In unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss, daily LMWH did not improve ongoing pregnancy or live birth rates

2015 ◽  
Vol 163 (6) ◽  
pp. JC10 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Gallus
Keyword(s):  
Live Birth ◽  
Pregnancy Loss ◽  
Recurrent Pregnancy Loss ◽  
Ongoing Pregnancy ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Live Birth Rates

P-377 Association between antinuclear antibodies and pregnancy prognosis in recurrent pregnancy loss patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
H Yoshihara ◽  
M Sugiura-Ogasawara ◽  
T Kitaori ◽  
S Goto
Keyword(s):  
Live Birth ◽  
Pregnancy Loss ◽  
Birth Rate ◽  
Recurrent Pregnancy Loss ◽  
Live Birth Rate ◽  
Negative Group ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Positive Group ◽  
Live Birth Rates ◽  
Uterine Anomaly

Abstract Study question Can antinuclear antibody (ANA) affect the subsequent live birth rate in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) who have no antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs)? Summary answer ANA did not affect the pregnancy prognosis of RPL women. What is known already The prevalence of ANA is well-known to be higher in RPL patients. Our previous study found no difference in the live birth rates of ANA-positive and -negative patients who had no aPLs. Higher miscarriage rates were also reported in ANA-positive patients compared to ANA-negative patients with RPL. The RPL guidelines of the ESHRE state that “ANA testing can be considered for explanatory purposes.” However, there have been a limited number of studies on this issue and sample sizes have been small, and the impact of ANA on the pregnancy prognosis is unclear. Study design, size, duration An observational cohort study was conducted at Nagoya City University Hospital between 2006 and 2019. The study included 1,108 patients with a history of 2 or more pregnancy losses. Participants/materials, setting, methods 4D-Ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, chromosome analysis for both partners, aPLs and blood tests for ANA and diabetes mellitus were performed before a subsequent pregnancy. ANAs were measured by indirect immunofluorescence. The cutoff dilution used was 1:40. In addition, patients were classified according to the ANA pattern on immunofluorescence staining. Live birth rates were compared between ANA-positive and ANA-negative patients after excluding patients with antiphospholipid syndrome, an abnormal chromosome in either partner and a uterine anomaly. Main results and the role of chance The 994 patients were analyzed after excluding 40 with a uterine anomaly, 43 with a chromosome abnormality in either partner and 32 with APS. The rate of ANA-positive patients was 39.2 % (390/994) when the 1: 40 dilution result was positive. With a 1:160 dilution, the rate of ANA-positive patients was 3.62 % (36/994). The live birth rate was calculated for 798 patients, excluding 196 patients with unexplained RPL who had been treated with any medication. With the use of the 1 40 dilution, the subsequent live birth rates were 71.34 % (219/307) for the ANA-positive group and 70.67 % (347/491) for the ANA-negative group (OR, 95%CI; 0.968, 0.707-1.326). After excluding miscarriages with embryonic aneuploidy, chemical pregnancies and ectopic pregnancies, live birth rates were 92.41 % (219/237) for the ANA-positive group and 92.04 % (347/377) for the ANA-negative group (0.951, 0.517-1.747). Using the 1:160 dilution, the subsequent live birth rates were 84.62 % (22/26) for the ANA-positive group, and 70.47 % (544/772) for the ANA-negative group (0.434, 0.148-1.273). Subgroup analyses were performed for each pattern on immunofluorescence staining, but there was no significant difference in the live birth rate between the two groups. Limitations, reasons for caution The effectiveness of immunotherapies could not be evaluated. However, the results of this study suggest that it is not necessary. Wider implications of the findings The measurement of ANA might not be necessary for the screening of patients with RPL who have no features of collagen disease. Trial registration number not applicable

scholarly journals Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) reduces miscarriage and improves live birth rates in recurrent pregnancy loss patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 112 (3) ◽  
pp. e401 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia G. Kim ◽  
Gayathree Murugappan ◽  
Ruth B. Lathi ◽  
Jonathan D. Kort ◽  
Brent M. Hanson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Genetic Testing ◽  
Live Birth ◽  
Pregnancy Loss ◽  
Recurrent Pregnancy Loss ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Preimplantation Genetic Testing ◽  
Live Birth Rates

