The use of immunomodulation therapy in women with recurrent implantation failure undergoing assisted conception: A multicentre cohort study.

PROBLEM: Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) after multiple embryo transfers remains a vexing problem and immunomodulators have been used with conflicting results. This study aims to assess the effect of immunomodulation therapy on live birth rate (LBR) in women with RIF undergoing assisted reproduction treatment (ART). METHOD OF STUDY DESIGN: This is a retrospective cohort study in multicentre network of private assisted conception units in the UK. The study included women who had at least two failed attempts of embryo transfers at CARE fertility network in the period from 1997 to 2018. Women in the treatment group had immunomodulator drugs in the form of corticosteroids, low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), and intravenous intralipid (IVIL) infusions, either separately or in combination, after immunological testing, in addition to standard ART whilst women in the control group had only ART without immunomodulators. The primary outcome was LBR per cycle. Secondary outcomes included the rates of clinical pregnancy (CPR), cumulative live birth (CLBR), and miscarriage. RESULTS: A total of 27 163 ART cycles fulfilled the inclusion criteria, of which 5083 had immunomodulation treatment in addition to standard ART treatment, and 22 080 had standard ART treatment alone. Women in the treatment group were significantly older (mean age 38.5 vs. 37.1 years, p < .001), and had a higher number of previous failed ART cycles (mean 4.3 vs. 3.8, p < .01). There was a higher LBR in women who received immunomodulation therapy when compared with the control group (20.9% vs. 15.8%, odds ratio [OR] 1.4, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.29-1.53, p < .001). Multivariate regression analysis showed that immunomodulation treatment was a significant independent predictor of live birth after adjusting for other confounders (adjusted OR [aOR] 1.33, 95% CI 1.15-1.54, p < .001). Survival analysis showed a higher CLBR in the treatment group (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.78, 95% CI 1.62-1.94, p < .001). CONCLUSION(S): This study provides evidence of a potential beneficial effect of immunomodulation therapy in women with RIF after immunological testing. There remains a need for high quality, adequately powered multicentre RCTs to robustly address the role of immunomodulation in women with RIF. There is also an urgent need for standardised screening tests for immune disorders that could preclude implantation.

Mean differences in maternal body mass index and recurrent pregnancy loss: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association of maternal body mass index (BMI) and recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL). DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): A total of 3,833 women with RPL and 4,083 women as controls. INTERVENTION(S): Studies were identified through a search of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The primary outcome of interest was RPL using the mean differences in maternal BMI as the predictor variable. The results of the meta-analysis were reported as the mean difference with a 95% confidence interval. RESULT(S): In total, 892 studies were reviewed. Pooled data from 25 studies suggested that the maternal BMI of women with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss was significantly higher than the BMI of controls, mean difference 0.7 kg/m2 [95% confidence interval 0.2-1.3]. CONCLUSION(S): These findings supported an association between maternal BMI and RPL. Large prospective studies are needed to evaluate the influence of maternal BMI on pregnancy outcomes in women with RPL.

Current evidence supporting a goal of singletons: a review of maternal and perinatal outcomes associated with twin versus singleton pregnancies after in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

With increasing use of in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF-ICSI) almost 2% of all babies born in the United States each year are now conceived with these technologies, making outcomes of IVF-ICSI extremely important not only to patients and families but to public health. Twin pregnancy rates after IVF-ICSI in the United States have declined since their peak in 2013 but remain at approximately 1 in 10 to 1 in 20 pregnancies. A review of the current international literature on twin versus singleton pregnancy outcomes after IVF-ICSI treatment confirms statistically significantly higher risks to maternal and perinatal health and statistically significantly higher health care costs. The field of infertility care should continue to work to develop practices that lower twin pregnancy rates to an absolute minimum to maximize the safety of these medical treatments.

Progesterone to prevent miscarriage in women with early pregnancy bleeding: the PRISM RCT.

