ALIFE2 study: low-molecular-weight heparin for women with recurrent miscarriage and inherited thrombophilia--study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Australasian recurrent pregnancy loss clinical management guideline 2024, part II

Part II of the Australasian guideline for the investigation and management of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) provides evidence-based guidance on the management of RPL provided. The implications of inherited and acquired thrombophilia with respect to RPL and suggestions for clinical management are provided. Autoimmune factors, including human leukocyte antigen, cytokines, antinuclear antibodies and coeliac antibodies, and guidance for management are discussed. Infective, inflammatory and endometrial causes of RPL are discussed in detail. Environmental and lifestyle factors, male factor and unexplained causes are outlined. Levels of evidence and grades of consensus are provided for all evidence-based statements.

Risk Factors of Thrombophilia-Related Mutations for Early and Late Pregnancy Loss

Background and Objectives: This retrospective cohort study investigates the role of genetic thrombophilia in pregnant women experiencing early pregnancy loss compared to those with late pregnancy loss. Materials and Methods: Participants were categorized into early and late pregnancy loss groups based on gestational age. A total of 156 patients were included, out of which 103 had early-trimester pregnancy losses and 96 had multiple miscarriages. Results: The study revealed a synergistic effect of Factor V Leiden (FVL G1691A) and Methylenetetrahydrofolate Reductase (MTHFR C677T) mutations (coefficient 3.42). Prothrombin (PT) G20210A and β-Fibrinogen 455 G>A mutations exhibited a significant interaction (coefficient 1.98). Additionally, MTHFR A1298C and Plasminogen Activator Inhibitor-1 (PAI-1 4G/5G) mutations showed a significant interaction (coefficient 1.65). FVL G1691A and Endothelial Protein C Receptor (EPCR) allele A1/A2 mutations also demonstrated a significant association (coefficient 2.10). Lastly, MTHFR C677T and Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa T1565C mutations interacted significantly (coefficient 1.77). Risk factor analysis identified several mutations associated with early pregnancy loss, including PAI-1 4G/5G homozygous (OR 3.01), FVL G1691A heterozygous (OR 1.85), and MTHFR A1298C heterozygous (OR 1.55). Both homozygous and heterozygous MTHFR C677T mutations were significant risk factors (OR 2.38; OR 2.06), as was PT G20210A homozygous mutation (OR 1.92). The PAI-1 4G/4G homozygous variant posed a risk (OR 1.36). Late pregnancy loss was associated with MTHFR A1298C homozygous mutation (OR 3.79), β-Fibrinogen 455 G>A heterozygous mutation (OR 2.20), and MTHFR A1298C heterozygous mutation (OR 2.65). Factor XIII G1002T heterozygous mutation (OR 1.18) and PAI-1 4G/5G homozygous mutation (OR 2.85) were also significant risk factors. EPCR allele A1/A2 (OR 1.60) and A2/A3 (OR 1.73) mutations were identified as significant risk factors for late pregnancy loss. Furthermore, FVL G1691A homozygous mutation, PT G20210A homozygous mutation, MTHFR C677T heterozygous mutation, MTHFR A1298C heterozygous mutation, and EPCR allele A1/A2 were identified as significant risk factors for multiple miscarriage. Conclusions: This study highlights significant interactions and risk factors related to genetic thrombophilia mutations in different types of pregnancy loss, contributing valuable insights for miscarriage management guidelines.

Identifying discrepancies between clinical practice and evidence-based guideline in recurrent pregnancy loss care, a tool for clinical guideline implementation

BACKGROUND

Practice variation in recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) care is common. International guidelines vary in their recommendations for the management of RPL couples, which could lead to an increase of cross border reproductive care. Currently, the Dutch RPL guideline is being adapted from the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) guideline. We aim to identify discrepancies between RPL guidelines and RPL practice. These discrepancies could be considered in the development of a new guideline and implementation strategies to promote adherence to new recommendations.

METHODS

A nationwide survey on the management of RPL patients was conducted across all 107 hospital-based obstetrics and gynaecology practices in the Netherlands. The survey was sent via the Dutch Society for Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to all affiliated clinicians. The questionnaire consisted of 36 questions divided in four sections: clinician's demographics, RPL definition, investigations and therapy. The data were compared to the recommendations given by the Dutch national guideline and the most recent guideline of the ESHRE.

