in patients at increased risk of experiencing a pregnancy loss. The primary objective of this piece is to assess the evidence for various progestogen formulations in the treatment of threatened and recurrent pregnancy loss, postulating that an optimal treatment plan would preferably include a validated psychological support tool as an adjunct to appropriate pharmacological treatment.

Dydrogesterone after 60 years: a glance at the safety profile

OBJECTIVE

To provide an evidence-based safety and tolerability overview of dydrogesterone under various progesterone-deficient conditions as a commemoration of its role in managing women's reproductive health over the past 60 years.

METHODS

To identify relevant publications, we used a semi-systematic approach, which included performing a structured search through the PubMed and Cochrane central databases as well as an unstructured search for publications published in English from 2010 onward with human clinical data.

RESULTS

A total of 32 relevant clinical studies were identified. Results were reported in the context of overall adverse events (AEs) and segregated according to various progesterone-deficient conditions. AEs concerning breasts (breast cancer risk), the endometrium (endometrial cancer risk), venous thromboembolism risk, and cardiovascular risk were found to be minimal when dydrogesterone was used as part of a menopausal hormone therapy regimen lasting ≤260 weeks. Vagina-related AEs, such as bleeding, discharge, irritation, and difficult coitus, occurred less frequently with dydrogesterone when used as luteal phase support in the context of assisted reproductive techniques (ARTs). However, other common AEs, such as headache, dizziness, abdominal pain, flatulence, and nausea, occurred more frequently with dydrogesterone. No maternal complications or congenital anomalies could be linked to dydrogesterone usage during ARTs or during early pregnancy to prevent recurrent miscarriages. Studies on dydrogesterone in endometriosis and premenstrual syndrome remain scarce.

CONCLUSIONS

Post-approval, dydrogesterone has displayed a favorable safety and tolerability profile during its 60-year use, which is reassuring, considering its important role in managing women's reproductive health.

Pregnancy-related complications and perinatal outcomes following progesterone supplementation before 20 weeks of pregnancy in spontaneously achieved singleton pregnancies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Progesterone supplementation is widely performed in women with threatened miscarriage or a history of recurrent miscarriage; however, the effects of early progesterone supplementation on pregnancy-related complications and perinatal outcomes in later gestational weeks remain unknown.

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched until April 3rd, 2021. Randomized controlled trials regarding spontaneously achieved singleton pregnancies who were treated with progestogen before 20 weeks of pregnancy and were compared with those women in unexposed control groups were selected for inclusion. We performed pairwise meta-analyses with the random-effects model. The risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration tool. The primary outcomes included preeclampsia (PE), and gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), with the results presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

We identified nine eligible studies involving 6439 participants. The pooled OR of subsequent PE following early progestogen supplementation was 0.64 (95% CI 0.42-0.98, moderate quality of evidence). A lower OR for PE was observed in the progestogen group when the subgroup analysis was performed in the vaginal subgroup (OR 0.62, 95%CI 0.40-0.96). There was insufficient evidence of a difference in the rate of GDM between pregnant women with early progestogen supplementation and unexposed pregnant women (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.79-1.32, low quality of evidence). The pooled OR of low birth weight (LBW) following oral dydrogesterone was 0.57 (95% CI 0.34-0.95, moderate quality of evidence). The results were affected by a single study and the total sample size of enrolled women did not reach the required information size.

CONCLUSION

Use of vaginal micronized progesterone (Utrogestan) in spontaneously achieved singleton pregnancies with threatened miscarriage before 20 weeks of pregnancy may reduce the risk of PE in later gestational weeks. Among spontaneously achieved singleton pregnancies with threatened miscarriage or a history of recurrent miscarriage, use of oral dydrogesterone before 20 weeks of pregnancy may result in a lower risk of LBW in later gestational weeks. However, the available data were not sufficient to reach definitive conclusions, which highlighted the need for future studies.

Progestogens for preventing miscarriage: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Miscarriage, defined as the spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before 24 weeks' gestation, is common with approximately 25% of women experiencing a miscarriage in their lifetime, and 15% to 20% of pregnancies ending in a miscarriage. Progesterone has an important role in maintaining a pregnancy, and supplementation with different progestogens in early pregnancy has been attempted to rescue a pregnancy in women with early pregnancy bleeding (threatened miscarriage), and to prevent miscarriages in asymptomatic women who have a history of three or more previous miscarriages (recurrent miscarriage).