BACKGROUND: Progesterone is essential for a healthy pregnancy. Several small trials have suggested that progesterone therapy may rescue a pregnancy in women with early pregnancy bleeding, which is a symptom that is strongly associated with miscarriage. OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess the effects of vaginal micronised progesterone in women with vaginal bleeding in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. (2) To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of progesterone in women with early pregnancy bleeding. DESIGN: A multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of progesterone in women with early pregnancy vaginal bleeding. SETTING: A total of 48 hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 16-39 years with early pregnancy bleeding. INTERVENTIONS: Women aged 16-39 years were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily vaginal suppositories containing either 400 mg of progesterone or a matched placebo from presentation to 16 weeks of gestation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was live birth at ≥ 34 weeks. In addition, a within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from an NHS and NHS/Personal Social Services perspective. RESULTS: A total of 4153 women from 48 hospitals in the UK received either progesterone (n = 2079) or placebo (n = 2074). The follow-up rate for the primary outcome was 97.2% (4038 out of 4153 participants). The live birth rate was 75% (1513 out of 2025 participants) in the progesterone group and 72% (1459 out of 2013 participants) in the placebo group (relative rate 1.03, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.07; p = 0.08). A significant subgroup effect (interaction test p = 0.007) was identified for prespecified subgroups by the number of previous miscarriages: none (74% in the progesterone group vs. 75% in the placebo group; relative rate 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.04; p = 0.72); one or two (76% in the progesterone group vs. 72% in the placebo group; relative rate 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.12; p = 0.07); and three or more (72% in the progesterone group vs. 57% in the placebo group; relative rate 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.51; p = 0.004). A significant post hoc subgroup effect (interaction test p = 0.01) was identified in the subgroup of participants with early pregnancy bleeding and any number of previous miscarriage(s) (75% in the progesterone group vs. 70% in the placebo group; relative rate 1.09, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.15; p = 0.003). There were no significant differences in the rate of adverse events between the groups. The results of the health economics analysis show that progesterone was more costly than placebo (£7655 vs. £7572), with a mean cost difference of £83 (adjusted mean difference £76, 95% confidence interval -£559 to £711) between the two arms. Thus, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of progesterone compared with placebo was estimated as £3305 per additional live birth at ≥ 34 weeks of gestation. CONCLUSIONS: Progesterone therapy in the first trimester of pregnancy did not result in a significantly higher rate of live births among women with threatened miscarriage overall, but an important subgroup effect was identified. A conclusion on the cost-effectiveness of the PRISM trial would depend on the amount that society is willing to pay to increase the chances of an additional live birth at ≥ 34 weeks. For future work, we plan to conduct an individual participant data meta-analysis using all existing data sets. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14163439, EudraCT 2014-002348-42 and Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) 158326. 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. 24, No. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Miscarriage is a common complication of pregnancy that affects one in five pregnancies. Several small studies have suggested that progesterone, a hormone essential for maintaining a pregnancy, may reduce the risk of miscarriage in women presenting with early pregnancy bleeding. This research was undertaken to test whether or not progesterone given to pregnant women with early pregnancy bleeding would increase the number of live births when compared with placebo (dummy treatment). The women participating in the study had an equal chance of receiving progesterone or placebo, as determined by a computer; one group received progesterone (400 mg twice daily as vaginal pessaries) and the other group received placebo with an identical appearance. Treatment began when women presented with vaginal bleeding, were < 12 weeks of gestation and were found to have at least a pregnancy sac on an ultrasound scan. Treatment was stopped at 16 weeks of gestation, or earlier if the pregnancy ended before 16 weeks. Neither the participants nor their health-care professionals knew which treatment was being received. In total, 23,775 women were screened and 4153 women were randomised to receive either progesterone or placebo pessaries. Altogether, 2972 participants had a live birth after at least 34 weeks of gestation. Overall, the live birth rate in the progesterone group was 75% (1513 out of 2025 participants), compared with 72% (1459 out of 2013 participants) in the placebo group. Although the live birth rate was 3% higher in the progesterone group than in the placebo group, there was statistical uncertainty about this finding. However, it was observed that women with a history of one or more previous miscarriages and vaginal bleeding in their current pregnancy may benefit from progesterone. For women with no previous miscarriages, our analysis showed that the live birth rate was 74% (824 out of 1111 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 75% (840 out of 1127 participants) in the placebo group. For women with one or more previous miscarriages, the live birth rate was 75% (689 out of 914 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 70% (619 out of 886 participants) in the placebo group. The potential benefit appeared to be most strong for women with three or more previous miscarriages, who had a live birth rate of 72% (98 out of 137 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 57% (85 out of 148 participants) in the placebo group. Treatment with progesterone did not appear to have any negative effects.