RESULTS

All hospital-based practices (100%; n = 107) filled in the online questionnaire. The majority of respondents defined RPL similarly, as two or more pregnancy losses (87.4%), not obligatory consecutive (93.1%). More than half of respondents routinely perform thrombophilia screening ( 58%), although not advised by the ESHRE, while thyroid function (57%), thyroid auto-immunity (27%) and β2-glycoprotein antibodies (42%) in the context of antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) are recommended but investigated less often. Regarding parental karyotyping, 20% of respondents stated they always perform parental karyotyping, without prior risk assessment. because of RPL. Treatment for hereditary thrombophilia was frequently (43.8% (n = 137)) prescribed although not recommended. And finally, a considerable part (12-16%) of respondents prescribe medication in case of unexplained RPL.

CONCLUSION

While many clinicians perform investigations recommended by the ESHRE, there is a considerable variation of RPL practice in the Netherlands. We identified discrepancies between RPL guidelines and RPL practice, providing possibilities to focus on multifaceted implementation strategies, such as educational intervention, local consensus processes and auditing and feedback. This will improve the quality of care provided to RPL patients and may diminish the necessity felt by patients to turn to multiple opinions or cross border reproductive care.

The Diagnostics and Treatment of Recurrent Pregnancy Loss

Recurrent pregnancy loss is a common problem in the reproductive age population of women. It can be caused by many different conditions. This problem is addressed in international guidelines that take a slightly different approach to its diagnosis and treatment. The guidelines used in this review mainly use the guidelines of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), American Society of Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) and European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE). This review shows how much the approach to miscarriages has changed and how much more needs to be explored and refined. The review also addresses the topic of unexplained pregnancy loss, which continues to be a challenge for clinicians.

Heparin for women with recurrent miscarriage and inherited thrombophilia (ALIFE2): an international open-label, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Anticoagulant therapy might reduce the number of miscarriages and adverse pregnancy outcomes in women with recurrent pregnancy loss and inherited thrombophilia. We aimed to assess use of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) versus standard care in this population.

METHODS

The ALIFE2 trial was an international open-label, randomised controlled trial undertaken in hospitals in the UK (n=26), the Netherlands (n=10), the USA (n=2), Belgium (n=1), and Slovenia (n=1). Women aged 18-42 years who had two or more pregnancy losses and confirmed inherited thrombophilia, and who were trying to conceive or were already pregnant (≤7 weeks' gestation), were eligible for inclusion. Women were randomly assigned (1:1) to use low-dose LMWH or not (alongside standard care in both groups) once they had a positive urine pregnancy test. LMWH was started at or before 7 weeks' gestation and continued until the end of pregnancy. The primary outcome measure was livebirth rate, assessed in all women with available data. Safety outcomes included bleeding episodes, thrombocytopenia, and skin reactions, and were assessed in all randomly assigned women who reported a safety event. The trial was registered within the Dutch Trial Register (NTR3361) and EudraCT (UK: 2015-002357-35).

FINDINGS

Between Aug 1, 2012, and Jan 30, 2021, 10 625 women were assessed for eligibility, 428 were registered, and 326 conceived and were randomly assigned (164 to LMWH and 162 to standard care). 116 (72%) of 162 women with primary outcome data in the LMWH group and 112 (71%) of 158 in the standard care group had livebirths (adjusted odds ratio 1·08, 95% CI 0·65 to 1·78; absolute risk difference, 0·7%, 95% CI -9·2% to 10·6%). 39 (24%) of 164 women in the LMWH group and 37 (23%) of 162 women in the standard care group reported adverse events.

INTERPRETATION

LMWH did not result in higher livebirth rates in women who had two or more pregnancy losses and confirmed inherited thrombophilia. We do not advise use of LMWH in women with recurrent pregnancy loss and inherited thrombophilia, and we advise against screening for inherited thrombophilia in women with recurrent pregnancy loss.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health and Care Research and the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.