Pregnancy outcomes among patients with recurrent pregnancy loss and chromosomal aberration (CA) without PGD

2018 ◽  
Vol 46 (7) ◽  
pp. 764-770 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maor Kabessa ◽  
Avi Harlev ◽  
Michael Friger ◽  
Ruslan Sergienko ◽  
Baila Litwak ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Live Birth ◽  
Pregnancy Outcomes ◽  
Pregnancy Loss ◽  
Recurrent Pregnancy Loss ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Study Group ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Live Birth Rates ◽  
Index Pregnancy ◽  
Significant Difference

Abstract Background: Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) is defined by two or more failed clinical pregnancies. Three to four percent of the couples with RPL have chromosomal aberrations (CA) in at least one partner. The parent’s structural chromosomal abnormalities may cause an unbalanced karyotype in the conceptus which could lead to implantation failure, early or late pregnancy loss, or delivery of a child with severe physical and/or mental disabilities. Objective: To compare live birth rates of couples with CA to couples with normal karyotypes and to investigate medical and obstetric characteristics and pregnancy outcomes of couples with CA and RPL who attend an RPL clinic at a tertiary hospital. Methods: A retrospective cohort study, including 349 patients with two or more consecutive pregnancy losses. The study group consisted of 52 patients with CA, and the control group consisted of 297 couples with normal karyotype. All patients were evaluated and treated in the RPL clinic at Soroka University Medical Center and had at least one subsequent spontaneous pregnancy. Results: The demographic and clinical characteristics were not found to be statistically different between the two groups. The group of carriers of CA had 28/52 (53.8%) live births in their index pregnancy vs. the normal 202/297 (68%) (P=0.067, CI 95%) in the control group. No statistically significant etiology was found between the study group and the control group. A statistically significant difference in live birth rates was found when comparing the total amount of pregnancies [index pregnancy (IP)+post index pregnancy (PIP)] between the study group and the control group (54.16% vs. 67.82%, respectively, P=0.0328). Conclusion: Patients with RPL and CA who have spontaneous pregnancies, have a good prognosis (63.4%) of a successful pregnancy with at least one of the pregnancies (index or post index) resulting in a live birth.

P–377 Association between antinuclear antibodies and pregnancy prognosis in recurrent pregnancy loss patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
H Yoshihara ◽  
M Sugiura-Ogasawara ◽  
T Kitaori ◽  
S Goto
Keyword(s):  
Live Birth ◽  
Pregnancy Loss ◽  
Birth Rate ◽  
Recurrent Pregnancy Loss ◽  
Live Birth Rate ◽  
Negative Group ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Positive Group ◽  
Live Birth Rates ◽  
Uterine Anomaly

Abstract Study question Can antinuclear antibody (ANA) affect the subsequent live birth rate in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) who have no antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs)? Summary answer ANA did not affect the pregnancy prognosis of RPL women. What is known already The prevalence of ANA is well-known to be higher in RPL patients. Our previous study found no difference in the live birth rates of ANA-positive and -negative patients who had no aPLs. Higher miscarriage rates were also reported in ANA-positive patients compared to ANA-negative patients with RPL. The RPL guidelines of the ESHRE state that “ANA testing can be considered for explanatory purposes.” However, there have been a limited number of studies on this issue and sample sizes have been small, and the impact of ANA on the pregnancy prognosis is unclear. Study design, size, duration An observational cohort study was conducted at Nagoya City University Hospital between 2006 and 2019. The study included 1,108 patients with a history of 2 or more pregnancy losses. Participants/materials, setting, methods 4D-Ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, chromosome analysis for both partners, aPLs and blood tests for ANA and diabetes mellitus were performed before a subsequent pregnancy. ANAs were measured by indirect immunofluorescence. The cutoff dilution used was 1:40. In addition, patients were classified according to the ANA pattern on immunofluorescence staining. Live birth rates were compared between ANA-positive and ANA-negative patients after excluding patients with antiphospholipid syndrome, an abnormal chromosome in either partner and a uterine anomaly. Main results and the role of chance The 994 patients were analyzed after excluding 40 with a uterine anomaly, 43 with a chromosome abnormality in either partner and 32 with APS. The rate of ANA-positive patients was 39.2% (390/994) when the 1: 40 dilution result was positive. With a 1:160 dilution, the rate of ANA-positive patients was 3.62% (36/994). The live birth rate was calculated for 798 patients, excluding 196 patients with unexplained RPL who had been treated with any medication. With the use of the 1: 40 dilution, the subsequent live birth rates were 71.34% (219/307) for the ANA-positive group and 70.67% (347/491) for the ANA-negative group (OR, 95%CI; 0.968, 0.707–1.326). After excluding miscarriages with embryonic aneuploidy, chemical pregnancies and ectopic pregnancies, live birth rates were 92.41% (219/237) for the ANA-positive group and 92.04% (347/377) for the ANA-negative group (0.951, 0.517–1.747). Using the 1:160 dilution, the subsequent live birth rates were 84.62% (22/26) for the ANA-positive group, and 70.47% (544/772) for the ANA-negative group (0.434, 0.148–1.273). Subgroup analyses were performed for each pattern on immunofluorescence staining, but there was no significant difference in the live birth rate between the two groups. Limitations, reasons for caution The effectiveness of immunotherapies could not be evaluated. However, the results of this study suggest that it is not necessary. Wider implications of the findings: The measurement of ANA might not be necessary for the screening of patients with RPL who have no features of collagen disease. Trial registration number Not applicable

