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.

Pregnant women with subclinical hypothyroidism or thyroid antibodies have an increased risk of complications, especially pre-eclampsia, perinatal mortality and (recurrent) miscarriage. Future research, within the setting of clinical trials, should focus on the potential health gain of identification, and effect of treatment, of thyroid disease on pregnancy outcome.

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.

A miscarriage is the most frequent complication of a pregnancy. Poor chromosome preparations, culture failure, or maternal cell contamination may hamper conventional karyotyping. Techniques such as chromosomal comparative genomic hybridization (chromosomal-CGH), array-comparative genomic hybridization (array-CGH), fluorescence in situ hybridization (FISH), multiplex ligation-dependent probe amplification (MLPA) and quantitative fluorescent polymerase chain reaction (QF-PCR) enable us to trace submicroscopic abnormalities. We found the prevalence of chromosome abnormalities in women facing a single sporadic miscarriage to be 45% (95% CI: 38-52; 13 studies, 7012 samples). The prevalence of chromosome abnormalities in women experiencing a subsequent miscarriage after preceding recurrent miscarriage proved to be comparable: 39% (95% CI: 29-50; 6 studies 1359 samples). More chromosome abnormalities are detected by conventional karyotyping compared to FISH or MLPA only (chromosome region specific techniques), and the same amount of abnormalities compared to QF-PCR (chromosome region specific techniques) and chromosomal-CGH and array-CGH (whole genome techniques) only. Molecular techniques could play a role as an additional technique when culture failure or maternal contamination occurs: recent studies show that by using array-CGH, an additional 5% of submicroscopic chromosome variants can be detected. Because of the small sample size as well as the unknown clinical relevance of these molecular aberrations, more and larger studies should be performed of submicroscopic chromosome abnormalities among sporadic miscarriage samples. For recurrent miscarriage samples molecular technique studies are relatively new. It has often been suggested that miscarriages are due to chromosomal abnormalities in more than 50%, but the present review has determined that chromosomal and submicroscopic genetic abnormalities on average are prevalent in maximally half of the miscarriage samples. This article is part of a Special Issue entitled: Molecular Genetics of Human Reproductive Failure.