Assessment-based management of placenta-mediated pregnancy complications: Pragmatism until a precision medicine approach evolves

The management of pregnant women with thrombophilia and a history of gestational vascular complications remains debatable. Treatment of the latter is often based on clinical outcome rather than disease mechanism. While the use of venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in pregnancy is recommended for those at increased risk, the ability of anticoagulant and/or antiplatelet agents to lower the risk of placenta-mediated complications in this clinical setting remains controversial. The available guidelines are inconsistent in some situations, which reflects the limited evidence base. This review critically discusses risk assessment models (RAMs) and management strategies of women with thrombophilia and pregnancy complications, using clinical vignettes. RAMs, taking into account obstetric and thrombotic history as well as thrombophilia status, could drive a precision medicine approach, based on disease mechanism, and guide individual therapeutic interventions in high-risk clinical settings.

Recurrent Miscarriage: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S2k-Level, AWMF Registry No. 015/050, May 2022)

Purpose The aim of this guideline is to standardize the diagnosis and therapy of recurrent miscarriage (RM) using evidence from the recent literature. This is done by using consistent definitions, objective evaluations and standardized treatment protocols.

Methods When this guideline was compiled, special consideration was given to previous recommendations in prior versions of this guideline and the recommendations of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, and a detailed individual search of the literature about the different topics was carried out.

Recommendations Recommendations about the diagnostic and therapeutic procedures offered to couples with RM were developed based on the international literature. Special attention was paid to known risk factors such as chromosomal, anatomical, endocrinological, physiological coagulation, psychological, infectious and immune disorders. Recommendations were also developed for those cases where investigations are unable to find any abnormality (idiopathic RM).

Thrombophilia screening in women with recurrent first trimester miscarriage: is it time to stop testing? - a cohort study and systematic review of the literature

OBJECTIVE

There are numerous studies reporting a disproportionally high prevalence of thrombophilia in women with a history of recurrent miscarriage (RM), which has led to overdiagnosis and treatment without an improvement in clinical outcomes. The objective of our study was to assess the prevalence of inherited and acquired thrombophilia in a large cohort of women with a history of early RM using internationally agreed diagnostic criteria and inclusion parameters and compare it to the meta-analysis results of existing literature.

METHODS

DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study and systematic review of literature.

SETTING

This is a retrospective cohort study set-up in two dedicated tertiary centres for women with RM in Southwest London and Surrey. We reviewed all the available literature related to causes of RMs. We ascertained the prevalence of thrombophilia in the study population and compared it with historical and published prevalence in the general population.

PARTICIPANTS

1155 women between 2012 and 2017. All patients had three or more first trimester miscarriages and a full thrombophilia screen.

RESULTS

The overall prevalence of thrombophilia in our study population is 9.2% (106/1155) with 8.1% (94/1155) of cases positive for inherited thrombophilia, which is similar to the general population; Factor V Leiden (4.9%; 57/1155) and prothrombin gene mutation (2.9%; 34/1155) were the most common inherited thrombophilias, while only 1% (12/1155) tested positive for acquired thrombophilia. Persistent positive lupus anticoagulant (LA) was found in 0.5% (6/1155) and persistent positive anticardiolipin (ACL) antibodies with a value ≥40 U/mL was found in 0.5% (6/1155) of patients. Tests for LA/ACL were performed a minimum of 12 weeks apart thus meeting the revised Sapporo criteria for a diagnosis of antiphospholipid syndrome.

CONCLUSION

The findings of our study demonstrate that the prevalence of inherited thrombophilia is similar in women with RM to that in the general population. Similarly, the prevalence of acquired thrombophilia, using the revised Sapporo criteria, in the cohort of RMs is similar to that in the general population. Therefore, we do not recommend investigation or treatment of inherited or acquired thrombophilia in women with RM.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020223554.

Doppler Ultrasound under Image Denoising Algorithm in the Diagnosis and Treatment of Fetal Growth Restriction Using Aspirin Combined with Low-Molecular-Weight Heparin

OBJECTIVE

This study explored the clinical application value of image denoising algorithm combined with Doppler ultrasound imaging in evaluation of aspirin combined with low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) on fetal growth restriction (FGR).

