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

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

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

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

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

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

Intravenous immunoglobulin treatment for secondary recurrent miscarriage: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether infusions with intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIg) during early pregnancy increase live birth rate in women with secondary recurrent miscarriage compared with placebo. DESIGN: A single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: A tertiary centre for recurrent miscarriage in Copenhagen, Denmark. POPULATION: A group of 82 women with unexplained secondary recurrent miscarriage and at least four miscarriages. METHODS: Women were randomly assigned to repeated infusions with IVIg or placebo (albumin) from the time of positive pregnancy test to gestational week 15 or pregnancy loss. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Primary outcome was birth with neonatal survival in all randomised women. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat analyses, live birth rates were 23/42 (54.8%) in the IVIg and 20/40 (50.0%) in the placebo group, relative risk 1.11 (95% CI 0.70-1.74). In a per protocol analysis, almost identical results were found. The median gestational length at delivery was higher in the IVIg than the placebo group (282 versus 272 days, P = 0.02) but the mean birthweight was not significantly increased. CONCLUSIONS: In this trial, which is the largest so far, IVIg did not increase the live birth rate in patients with secondary recurrent miscarriage and the treatment cannot be recommended in clinical practice.