OBJECTIVES

To estimate the relative effectiveness and safety profiles for the different progestogen treatments for threatened and recurrent miscarriage, and provide rankings of the available treatments according to their effectiveness, safety, and side-effect profile.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases up to 15 December 2020: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Ovid MEDLINE(R), ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and reference lists of retrieved studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials assessing the effectiveness or safety of progestogen treatment for the prevention of miscarriage. Cluster-randomised trials were eligible for inclusion. Randomised trials published only as abstracts were eligible if sufficient information could be retrieved. We excluded quasi- and non-randomised trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently assessed the trials for inclusion and risk of bias, extracted data and checked them for accuracy. We performed pairwise meta-analyses and indirect comparisons, where possible, to determine the relative effects of all available treatments, but due to the limited number of included studies only direct or indirect comparisons were possible. We estimated the relative effects for the primary outcome of live birth and the secondary outcomes including miscarriage (< 24 weeks of gestation), preterm birth (< 37 weeks of gestation), stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy, congenital abnormalities, and adverse drug events. Relative effects for all outcomes are reported separately by the type of miscarriage (threatened and recurrent miscarriage). We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Our meta-analysis included seven randomised trials involving 5,682 women, and all provided data for meta-analysis. All trials were conducted in hospital settings. Across seven trials (14 treatment arms), the following treatments were used: three arms (21%) used vaginal micronized progesterone; three arms (21%) used dydrogesterone; one arm (7%) used oral micronized progesterone; one arm (7%) used 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone, and six arms (43%) used placebo. Women with threatened miscarriage Based on the relative effects from the pairwise meta-analysis, vaginal micronized progesterone (two trials, 4090 women, risk ratio (RR) 1.03, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.00 to 1.07, high-certainty evidence), and dydrogesterone (one trial, 406 women, RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.07, moderate-certainty evidence) probably make little or no difference to the live birth rate when compared with placebo for women with threatened miscarriage. No data are available to assess the effectiveness of 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone or oral micronized progesterone for the outcome of live birth in women with threatened miscarriage. The pre-specified subgroup analysis by number of previous miscarriages is only possible for vaginal micronized progesterone in women with threatened miscarriage. In women with no previous miscarriages and early pregnancy bleeding, there is probably little or no improvement in the live birth rate (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.04, high-certainty evidence) when treated with vaginal micronized progesterone compared to placebo. However, for women with one or more previous miscarriages and early pregnancy bleeding, vaginal micronized progesterone increases the live birth rate compared to placebo (RR 1.08, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.15, high-certainty evidence). Women with recurrent miscarriage Based on the results from one trial (826 women) vaginal micronized progesterone (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.15, high-certainty evidence) probably makes little or no difference to the live birth rate when compared with placebo for women with recurrent miscarriage. The evidence for dydrogesterone compared with placebo for women with recurrent miscarriage is of very low-certainty evidence, therefore the effects remain unclear. No data are available to assess the effectiveness of 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone or oral micronized progesterone for the outcome of live birth in women with recurrent miscarriage. Additional outcomes All progestogen treatments have a wide range of effects on the other pre-specified outcomes (miscarriage (< 24 weeks of gestation), preterm birth (< 37 weeks of gestation), stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy) in comparison to placebo for both threatened and recurrent miscarriage. Moderate- and low-certainty evidence with a wide range of effects suggests that there is probably no difference in congenital abnormalities and adverse drug events with vaginal micronized progesterone for threatened (congenital abnormalities RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.46, moderate-certainty evidence; adverse drug events RR 1.07 95% CI 0.81 to 1.39, moderate-certainty evidence) or recurrent miscarriage (congenital abnormalities 0.75, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.85, low-certainty evidence; adverse drug events RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.29, moderate-certainty evidence) compared with placebo. There are limited data and very low-certainty evidence on congenital abnormalities and adverse drug events for the other progestogens.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The overall available evidence suggests that progestogens probably make little or no difference to live birth rate for women with threatened or recurrent miscarriage. However, vaginal micronized progesterone may increase the live birth rate for women with a history of one or more previous miscarriages and early pregnancy bleeding, with likely no difference in adverse events. There is still uncertainty over the effectiveness and safety of alternative progestogen treatments for threatened and recurrent miscarriage.