METHOD

A two-stage image denoising by principal component analysis (PCA) with local pixel grouping (LPG-PCA) denoising algorithm was constructed in this study. Eighty FGR pregnant women were included in the study, and they were rolled into an experimental group (aspirin enteric-coated tablets + LMWH calcium injection) and a control group (LMWH calcium injection) according to the different treatment plans, with 40 cases in each group. All patients were performed with Doppler ultrasound imaging. The blood flow parameters (BFPs) were recorded and compared before and after the treatment in two groups, including power index (PI), resistance index (RI), high systolic blood flow velocity (S), high diastolic blood flow velocity (D), S/D value, and peak systolic velocity (PSV). In addition, the middle cerebral artery (MCA) BFPs, cerebral placental rate (CPR), amniotic fluid index (AFI) and perinatal outcome (PO) of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

The total effective rate of treatment in group A (87.5%) was greatly higher than that in group B (62.5%), showing statistical difference (P < 0.05). The PI (0.72 ± 0.19), RI (0.57 ± 0.17), and S/D values (2.26 ± 0.43) in group A were dramatically lower than those in group B, which were 0.92 ± 0.21, 0.75 ± 0.14, and 2.64 ± 0.45, respectively (P < 0.05), and the AFI was higher (13.71 ± 2.2 cm vs 11.38 ± 2.16 cm) (P < 0.05). The Apgar score (9.17 ± 0.26), weight (3.57 ± 1.08), and gestational age (38.85 ± 2.50) of group A were all higher in contrast to those of group B, which were 7.33 ± 0.25, 2.61 ± 1.13, and 36.18 ± 2.25, respectively (P < 0.05). In addition, the fetal double parietal diameter (2.4 ± 0.9 mm), femur diameter (2.2 ± 0.6 mm), head circumference (1.2 ± 0.4 mm), abdominal circumference (1.3 ± 0.7 mm), and uterine height (0.8 ± 0.3 mm) in group A were obviously superior to those in group B, which were 1.8 ± 0.4 mm, 1.7 ± 0.5 mm, 0.8 ± 0.2 mm, 0.9 ± 0.4 mm, and 0.4 ± 0.6 mm, respectively, showing statistically observable differences (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Doppler ultrasound based on image denoising algorithm can accurately evaluate the effect of aspirin combined with LMWH on the improvement of FGR and showed good application value.

Thrombophilia, Inflammation, and Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: A Case-Based Review

Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is defined as the loss of two or more pregnancies and is often multifactorial with the majority of miscarriages being due to aneuploidy and anatomic or physiological abnormalities. However, inherited or acquired thrombophilias have also been associated with RPL, albeit inconsistently. While inherited thrombophilias, such as factor V Leiden and prothrombin gene mutation, are relatively prevalent in women with RPL compared with the general population, a causal link has yet to be definitively established. Recently, systemic inflammation, as measured by high-sensitivity C-reactive protein, has also been hypothesized to play a role in infertility. Based on limited prospective trial data, antithrombotic therapy and antiplatelet agents have been proposed as possible tools for the prevention of RPL. Because of the multifactorial nature of RPL and infertility, various clinicians, as obstetricians and gynecologists, endocrinologists, hematologists, or vascular medicine specialists, may be requested to counsel these women. This, together with evidence gaps, frequently leads to distinctly different diagnostic and therapeutic recommendations, especially regarding thrombophilia testing and treatment. Using four case vignettes in this review, we critically appraise the literature and highlight how two clinicians from different subspecialties approach the relationship between RPL, inflammation, and thrombophilia.

Prophylactic Anticoagulation With Intermediate-Dose Certoparin in Vascular-Risk Pregnancies-The PACER-VARP Registry

The management of pregnant women at increased risk of thromboembolic/other vascular events is still a matter of debate. In a single-center, retrospective, observational trial, we analyzed the safety and efficacy of prophylactic anticoagulation with certoparin in pregnant women at intermediate- or high-risk by EThIG criteria of thromboembolic/other vascular events. Subcutaneous certoparin 8,000 IU once daily was administered immediately after pregnancy confirmation and continued for 6 weeks postpartum. We investigated 74 pregnancies (49 women; mean age 31.8 years; weight 77.3 kg). Most prevalent risk factors were factor V Leiden mutation (40.5%), thrombogenic factor II mutation (12.2%) and protein S deficiency (8.1%). In 76 control pregnancies prior to registry inclusion/without anticoagulation there were 14 cases [18.4%] of venous thromboembolism (between week 7 gestation and week 8 postpartum); 63.2% pregnancies resulted in abortion (median week 8.6 gestation). With certoparin anticoagulation, thromboembolism was 1.4%, exclusively non-major bleeding was 4.1% and abortion was 10.8%. One case of pre-eclampsia necessitating obstetric intervention occurred. Prophylactic anticoagulation with intermediate-dose certoparin throughout pregnancies at increased venous vascular risk was safe and effective.

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.

Tromboprofilaxis durante el embarazo

Introducción. En mujeres, el riesgo de desarrollar enfermedad tromboembólica venosa (ETV) es 5 a 6 veces mayor durante el embarazo, riesgo que puede aumentar considerablemente si existen antecedentes personales o familiares de otros estados protrombóticos. La ETV es una de las principales causas de morbimortalidad en esta población, por lo que para evaluar la pertinencia de usar tromboprofilaxis, ya sea farmacológica o no farmacológica, es necesario reconocer oportunamente los factores de riesgo clínico asociados a esta condición.Objetivo. Describir el uso de pruebas de tamizaje de estados protrombóticos y de la tromboprofilaxis farmacológica y no farmacológica para prevenir la ETV durante la gestación, durante el parto y durante el puerperio.Materiales y métodos. Se realizó una revisión de la literatura en Embase, ClinicalKey, ScienceDirect, Access Medicine, Scopus, ProQuest, PubMed y LILACS. Se buscaron estudios sobre trombofilia y trombofilaxis en el embarazo publicados entre enero de 2004 y marzo de 2018 en inglés y en español.Resultados. En la búsqueda inicial se identificaron 128 artículos, de los cuales 54 cumplieron los criterios de inclusión. La mayoría de estudios correspondió a revisiones narrativas (n=16), guías de práctica clínica (n=13) y revisiones sistemáticas (n=8).Conclusión. Se recomienda el uso de pruebas de tamizaje de estados protrombóticos durante la gestación, el parto y el puerperio, ya que la identificación oportuna de la ETV permitirá disminuir las tasas de morbimortalidad en esta población mediante la implementación de medidas tromboprofilácticas, sean o no farmacológicas.

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.

Risk factors and role of low molecular weight heparin in obstetric complications among women with inherited thrombophilia - a cohort study

Introduction

Although there is a vast literature regarding the association between inherited thrombophilia, obstetric complications and the effect of low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), these are controversial and we have not found publications related to additional risk factors other than thrombophilia.

Our objectives were to assess the prevalence of miscarriage, placenta-mediated pregnancy complications and fetal loss in pregnant women with IT, establishing associated risk factors and the effect of LMWH.

Materials and methods

A retrospective cohort of pregnant women with IT was formed. Risk factors considered were: high-risk IT, age ≥35 years, body mass index ≥25 and ≥30, assisted reproductive technology, antiphospholipid antibodies, autoimmune disease, first-degree family history of obstetric complications and personal history of venous or arterial thromboembolic disease, the outcomes being M, FL and PMPC.

Results and conclusions

Data from 250 pregnancies in 88 women were obtained.

There were 112 (45%) Ms, 13 (5.2%) FLs and 25 (10%) PMPCs.

High-risk IT was associated with FL (OR = 4.96; 95% CI, 1.42–17.3). Antiphospholipid antibodies and family history of obstetric complications were associated with PMPC (OR = 7.12; 95% CI, 1.89–26.74, OR = 3.88; 95% CI, 1.18–12.78, respectively). The LMWH presented a benefit in the combined outcome (any obstetric complication, OR = 0.25; 95% CI, 0.12–0.54) and M (OR = 0.41; 95% CI, 0.20–0.82).

We conclude that obstetric complications are common in women with IT. Antiphospholipid antibodies, family history of obstetric complications and high-risk IT might be additional risk factors. The LMWH has an apparent protective effect against obstetric complications, which is consistent with some previous studies.

Outcomes in prevention and management of miscarriage trials: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is a substantial body of research evaluating ways to prevent and manage miscarriage, but all studies do not report on the same outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

To review systematically, outcomes reported in existing miscarriage trials.

SEARCH STRATEGY

MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched from inception until January 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting prevention or management of miscarriage. Miscarriage was defined as a pregnancy loss in the first trimester.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data about the study characteristics, primary, and secondary outcomes were extracted.

