A Randomized Trial of Progesterone in Women with Recurrent Miscarriages.

BACKGROUND: Progesterone 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. METHODS: We 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 twice-daily 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. RESULTS: A 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. CONCLUSIONS: Progesterone 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. (Funded by the United Kingdom National Institute of Health Research; PROMISE Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN92644181.).

Embryo implantation: biology, evaluation, and enhancement.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Implantation is an essential step in the development of a pregnancy, but often fails in humans. In assisted reproductive technologies, implantation failure continues to impair treatment outcomes, with distressing results for patients and physicians. RECENT FINDINGS: Morphokinetics, comprehensive chromosome screening, and the analysis of embryo-derived products detectable in spent culture media offer new means of assessing embryo viability. However, all await validation in randomized controlled trials. Genomic, transcriptomic, and secretomic technologies are similarly being exploited to define specific biomarkers of endometrial receptivity with the aim of identifying novel therapeutic interventions. However, to date no single, clinically relevant molecular marker capable of indicating endometrial receptivity has been reported. Recent work continues to describe the key signalling pathways which result in acceptance or rejection of the implanting embryo. In-vitro studies have revealed that the decidualized endometrium plays an important role in natural embryo selection, which could change our understanding of the aetiology and treatment of reproductive failure. SUMMARY: Recent developments in analytical techniques have initiated a search for biomarkers of embryo quality and endometrial receptivity, and in-vitro studies have revealed novel roles for the decidualized endometrium as a biosensor of embryo quality.

Recurrent pre-clinical pregnancy loss is unlikely to be a 'cause' of unexplained infertility.

BACKGROUND: A proportion of women with 'unexplained' infertility may present with subfertility because their pregnancies fail before they are clinically recognized. In order to test whether pre-clinical early pregnancy losses (EPL) occur more frequently in women with unexplained infertility, serial urinary hCG concentrations were measured to compare EPL per cycle rates following spontaneous conception in patients with unexplained infertility versus healthy volunteers. METHODS: Sixty patients under 39 years of age with unexplained infertility and 60 healthy controls, who were trying to conceive spontaneously, participated in this study. All participants were asked to collect daily urine samples from cycle day 14 until menstruation for three consecutive cycles or until a positive pregnancy test was obtained. Urinary hCG and creatinine levels were measured by immunoassay. Implantation was detected when urinary hCG levels rose above reference levels constructed from samples obtained from 12 women not attempting to conceive. EPL rates were determined by a linear mixed model using logarithmically transformed hCG/creatinine data. RESULTS: In the 133 cycles of 60 women with unexplained infertility, just one implantation was detected, which became an ongoing pregnancy. In contrast, in 103 such cycles in 46 control patients, 30 implantations were detected (24 clinical pregnancies, 6 cases of EPL). The odds ratio for EPL/cycle in the unexplained versus control group was 0 (95% confidence interval: 0-0.795, P = 0.026). CONCLUSIONS: Our data do not support the hypothesis that recurrent EPL may present as unexplained infertility. Post-implantation failure is therefore unlikely to contribute significantly to the presentation of subfertility.

An endometrial gene expression signature accurately predicts recurrent implantation failure after IVF.

The primary limiting factor for effective IVF treatment is successful embryo implantation. Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is a condition whereby couples fail to achieve pregnancy despite consecutive embryo transfers. Here we describe the collection of gene expression profiles from mid-luteal phase endometrial biopsies (n = 115) from women experiencing RIF and healthy controls. Using a signature discovery set (n = 81) we identify a signature containing 303 genes predictive of RIF. Independent validation in 34 samples shows that the gene signature predicts RIF with 100% positive predictive value (PPV). The strength of the RIF associated expression signature also stratifies RIF patients into distinct groups with different subsequent implantation success rates. Exploration of the expression changes suggests that RIF is primarily associated with reduced cellular proliferation. The gene signature will be of value in counselling and guiding further treatment of women who fail to conceive upon IVF and suggests new avenues for developing intervention.

PROMISE: first-trimester progesterone therapy in women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriages - a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international multicentre trial and economic evaluation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Progesterone is essential to maintain a healthy pregnancy. Guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and a Cochrane review called for a definitive trial to test whether or not progesterone therapy in the first trimester could reduce the risk of miscarriage in women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriage (RM). The PROMISE trial was conducted to answer this question. A concurrent cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted. DESIGN AND SETTING: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international multicentre study, with economic evaluation, conducted in hospital settings across the UK (36 sites) and in the Netherlands (nine sites). PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS: Women with unexplained RM (three or more first-trimester losses), aged between 18 and 39 years at randomisation, conceiving naturally and giving informed consent, received either micronised progesterone (Utrogestan(®), Besins Healthcare) at a dose of 400 mg (two vaginal capsules of 200 mg) or placebo vaginal capsules twice daily, administered vaginally from soon after a positive urinary pregnancy test (and no later than 6 weeks of gestation) until 12 completed weeks of gestation (or earlier if the pregnancy ended before 12 weeks). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Live birth beyond 24 completed weeks of gestation (primary outcome), clinical pregnancy at 6-8 weeks, ongoing pregnancy at 12 weeks, miscarriage, gestation at delivery, neonatal survival at 28 days of life, congenital abnormalities and resource use. METHODS: Participants were randomised after confirmation of pregnancy. Randomisation was performed online via a secure internet facility. Data were collected on four occasions of outcome assessment after randomisation, up to 28 days after birth. RESULTS: A total of 1568 participants were screened for eligibility. Of the 836 women randomised between 2010 and 2013, 404 received progesterone and 432 received placebo. The baseline data (age, body mass index, maternal ethnicity, smoking status and parity) of the participants were comparable in the two arms of the trial. The follow-up rate to primary outcome was 826 out of 836 (98.8%). The live birth rate in the progesterone group was 65.8% (262/398) and in the placebo group it was 63.3% (271/428), giving a relative risk of 1.04 (95% confidence interval 0.94 to 1.15; p = 0.45). There was no evidence of a significant difference between the groups for any of the secondary outcomes. Economic analysis suggested a favourable incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for decision-making but wide confidence intervals indicated a high level of uncertainty in the health benefits. Additional sensitivity analysis suggested the probability that progesterone would fall within the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's threshold of £20,000-30,000 per quality-adjusted life-year as between 0.7145 and 0.7341. CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that first-trimester progesterone therapy improves outcomes in women with a history of unexplained RM. LIMITATIONS: This study did not explore the effect of treatment with other progesterone preparations or treatment during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. FUTURE WORK: Future research could explore the efficacy of progesterone supplementation administered during the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle in women attempting natural conception despite a history of RM. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN92644181; EudraCT 2009-011208-42; Research Ethics Committee 09/H1208/44. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 41. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.