It's Time to Stop Excluding Early Pregnancy (Losses).

Miranda Aalderink
Author Information

Abstract

Current guidelines for the care of recurrent pregnancy loss patients in New Zealand typically limit the definition to clinical pregnancies. This approach is not supported by the available evidence, which shows that very early losses are just as prognostically important as clinical losses. Clinical pregnancy is a biologically meaningless construct and is not a suitable method for determining whether a loss is 'valid' or not. The exclusion extends to clinical trials, where treatment is often not initiated until clinical pregnancy has been established. Treatment opportunities are being missed as a result. This exclusion of early pregnancy needs to stop.

Keywords

References

  1. A. Suker, Y. Li, D. Robson, A. Marren, and the Australasian CREI (Certificate of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility) Consensus Expert Panel on Trial Evidence (ACCEPT) Group, “Australasian Recurrent Pregnancy Loss Clinical Management Guideline 2024 Part I,” Australian and New Zealand Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 64, no. 5 (2024): 432–444, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajo.13821.
  2. A. J. Wilcox, D. Dunson, and D. D. Baird, “The Timing of the ‘Fertile Window’ in the Menstrual Cycle: Day Specific Estimates From a Prospective Study,” BMJ 321, no. 7271 (2000): 1259–1262.
  3. M. A. Bedaiwy, B. Fayek, E. C. Yang, et al., “Prevalence, Causes, and Impact of Non‐Visualized Pregnancy Losses in a Recurrent Pregnancy Loss Population,” Human Reproduction 38, no. 5 (2023): 830–839.
  4. A. M. Kolte, R. H. van Oppenraaij, S. Quenby, et al., “Non‐Visualized Pregnancy Losses Are Prognostically Important for Unexplained Recurrent Miscarriage,” Human Reproduction 29, no. 5 (2014): 931–937.
  5. The ESHRE Guideline Group on RPL, R. Bender Atik, O. B. Christiansen, et al., “Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: Guideline of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology,” (2023), https://www.eshre.eu/Guidelines‐and‐Legal/Guidelines/Recurrent‐pregnancy‐loss.
  6. S. Munné, B. Kaplan, J. L. Frattarelli, et al., “Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy Versus Morphology as Selection Criteria for Single Frozen‐Thawed Embryo Transfer in Good‐Prognosis Patients: A Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial,” Fertility and Sterility 112, no. 6 (2019): 1071–1079.e7.
  7. E. Munoz, E. Taboas, M. Alvarez, et al., “Is Biochemical Pregnancy Loss Associated With Embryo or Endometrium? A Retrospective Cohort Study in Frozen Single Embryo Transfer of Own and Donated Oocytes,” Human Reproduction 39, no. 7 (2024): 1432–1441.
  8. S. J. Bhatt, N. M. Marchetto, J. Roy, S. S. Morelli, and P. G. McGovern, “Pregnancy Outcomes Following In Vitro Fertilization Frozen Embryo Transfer (IVF‐FET) With or Without Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Aneuploidy (PGT‐A) in Women With Recurrent Pregnancy Loss (RPL): A SART‐CORS Study,” Human Reproduction 36, no. 8 (2021): 2339–2344.
  9. C. Gu, K. Li, R. Li, et al., “Chromosomal Aneuploidy Associated With Clinical Characteristics of Pregnancy Loss,” Frontiers in Genetics 12 (2021): 667697, https://doi.org/10.3389/fgene.2021.667697.
  10. S. Yoneda, A. Shiozaki, N. Yoneda, et al., “A Yolk Sac Larger Than 5 mm Suggests an Abnormal Fetal Karyotype, Whereas an Absent Embryo Indicates a Normal Fetal Karyotype,” Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine 37, no. 5 (2018): 1233–1241.
  11. X. Li, Y. Ouyang, Y. Yi, Y. Tan, and G. Lu, “Correlation Analysis Between Ultrasound Findings and Abnormal Karyotypes in the Embryos From Early Pregnancy Loss After In Vitro Fertilization‐Embryo Transfer,” Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics 34, no. 1 (2017): 43–50.
  12. M. H. Dahan, A. Zeadna, D. Dahan, W. Y. Son, and N. Steiner, “The Biochemical Pregnancy Loss Rate Remains Stable Up Irrespective of Age and Differs in Pattern From Clinical Miscarriages,” Gynecological Endocrinology 37, no. 1 (2021): 61–64, https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2020.1807931.
  13. X. Zhang, F. Guo, Q. Wang, W. Bai, and A. Zhao, “Low‐Dose Aspirin Improves Blood Perfusion of Endometrium of Unexplained Recurrent Biochemical Pregnancy Loss,” International Journal of Gynaecology and Obstetrics 157, no. 2 (2022): 418–423.
  14. J. J. Tarín, E. Pascual, R. Gómez, M. A. García‐Pérez, and A. Cano, “Predictors of Live Birth in Women With a History of Biochemical Pregnancies After Assisted Reproduction Treatment,” European Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Biology 1, no. 248 (2020): 198–203.
  15. A. I. Naimi, N. J. Perkins, L. A. Sjaarda, et al., “The Effect of Preconception‐Initiated Low‐Dose Aspirin on Human Chorionic Gonadotropin‐Detected Pregnancy, Pregnancy Loss, and Live Birth: Per Protocol Analysis of a Randomized Trial,” Annals of Internal Medicine 174, no. 5 (2021): 595–601.
  16. H. Yamada, M. Deguchi, S. Saito, et al., “Intravenous Immunoglobulin Treatment in Women With Four or More Recurrent Pregnancy Losses: A Double‐Blind, Randomised, Placebo‐Controlled Trial,” eClinicalMedicine 50 (2022): 101527, https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589‐5370(22)00257‐7/fulltext.
  17. J. Odendaal, E. G. Ryan, S. Quenby, and S. Gates, “The Challenges of Trials in Reproductive Medicine: Can a Bayesian Approach Help?,” Reproductive Biomedicine Online 42, no. 3 (2021): 475–479.
  18. M. I. Eid, M. S. Abdelhafez, W. El‐refaie, et al., “Timing of Initiation of Low‐Molecular‐Weight Heparin Administration in Pregnant Women With Antiphospholipid Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial of Efficacy and Safety,” International Journal of Women's Health 14, no. 11 (2019): 41–47.
  19. A. Eapen, M. Joing, P. Kwon, et al., “Recombinant Human Granulocyte‐Colony Stimulating Factor in Women With Unexplained Recurrent Pregnancy Losses: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” Human Reproduction 34, no. 3 (2019): 424–432.
  20. F. Scarpellini and M. Sbracia, “Use of Granulocyte Colony‐Stimulating Factor for the Treatment of Unexplained Recurrent Miscarriage: A Randomised Controlled Trial,” Human Reproduction 24, no. 11 (2009): 2703–2708.

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0pregnancyclinical[G08686lossearlylossesexclusionCurrentguidelinescarerecurrentpatientsNewZealandtypicallylimitdefinitionpregnanciesapproachsupportedavailableevidenceshowsjustprognosticallyimportantClinicalbiologicallymeaninglessconstructsuitablemethoddeterminingwhether'valid'extendstrialstreatmentofteninitiatedestablishedTreatmentopportunitiesmissedresultneedsstopTimeStopExcludingEarlyPregnancyLossesabortionbiologicalvariationfertility210]habitual[C12050703039089]menstrualcycle605]population[G16117]reproduction784]

Similar Articles

Cited By