MAIN RESULTS

We retrieved 1553 titles and abstracts, from which 208 RCTs were included. For prevention of miscarriage, the most commonly reported primary outcome was live birth and the top four reported outcomes were pregnancy loss/stillbirth (n = 112), gestation of birth (n = 68), birth dimensions (n = 65), and live birth (n = 49). For these four outcomes, 58 specific measures were used for evaluation. For management of miscarriage, the most commonly reported primary outcome was efficacy of treatment. The top four reported outcomes were bleeding (n = 186), efficacy of miscarriage treatment (n = 105), infection (n = 97), and quality of life (n = 90). For these outcomes, 130 specific measures were used for evaluation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review found considerable variation in the reporting of primary and secondary outcomes along with the measures used to assess them. There is a need for standardised patient-centred clinical outcomes through the development of a core outcome set; the work from this systematic review will form the foundation of the core outcome set for miscarriage.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

There is disparity in the reporting of outcomes and the measures used to assess them in miscarriage trials.

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.

Recurrent Miscarriage: Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures. Guideline of the DGGG, OEGGG and SGGG (S2k-Level, AWMF Registry Number 015/050)

Purpose

Official guideline of the German Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (DGGG), the Austrian Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (ÖGGG) and the Swiss Society of Gynecology and Obstetrics (SGGG). The aim of this guideline was to standardize the diagnosis and treatment of couples with recurrent miscarriage (RM). Recommendations were based on the current literature and the views of the involved committee members.

Methods

Based on the current literature, the committee members developed the statements and recommendations of this guideline in a formalized process which included DELPHI rounds and a formal consensus meeting.

Recommendations

Recommendations for the diagnosis and treatment of patients with RM were compiled based on the international literature. Specific established risk factors such as chromosomal, anatomical, endocrine, hemostatic, psychological, infectious and immunological disorders were taken into consideration.

Maternal Thrombophilia and Recurrent Miscarriage - Is There Evidence That Heparin is Indicated as Prophylaxis against Recurrence?

Background

Recurrent miscarriage, also referred to as recurrent spontaneous abortion (RSA), affects 1 – 5% of couples and has a multifactorial genesis. Acquired and congenital thrombophilia have been discussed as hemostatic risk factors in the pathogenesis of RSA.

Method

This review article was based on a selective search of the literature in PubMed. There was a special focus on the current body of evidence studying the association between RSA and antiphospholipid syndrome and hereditary thrombophilia disorders.

Results

Antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) is an acquired autoimmune thrombophilia and recurrent miscarriage is one of its clinical classification criteria. The presence of lupus anticoagulant has been shown to be the most important serologic risk factor for developing complications of pregnancy. A combination of low-dose acetylsalicylic acid and heparin has shown significant benefits with regard to pregnancy outcomes and APS-related miscarriage. Some congenital thrombophilic disorders also have an increased associated risk of developing RSA, although the risk is lower than for APS. The current analysis does not sufficiently support the analogous administration of heparin as prophylaxis against miscarriage in women with congenital thrombophilia in the same way as it is used in antiphospholipid syndrome. The data on rare, combined or homozygous thrombophilias and their impact on RSA are still insufficient.

Conclusion

In contrast to antiphospholipid syndrome, the current data from studies on recurrent spontaneous abortion do not support the prophylactic administration of heparin to treat women with maternal hereditary thrombophilia in subsequent pregnancies. Nevertheless, the maternal risk of thromboembolic events must determine the indication for thrombosis prophylaxis in pregnancy.

Pregnancy, thrombophilia, and the risk of a first venous thrombosis: systematic review and bayesian meta-analysis

Objective To provide evidence to support updated guidelines for the management of pregnant women with hereditary thrombophilia in order to reduce the risk of a first venous thromboembolism (VTE) in pregnancy.Design Systematic review and bayesian meta-analysis.Data sources Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar from inception through 14 November 2016.Review methods Observational studies that reported on pregnancies without the use of anticoagulants and the outcome of first VTE for women with thrombophilia were eligible for inclusion. VTE was considered established if it was confirmed by objective means, or when the patient had received a full course of a full dose anticoagulant treatment without objective testing. Results 36 studies were included in the meta-analysis. All thrombophilias increased the risk for pregnancy associated VTE (probabilities ≥91%). Regarding absolute risks of pregnancy associated VTE, high risk thrombophilias were antithrombin deficiency (antepartum: 7.3%, 95% credible interval 1.8% to 15.6%; post partum: 11.1%, 3.7% to 21.0%), protein C deficiency (antepartum: 3.2%, 0.6% to 8.2%; post partum: 5.4%, 0.9% to 13.8%), protein S deficiency (antepartum: 0.9%, 0.0% to 3.7%; post partum: 4.2%; 0.7% to 9.4%), and homozygous factor V Leiden (antepartum: 2.8%, 0.0% to 8.6%; post partum: 2.8%, 0.0% to 8.8%). Absolute combined antepartum and postpartum risks for women with heterozygous factor V Leiden, heterozygous prothrombin G20210A mutations, or compound heterozygous factor V Leiden and prothrombin G20210A mutations were all below 3%. Conclusions Women with antithrombin, protein C, or protein S deficiency or with homozygous factor V Leiden should be considered for antepartum or postpartum thrombosis prophylaxis, or both. Women with heterozygous factor V Leiden, heterozygous prothrombin G20210A mutation, or compound heterozygous factor V Leiden and prothrombin G20210A mutation should generally not be prescribed thrombosis prophylaxis on the basis of thrombophilia and family history alone. These data should be considered in future guidelines on pregnancy associated VTE risk.

'To test or not to test', the arguments for and against thrombophilia testing in obstetrics

Clinicians increasingly investigate women for thrombophilias due to their associations with venous thromboembolism and placenta-mediated pregnancy complication. These associations, however, are modest and based largely on retrospective data from studies with heterogeneous classifications and populations, leading to discordance between evidence and guidelines. Current evidence suggests a contributory rather than causative role for thrombophilia in placenta-mediated pregnancy complication and venous thromboembolism. With little evidence of benefit from antithrombotic therapy in placenta-mediated pregnancy complication, thrombophilia screening remains controversial. Given the low absolute risk of placenta-mediated pregnancy complication and gestational venous thromboembolism with heritable thrombophilia, universal screening is inappropriate. Selective screening for antiphospholipid syndrome is supported by robust evidence of benefit. Conversely, selective screening for heritable thrombophilia has not been shown to effectively manage placenta-mediated pregnancy complication. Therefore, at present heritable thrombophilia screening is not warranted for placenta-mediated pregnancy complication. Until we have better evidence from better stratified patient groups, caution should remain if we wish to practice evidence-based medicine.

Inherited thrombophilia: a double-edged sword

Inherited thrombophilia is a blood coagulation disorder that increases the risk for venous thromboembolism (VTE). During the last decades, the practice of testing has evolved from testing selected populations, leading to high perceived risks, to broad testing for various conditions that included VTE, arterial thrombosis, and pregnancy complications. Because results of such tests usually do not guide treatment decisions, not testing patients with VTE for inherited thrombophilia is on the "Choosing Wisely" list endorsed by multiple specialty societies, including ASH. Inherited thrombophilia can be regarded a double-edged sword, as despite the rationale not to test, it is still being performed frequently. Another way of seeing inherited thrombophilia as a double-edged sword lies in its 2-sided association with reproduction, both in men and in women. Current areas of research are whether women with inherited thrombophilia and pregnancy complications benefit from anticoagulant therapy with regard to improving the chance of a successful pregnancy. Potential effects of inherited thrombophilia, most notably factor V Leiden, on improved embryo implantation in women and sperm counts in men are intriguing, but are currently poorly understood.

A meta-analysis of low-molecular-weight heparin to prevent pregnancy loss in women with inherited thrombophilia

We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) vs no LMWH in women with inherited thrombophilia and prior late (≥10 weeks) or recurrent early (<10 weeks) pregnancy loss. Eight trials and 483 patients met our inclusion criteria. There was no significant difference in livebirth rates with the use of LMWH compared with no LMWH (relative risk, 0.81; 95% confidence interval, 0.55-1.19; P = .28), suggesting no benefit of LMWH in preventing recurrent pregnancy loss in women with inherited thrombophilia.