STUDY QUESTION What is the recommended management of women with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) based on the best available evidence in the literature? SUMMARY ANSWER The guideline development group formulated 77 recommendations answering 18 key questions on investigations and treatments for RPL, and on how care should be organized. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY A previous guideline for the investigation and medical treatment of recurrent miscarriage was published in 2006 and is in need of an update. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. After formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 31 March 2017 and written in English were included. Cumulative live birth rate, live birth rate and pregnancy loss rate (or miscarriage rate) were considered the critical outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline group. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the guideline group and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The guideline provides 38 recommendations on risk factors, prevention and investigations in couples with RPL, and 39 recommendations on treatments. These include 60 evidence-based recommendations – of which 31 were formulated as strong recommendations and 29 as conditional – and 17 good practice points. The evidence supporting investigations and treatment of couples with RPL is limited and of moderate quality. Of the evidence-based recommendations, only 10 (16.3%) were supported by moderate quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (35 recommendations: 57.4%), or very low quality evidence (16 recommendations: 26.2%). There were no recommendations based on high quality evidence. Owing to the lack of evidence-based investigations and treatments in RPL care, the guideline also clearly mentions investigations and treatments that should not be used for couples with RPL. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Several investigations and treatments are offered to couples with RPL, but most of them are not well studied. For most of these investigations and treatments, a recommendation against the intervention or treatment was formulated based on insufficient evidence. Future studies may require these recommendations to be revised. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in RPL, based on the best evidence available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in RPL. One of the most important consequences of the limited evidence is the absence of evidence for a definition of RPL. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. J.E. reports position funding from CARE Fertility. S.L. reports position funding from SpermComet Ltd. S.M. reports research grants, consulting and speaker’s fees from GSK, BMS/Pfizer, Sanquin, Aspen, Bayer and Daiichi Sankyo. S.Q. reports speaker’s fees from Ferring. The other authors report no conflicts of interest. ESHRE Pages are not externally peer reviewed. This article has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

No abstract

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

Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document.When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policy While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.

No abstract

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

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

Objective To explore the healthcare experiences of parents whose baby died either before, during or shortly after birth between 20 +0 and 23 +6 weeks of gestation in order to identify practical ways to improve healthcare provision. Design Qualitative interview study. Setting England through two parent support organisations and four NHS Trusts. Sample A purposive sample of parents. Methods Thematic analysis of semi‐structured in‐depth narrative interviews. Main outcome measures Parents’ healthcare experiences. Results The key overarching theme to emerge from interviews with 38 parents was the importance of the terminology used to refer to the death of their baby. Parents who were told they were ‘losing a baby’ rather than ‘having a miscarriage’ were more prepared for the realities of labour, the birth experience and for making decisions around seeing and holding their baby. Appropriate terminology validated their loss, and impacted on parents’ health and wellbeing immediately following bereavement and in the longer term. Conclusion For parents experiencing the death of their baby at the margins between miscarriage, stillbirth and neonatal death, ensuring the use of appropriate terminology that reflects parents’ preferences is vital. This helps to validate their loss and prepare them for the experiences of labour and birth. Reflecting parents’ language preferences combined with compassionate bereavement care is likely to have a positive impact on parents’ experiences and improve longer‐term outcomes. Tweetable abstract Describing baby loss shortly before 24 weeks of gestation as a ‘miscarriage’ does not prepare parents for labour and birth, seeing their baby and making memories.