STUDY QUESTION Will use of oral progestogen in women with threatened miscarriage in the first trimester reduce the miscarriage rate when compared with placebo? SUMMARY ANSWER Use of oral progestogen in women with threatened miscarriage in the first trimester did not reduce miscarriage before 20 weeks when compared with placebo. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Miscarriage is a common complication of pregnancy and occurs in 15–20% of clinically recognized pregnancies. Use of vaginal progestogens is not effective in reducing miscarriage but there is still no good evidence to support use of oral progestogen for the treatment of threatened miscarriage. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This was a randomized double-blind controlled trial. A total of 406 women presenting with threatened miscarriage in the first trimester were recruited from 30 March 2016 to May 2018. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Women attending Early Pregnancy Assessment Clinics because of vaginal bleeding during the first trimester were recruited and randomly assigned to use dydrogesterone 40 mg orally, followed by 10 mg orally three times a day or placebo until 12 completed weeks of gestation or 1 week after the bleeding stopped, whichever was later. The primary outcome was the miscarriage rate before 20 weeks of gestation. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The two groups of women had comparable age, BMI, number of previous miscarriages, gestation and ultrasound findings at presentation. The miscarriage rate before 20 weeks of gestation was similar in both groups, being 12.8% (26/203) in the progestogen group and 14.3% (29/203) in the placebo group (relative risk 0.897, 95% CI 0.548–1.467; P = 0.772). The live birth rate was 81.3% in the progestogen group versus 83.3% in the placebo group (P = 0.697). No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of obstetric outcomes and side effects. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The primary outcome was the miscarriage rate, rather than the live birth rate. Women were recruited from Early Pregnancy Assessment Clinics and those with heavy vaginal bleeding might be admitted into wards directly instead of attending Early Pregnancy Assessment Clinic. The severity of vaginal bleeding was subjectively graded by women themselves. The sample size was not adequate to demonstrate a smaller difference in the miscarriage rate between the progestogen and placebo groups. We did not exclude women with multiple pregnancy, which increased the risk of miscarriage although there was only one set of twin pregnancy in the placebo group. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Use of oral progestogen is not recommended in women with threatened miscarriage in the first trimester. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study was funded by the Health and Medical Research Fund, HKSAR (reference number 12132341). All authors declared no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ClinicalTrials.gov with an identifier NCT02128685. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 1 May 2014. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT 30 March 2016.

To determine the effect of paternal age on semen parameters and the live birth rate from invitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment. Methods: We performed a retrospective cohort study of couples undergoing a first IVF cycle between 2004 and 2014 in a tertiary assisted reproduction centre in Hong Kong. Results: We analysed 3549 cases. Paternal age ≥40 years was negatively correlated with semen volume, progressive motility, total motility and total normal motile count (P<0.005) and positively correlated with sperm concentration (P<0.001). There was no correlation with sperm count, normal morphology, or total motile count. Subgroup analyses in Chinese men only and in men with normal versus abnormal semen parameters showed the same correlations. Paternal age was positively associated with maternal age (P<0.001) and miscarriage (P=0.006), and negatively associated with ongoing pregnancy and live birth (P<0.001). Logistic regression showed that maternal age, total number of oocytes retrieved,

No abstract

Ultrasound scan for fetal anomalies is the most effective screening test for trisomy 18. A policy of conservative management for women with positive second-trimester biochemical screening or first-trimester combined screening for trisomy 18 is reasonable in the absence of ultrasound fetal abnormalities. Unnecessary invasive tests can be avoided.