scholarly journals Degree of re-expansion following vitrification/rewarming of euploid blastocysts is inversely correlated with implantation and ongoing pregnancy/live birth rates

2019 ◽  
Vol 112 (3) ◽  
pp. e154
Author(s):  
Sydney Chang ◽  
Taraneh Gharib Nazem ◽  
Dmitry Gounko ◽  
Marlena Duke ◽  
Christine Briton-Jones ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Live Birth ◽  
Ongoing Pregnancy ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Live Birth Rates

Low Molecular Weight Heparin and Aspirin for Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: Results from the Randomized, Controlled HepASA Trial

2009 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 279-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
CARL A. LASKIN ◽  
KAREN A. SPITZER ◽  
CHRISTINE A. CLARK ◽  
MARK R. CROWTHER ◽  
JEFF S. GINSBERG ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Molecular Weight ◽  
Femoral Neck ◽  
Live Birth ◽  
Low Molecular Weight Heparin ◽  
Pregnancy Loss ◽  
Recurrent Pregnancy Loss ◽  
Low Molecular Weight ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Live Birth Rates ◽  
History Of

Objective.To compare live birth rates in women with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) and either autoantibodies or a coagulation abnormality, treated with low molecular weight heparin plus aspirin (LMWH/ASA) or ASA alone, and to place our results in context with other randomized clinical trials (RCT) with similar cohorts.Methods.The HepASA Trial was an RCT including patients with a history of RPL and at least 1 of the following: antiphospholipid antibody (aPL), an inherited thrombophilia, or antinuclear antibody. Treatment groups were stratified by aPL status and history of early versus late pregnancy losses. Patients received either LMWH/ASA or ASA alone. The primary outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included adverse events and bone loss at the spine and femoral neck. Literature over the past 20 years was reviewed to identify comparable RCT.Results.Over 4 years, 859 women with RPL were screened: 88 (10.2%) fulfilled inclusion criteria, became pregnant and were randomized to receive either LMWH/ASA or ASA alone. aPL were present in 42 (47.7%) patients in each group. The trial was stopped after 4 years when an interim analysis showed no difference in live birth rates in the 2 groups, and a lower rate of pregnancy loss in the ASA only group than expected. In the LMWH/ASA group, 35/45 (77.8%) had a live birth versus 34/43 (79.1%) in the ASA only group (p = 0.71). Neither number of prior losses nor aPL status was correlated with pregnancy outcome. There were no cases of pregnancy related thrombosis in either group. Mean change in BMD did not differ by treatment group at either the lumbar spine (p = 0.57) or femoral neck (p = 0.15). RCT since 2000 for aPL positive women with RPL and similar inclusion criteria report a mean live birth rate of 75% with either LMWH or ASA.Conclusion.LMWH/ASA did not confer incremental benefit compared to ASA alone for this population. Regardless of treatment regimen, number of prior losses, or aPL positivity, almost 80% of women in our RPL cohort had a successful pregnancy outcome. These findings contribute to a growing body of literature that contests the emerging standard of care comprising LMWH/ASA for this population.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document