Micronized vaginal progesterone to prevent miscarriage: a critical evaluation of randomized evidence.

Progesterone is essential for the maintenance of pregnancy. Several small trials have suggested that progesterone supplementation may reduce the risk of miscarriage in women with recurrent or threatened miscarriage. Cochrane Reviews summarized the evidence and found that the trials were small with substantial methodologic weaknesses. Since then, the effects of first-trimester use of vaginal micronized progesterone have been evaluated in 2 large, high-quality, multicenter placebo-controlled trials, one targeting women with unexplained recurrent miscarriages (the PROMISE [PROgesterone in recurrent MIScarriagE] trial) and the other targeting women with early pregnancy bleeding (the PRISM [PRogesterone In Spontaneous Miscarriage] trial). The PROMISE trial studied 836 women from 45 hospitals in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands and found a 3% greater live birth rate with progesterone but with substantial statistical uncertainty. The PRISM trial studied 4153 women from 48 hospitals in the United Kingdom and found a 3% greater live birth rate with progesterone, but with a P value of .08. A key finding, first observed in the PROMISE trial, and then replicated in the PRISM trial, was that treatment with vaginal micronized progesterone 400 mg twice daily was associated with increasing live birth rates according to the number of previous miscarriages. Prespecified PRISM trial subgroup analysis in women with the dual risk factors of previous miscarriage(s) and current pregnancy bleeding fulfilled all 11 conditions for credible subgroup analysis. For the subgroup of women with a history of 1 or more miscarriage(s) and current pregnancy bleeding, the live birth rate was 75% (689/914) with progesterone vs 70% (619/886) with placebo (rate difference 5%; risk ratio, 1.09, 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.15; P=.003). The benefit was greater for the subgroup of women with 3 or more previous miscarriages and current pregnancy bleeding; live birth rate was 72% (98/137) with progesterone vs 57% (85/148) with placebo (rate difference 15%; risk ratio, 1.28, 95% confidence interval, 1.08-1.51; P=.004). No short-term safety concerns were identified from the PROMISE and PRISM trials. Therefore, women with a history of miscarriage who present with bleeding in early pregnancy may benefit from the use of vaginal micronized progesterone 400 mg twice daily. Women and their care providers should use the findings for shared decision-making.

Vitamin D and assisted reproductive treatment outcome: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Vitamin D deficiency has been associated with an increased risk of abnormal pregnancy implantation leading to obstetric complications such as pre-eclampsia and fetal growth restriction. However, the effect of vitamin D on reproductive treatment outcomes in couples undergoing assisted reproductive treatment is poorly understood. This study investigates the association between vitamin D and reproductive treatment outcomes in women undergoing assisted reproductive treatments? METHODS: A prospective cohort study conducted at a large tertiary teaching hospital, United Kingdom. Five hundred women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment were recruited between September 2013 and September 2015. All participants had their serum vitamin D measured and their reproductive treatment outcomes collated. Women were categorised in to three groups: vitamin D replete (> 75 nmol/L), insufficient (50-75 nmol/L) and deficient (< 50 nmol/L) according to Endocrine Society guidance. The primary outcome was live birth. Secondary outcomes included biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy and pregnancy loss rates. RESULTS: Vitamin D deficiency was found in 53.2% (266/500) of participants and vitamin D insufficiency was found in 30.8% (154/500) of participants. Only 16% (80/500) of women were vitamin D replete. The live birth rates for vitamin D deficient, insufficient and replete women were 23.2% (57/246), 27.0% (38/141) and 37.7% (29/77) respectively (p = 0.04). The respective live birth rates for vitamin D deficient, insufficient and replete women were 24.3, 27.1, 34.4% after adjustment for key prognostic factors (p = 0.25). CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency are common in women undergoing assisted reproductive treatments. The crude live birth rate achieved in women undergoing assisted reproductive treatments are associated with serum vitamin D, although statistical significance is lost when adjusting for important prognostic variables. Vitamin D deficiency could be an important condition to treat in women considering fertility treatment. A research trial to investigate the benefits of vitamin D deficiency treatment would test this hypothesis. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov - NCT02187146 .

A Randomized Trial of Progesterone in Women with Bleeding in Early Pregnancy.

BACKGROUND: Bleeding in early pregnancy is strongly associated with pregnancy loss. Progesterone is essential for the maintenance of pregnancy. Several small trials have suggested that progesterone therapy may improve pregnancy outcomes in women who have bleeding in early pregnancy. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate progesterone, as compared with placebo, in women with vaginal bleeding in early pregnancy. Women were randomly assigned to receive vaginal suppositories containing either 400 mg of progesterone or matching placebo twice daily, from the time at which they presented with bleeding through 16 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome was the birth of a live-born baby after at least 34 weeks of gestation. The primary analysis was performed in all participants for whom data on the primary outcome were available. A sensitivity analysis of the primary outcome that included all the participants was performed with the use of multiple imputation to account for missing data. RESULTS: A total of 4153 women, recruited at 48 hospitals in the United Kingdom, were randomly assigned to receive progesterone (2079 women) or placebo (2074 women). The percentage of women with available data for the primary outcome was 97% (4038 of 4153 women). The incidence of live births after at least 34 weeks of gestation was 75% (1513 of 2025 women) in the progesterone group and 72% (1459 of 2013 women) in the placebo group (relative rate, 1.03; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00 to 1.07; P = 0.08). The sensitivity analysis, in which missing primary outcome data were imputed, resulted in a similar finding (relative rate, 1.03; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.07; P = 0.08). The incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among women with bleeding in early pregnancy, progesterone therapy administered during the first trimester did not result in a significantly higher incidence of live births than placebo. (Funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment program; PRISM Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN14163439.).

Vitamin D and assisted reproductive treatment outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: Is serum vitamin D associated with live birth rates in women undergoing ART? SUMMARY ANSWER: Women undergoing ART who are replete in vitamin D have a higher live birth rate than women who are vitamin D deficient or insufficient. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Vitamin D deficiency has been associated with an increased risk of abnormal pregnancy implantation as well as obstetric complications such as pre-eclampsia and fetal growth restriction. However, the effect of vitamin D on conception and early pregnancy outcomes in couples undergoing ART is poorly understood. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 11 published cohort studies (including 2700 women) investigating the association between vitamin D and ART outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS: Literature searches were conducted to retrieve studies which reported on the association between vitamin D and ART outcomes. Databases searched included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and CINAHL. Eleven studies matched the inclusion criteria. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Live birth was reported in seven of the included studies (including 2026 patients). Live birth was found to be more likely in women replete in vitamin D when compared to women with deficient or insufficient vitamin D status (OR 1.33 [1.08-1.65]). Five studies (including 1700 patients) found that women replete in vitamin D were more likely to achieve a positive pregnancy test than women deficient or insufficient in vitamin D (OR 1.34 ([1.04-1.73]). All 11 of the included studies (including 2700 patients) reported clinical pregnancy as an outcome. Clinical pregnancy was found to be more likely in women replete in vitamin D (OR 1.46 [1.05-2.02]). Six studies (including 1635 patients) reported miscarriage by vitamin D concentrations. There was no association found between miscarriage and vitamin D concentrations (OR 1.12 [0.81-1.54]. The included studies scored well on the Newcastle-Ottawa quality assessment scale. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although strict inclusion criteria were used in the conduct of the systematic review, the included studies are heterogeneous in population characteristics and fertility treatment protocols. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The findings of this systematic review show that there is an association between vitamin D status and reproductive treatment outcomes achieved in women undergoing ART. Our results show that vitamin D deficiency and insufficiency could be important conditions to treat in women considering ARTs. A randomized controlled trial to investigate the benefits of vitamin D deficiency treatment should be considered to test this hypothesis. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No external funding was either sought or obtained for this study. The authors have no competing interests to declare. REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Can we predict the chance of successful epididymal or testicular sperm aspiration following vasectomy?

Purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate if serum markers, men's age, interval since vasectomy, BMI, testicular size and smoking could predict the success of epididymal or testicular sperm aspiration (PESA/TESA) in vasectomized men. Forty-four consecutively performed PESA/TESA procedures were reviewed retrospectively. Motile sperm was retrieved from 77.3% of PESA/TESA procedures. Mean serum Inhibin-B (Inh-B) level tended to be higher in men who had motile sperm retrieved compared to those who had not (180.3 versus 126.2 pg/ml, p = 0.05). Univariate analysis identified serum Inh-B to be the only predictor of PESA/TESA success (r = 0.32, CI: 0.006-0.584, p = 0.046). Serum FSH, LH, T levels, age, BMI, smoking status and interval since vasectomy did not correlate with the PESA/TESA outcome. Inh-B could modestly discriminate between successful and unsuccessful PESA/TESA (AUC= 0.70) with high positive (89.5%) but low negative prediction (36.8%); 58.6% sensitivity and 77.7% specificity at the optimum cut-off level of 166 pg/ml. Positive outcome was only 50% when the Inh-B level was below 100 pg/ml. It is concluded that a high serum Inh-B might reliably predict successful PESA/TESA in vasectomized men. More invasive sperm retrieval procedures could be reserved for men with very low Inh-B or failed PESA/TESA. Future studies with adequate power may confirm our findings.

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.

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.).

Retrospective comparison of GnRH agonist trigger with HCG trigger in GnRH antagonist cycles in anticipated high-responders.

All IVF-ICSI cycles carried out between October 2009 and October 2012 using GnRH agonist (GnRHa) ovulation trigger (n = 62) followed by a single dose of HCG plus progesterone and oestradiol in the luteal phase because of anticipated ovarian hypertsimulation were retrospectively compared with historic control cycles using HCG trigger (n = 29) and standard luteal phase support. Women's mean age, body mass index, anti-Müllerian hormone, FSH, LH, starting and total stimulation dose, number of follicles, oocytes, embryos, fertilization, implantation, polycystic ovary syndrome, ICSI, live birth and ongoing pregnancy rates per embryo transfer were similar (GnRHa 40.7% versus HCG 35.0%). For each started cycle, GnRHa resulted in 11.4% higher (statistically non-significant) live birth and ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 1.73, CI 0.64 to 4.69), with a similar difference for double-embryo transfers (OR 1.62, CI 0.44 to 6.38) and less need for freezing all embryos (9.7% versus 27.6%; P = 0.04). Incidence of mild-to-moderate OHSS was 16.2% with GnRHa trigger and 31.0% with HCG trigger) and no severe OHSS in the former. The addition of single low-dose HCG in the luteal phase after GnRHa trigger for suspected high-responders reduced the incidence of OHSS with good clinical outcomes, compared with HCG trigger.