Dataset Information

Antithrombotic therapy to prevent recurrent pregnancy loss in antiphospholipid syndrome-What is the evidence?

ABSTRACT: Aspirin and heparin are widely used to reduce the risk of recurrent pregnancy loss in women with antiphospholipid syndrome. This practice is based on only a few intervention studies, and uncertainty regarding benefits and risk remains. In this case-based review, we summarize the available evidence and address the questions that are most important for clinical practice. We performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials assessing the effect of heparin (low molecular weight heparin [LMWH] or unfractionated heparin [UFH]), aspirin, or both on live birth rates in women with persistent antiphospholipid antibodies and recurrent pregnancy loss. Eleven trials including 1672 women met the inclusion criteria. Aspirin only did not increase live birth rate compared to placebo in one trial of 40 women (risk ratio [RR] 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.71-1.25). One trial of 141 women reported a higher live birth rate with LMWH only than with aspirin only (RR 1.20; 95% CI 1.00-1.43). Five trials totaling 1295 women compared heparin plus aspirin with aspirin only. The pooled RR for live birth was 1.27 (95% CI 1.09-1.49) in favor of heparin plus aspirin. There was significant heterogeneity between the subgroups of LMWH and UFH (RR for LWMH plus aspirin versus aspirin 1.20, 95% CI: 1.04-1.38; RR for UFH plus aspirin versus aspirin 1.74, 95% CI: 1.28-2.35; I² 78.9%, p = .03). Characteristics of participants and adverse events were not uniformly reported. Heparin (LMWH or UFH) plus aspirin may improve live birth rates in women with recurrent pregnancy loss and antiphospholipid antibodies, but evidence is of low certainty.

SUBMITTER: Hamulyak EN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8252114 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objectives To prospectively estimate the association of preconception antiphospholipid antibodies (aPL) with subsequent pregnancy loss using a cohort design. aPL have been associated with recurrent early pregnancy loss (EPL) prior to 10 weeks in previous case-control studies. Prospective ascertainment of pregnancy loss is challenging, as most women do not seek care prior to EPL. Methods Secondary analysis of the Effects of Aspirin in Gestation and Reproduction trial of preconception low-dose aspirin. Preconception anticardiolipin (aCL) and anti-?2-glycoprotein-I (a-?2-I) were assessed in 1208 women with one or two prior pregnancy losses and no more than two prior live births. Comparison cohorts were defined by positive aPL (+aPL) or negative aPL (-aPL) status. All women were followed for six menstrual cycles while trying to conceive; if successful, they underwent an ultrasound at 6-7 weeks' gestation. EPL was defined as loss prior to 10 weeks' gestation; embryonic loss was loss after visualization of an embryo but prior to 10 weeks; clinical loss was any loss after visualization of an embryo (with or without fetal cardiac activity detected). Results In total, 14/1208 (1%) tested positive for +aPL. 786/1208 (65%) women had positive human chorionic gonadotropin during the study period, of which 9/786 (1%) had +aPL. Of the 786 pregnant women, 589 (75%) had live births and 24% had pregnancy losses. Women with +aPL experienced EPL at similar rates as women with -aPL, 44% vs 21% (aRR 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.5-10.9). Embryonic loss was more common in women with +aCL IgM (aRR 4.8, 95% CI 1.0-23.0) and in women with two positive aPL. Clinical pregnancy loss was more common in women with positive a-?2-I IgM (50% vs 16.5%, aRR 3.7, 95% CI 1.3-10.8). Conclusion Positive levels of aPL are rare in women with one or two prior pregnancy losses and are not clearly associated with an increased rate of subsequent loss. Clinical trial registration The original source study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (#NCT00467363).

Project description:Study questionWhat is the recommended management of women with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) based on the best available evidence in the literature?Summary answerThe 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 alreadyA 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 durationThe 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 methodsBased 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 chanceThe 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 cautionSeveral 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 findingsThe 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 interestsThe 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.

Dataset Information

Antithrombotic therapy to prevent recurrent pregnancy loss in antiphospholipid syndrome-What is the evidence?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets