Miscarriage

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus placebo and misoprostol for resolution of miscarriage in women diagnosed with missed miscarriage: The MifeMiso RCT (2021)

Posted on by

Type of publication:Journal article

Author(s):Devall A.; Chu J.; Gallos I.; Coomarasamy A.; Beeson L.; Cheed V.; Sun Y.; Roberts T.; Ogwulu C.O.; Williams E.; Jones L.; La Fontaine Papadopoulos J.; Hardy P.; Bender-Atik R.; Brewin J.; Hinshaw K.; Ahmed A.; Choudhary M.; Naftalin J.; Nunes N.; Oliver A.; Izzat F.; Bhatia K.; Hassan I.; Jeve Y.; Hamilton J.; Deb S.; Bottomley C.; Ross J.; Watkins L.; *Underwood M.; Cheong Y.; Kumar C.; Gupta P.; Small R.; Pringle S.; Hodge F.; Shahid A.; Horne A.; Quenby S.

Citation:Health Technology Assessment; 2021; vol. 25 (no. 68), p. 1-114

Abstract:Background Miscarriage is the most common complication of pregnancy. As many as 15-25% of pregnancies end in a miscarriage, and the number of miscarriages in England is estimated to be approximately 125,000 per year. Management of miscarriage can be expectant (i.e. waiting for natural miscarriage), medical (i.e. with drugs) or surgical. About 25% of women opt for medical management; however, there is uncertainty about the optimal drug regimens for medical management. Before National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guideline CG154 was published in 2012, it was common practice to use a combination of mifepristone (Mifegyne, Exelgyn, Paris, France) and misoprostol. The 2012 guideline, however, recommended that misoprostol alone should be given to women having medical management. This recommendation was based on very limited evidence, from one study of 115 women, which found no difference between a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol and misoprostol alone. Recognising the limited available evidence, NICE and the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) called for a trial. Objectives The primary objective was to test the hypothesis that treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol is superior to treatment with misoprostol alone for the resolution of miscarriage within 7 days in women diagnosed by pelvic ultrasound scan with a missed miscarriage in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy. The key secondary objective aimed to test the hypothesis that the addition of mifepristone reduces the need for surgical intervention to resolve the miscarriage. Other secondary objectives aimed to evaluate if the addition of mifepristone reduces the need for further doses of misoprostol, to evaluate if the addition of mifepristone improves other clinical outcomes [including surgical intervention up to and including 7 days post randomisation and after 7 days post randomisation, duration of bleeding, infection, negative pregnancy test at 21 days post randomisation, time from randomisation to discharge from early pregnancy unit (EPU) care, side effects and complications], to evaluate if the addition of mifepristone improves patient satisfaction and acceptability of management and to assess the cost-effectiveness of the combination of mifepristone and misoprostol in the medical management of missed miscarriage. Methods Participants were randomised online in a 1: 1 ratio via a secure internet facility through an Integrated Trial Management System. Minimisation was implemented for maternal age (< 30 or >= 30 years), body mass index (< 35 or >= 35 kg/m2), previous parity (nulliparous or parous women), gestational age (< 70 or >= 70 days), amount of bleeding (Pictorial Blood loss Assessment Chart score; <= 2 or >= 3) and randomising centre. Clinical data were collected up to discharge from EPU care. Participants who agreed to participate in the qualitative study were interviewed by telephone or videoconference or face to face within approximately 6 weeks of their discharge date. The primary analysis was by intention to treat. A withintrial cost-effectiveness study and a nested qualitative study were also conducted as part of the trial. Results A total of 711 women, from 28 hospitals in the UK, received either mifepristone plus misoprostol (357 women) or placebo plus misoprostol (354 women). The follow-up rate for the primary outcome was 98% (696 of 711 women). The risk of failure to pass the gestational sac within 7 days was 17% (59 of 348 women) in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, compared with 24% (82 out of 348 women) in the placebo plus misoprostol group [risk ratio (RR) 0.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.98; p = 0.04]. Surgical intervention to resolve the miscarriage was needed in 17% (62 out of 355 women) in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, compared with 25% (87 out of 353 women) in the placebo plus misoprostol group (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.52 to 0.94; p = 0.02). There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. A total of 42 women, 19 in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group and 23 in the placebo plus misoprostol group, took part in an interview.Women appeared to have a preference for active management of their miscarriage, to help bring a timely resolution to the physical process. Overall, when women experienced care that supported their psychological well-being throughout the care pathway, and information was delivered in a skilled and sensitive manner such that women felt informed and in control, they were more likely to express satisfaction with medical management. The within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis found that the use of mifepristone and misoprostol resulted in an absolute effect difference of 6.6% (95% CI 0.7% to 12.5%). The average cost per woman was lower in the mifepristone and misoprostol (MifeMiso) group than in the placebo and misoprostol group, with a cost saving of 182 (95% CI 26 to 338). Hence the use of mifepristone and misoprostol for the medical management of a missed miscarriage dominated the use of misoprostol alone. The modelbased analysis, that compared the trial intervention with other existing possible interventions for the management of miscarriage not analysed in the trial, showed that the MifeMiso intervention is dominant when compared with expectant management and the current medical management strategy. However, the intervention is a less effective, although less costly, strategy than surgical management. Conclusions Our trial showed that pre-treatment with mifepristone followed by misoprostol resulted in a higher rate of resolution of missed miscarriage than misoprostol treatment alone. Women were largely satisfied with medical management of missed miscarriage and would choose it again.

Link to full-text [open access - no password required]

Altmetrics:

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriage (MifeMiso): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (2021)

Posted on by

Type of publication:
Randomised controlled trial

Author(s):
Devall A.; Chu J.; Beeson L.; Hardy P.; Cheed V.; Sun Y.; Roberts T.; Ogwulu C.O.; Williams E.; Jones L.; Papadopoulos J.F.; Bender-Atik R.; Brewin J.; Hinshaw K.; Choudhary M.; Ahmed A.; Naftalin J.; Nunes N.; Oliver A.; Izzat F.; Bhatia K.; Hassan I.; Jeve Y.; Hamilton J.; Deb S.; Bottomley C.; Ross J.; Watkins L.; *Underwood M.; Cheong Y.; Kumar C.; Gupta P.; Small R.; Pringle S.; Hodge F.; Shahid A.; Gallos I.; Horne A.; Quenby S.; Coomarasamy A.

Citation:

Health Technology Assessment, November 2021, 25(68) (pp 1-114)

Abstract:
TRIAL DESIGN: A randomised, parallel-group, double-blind, placebo-controlled multicentre study with health economic and nested qualitative studies to determine if mifepristone (Mifegyne, Exelgyn, Paris, France) plus misoprostol is superior to misoprostol alone for the resolution of missed miscarriage. METHOD(S): Women diagnosed with missed miscarriage in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy were randomly assigned (1:1 ratio) to receive 200mg of oral mifepristone or matched placebo, followed by 800mug of misoprostol 2 days later. A web-based randomisation system allocated the women to the two groups, with minimisation for age, body mass index, parity, gestational age, amount of bleeding and randomising centre. The primary outcome was failure to pass the gestational sac within 7 days after randomisation. The prespecified key secondary outcome was requirement for surgery to resolve the miscarriage. A within-trial cost-effectiveness study and a nested qualitative study were also conducted. Women who completed the trial protocol were purposively approached to take part in an interview to explore their satisfaction with and the acceptability of medical management of missed miscarriage. RESULT(S): A total of 711 women, from 28 hospitals in the UK, were randomised to receive either mifepristone plus misoprostol (357 women) or placebo plus misoprostol (354 women). The follow-up rate for the primary outcome was 98% (696 out of 711 women). The risk of failure to pass the gestational sac within 7 days was 17% (59 out of 348 women) in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, compared with 24% (82 out of 348 women) in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio 0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.54 to 0.98; p=0.04). Surgical intervention to resolve the miscarriage was needed in 17% (62 out of 355 women) in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, compared with 25% (87 out of 353 women) in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio 0.70, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 0.94; p=0.02). There was no evidence of a difference in the incidence of adverse events between the two groups. A total of 42 women, 19 in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group and 23 in the placebo plus misoprostol group, took part in an interview. Women appeared to have a preference for active management of their miscarriage. Overall, when women experienced care that supported their psychological well-being throughout the care pathway, and information was delivered in a skilled and sensitive manner such that women felt informed and in control, they were more likely to express satisfaction with medical management. The use of mifepristone and misoprostol showed an absolute effect difference of 6.6% (95% confidence interval 0.7% to 12.5%). The average cost per woman was lower in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group, with a cost saving of 182 (95% confidence interval 26 to 338). Therefore, the use of mifepristone and misoprostol for the medical management of a missed miscarriage dominated the use of misoprostol alone. LIMITATIONS: The results from this trial are not generalisable to women diagnosed with incomplete miscarriage and the study does not allow for a comparison with expectant or surgical management of miscarriage. FUTURE WORK: Future work should use existing data to assess and rank the relative clinical effectiveness and safety profiles for all methods of management of miscarriage. CONCLUSION(S): Our trial showed that pre-treatment with mifepristone followed by misoprostol resulted in a higher rate of resolution of missed miscarriage than misoprostol treatment alone. Women were largely satisfied with medical management of missed miscarriage and would choose it again. The mifepristone and misoprostol intervention was shown to be cost-effective in comparison to misoprostol alone.

Link to full-text [Open access - no password required]

Altmetrics:

Cost-effectiveness of mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriage: an economic evaluation based on the MifeMiso Trial (2021)

Posted on by

Type of publication:
Journal article

Author(s):
Okeke Ogwulu, C B; Williams, E V; Chu, J J; Devall, A J; Beeson, L E; Hardy, P; Cheed, V; Yongzhong, S; Jones, L L; La Fontaine Papadopoulos, J H; Bender-Atik, R; Brewin, J; Hinshaw, K; Choudhary, M; Ahmed, A; Naftalin, J; Nunes, N; Oliver, A; Izzat, F; Bhatia, K; Hassan, I; Jeve, Y; Hamilton, J; Deb, S; Bottomley, C; Ross, J; Watkins, L; *Underwood, M; Cheong, Y; Kumar, C S; Gupta, P; Small, R; Pringle, S; Hodge, F S; Shahid, A; Horne, A W; Quenby, S; Gallos, I D; Coomarasamy, A; Roberts, T E

Citation:
BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology; May 2021 [epub ahead of print]

Abstract:
OBJECTIVE To assess the cost-effectiveness of mifepristone and misoprostol (MifeMiso) compared with misoprostol only for the medical management of a missed miscarriage. DESIGN Within-trial economic evaluation and model-based analysis to set the findings in the context of the wider economic evidence for a range of comparators. Incremental costs and outcomes were calculated using non-parametric bootstrapping and reported using cost-effectiveness acceptability curves. Analyses were performed from the NHS perspective.SETTING28 UK NHS early pregnancy units.PARTICIPANTS711 women aged 16-39 years with ultrasound evidence of a missed miscarriage. INTERVENTIONS Mifepristone and misoprostol or matched placebo and misoprostol tablets. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Cost per additional successfully managed miscarriage and QALYs. RESULTS For the within-trial analysis, MifeMiso intervention resulted in an absolute effect difference of 6.6% (95% CI: 0.7% to 12.5%) per successfully managed miscarriage and QALYs difference of 0.04% (95% CI: -0.01% to 0.1%). The average cost per successfully managed miscarriage was lower in the MifeMiso arm than in the placebo and misoprostol arm, with a cost-saving of £182 (95% CI: £26 to £338). Hence, MifeMiso intervention dominated the use of misoprostol alone. The model-based analysis showed that MifeMiso intervention is dominant compared to expectant management and the current medical management strategy. However, the model-based evidence suggests that the intervention is a less effective but less costly strategy than surgical management. CONCLUSIONS The within-trial analysis found that based on cost-effectiveness grounds, MifeMiso intervention is likely to be recommended by decision-makers for the medical management of women presenting with a missed miscarriage.

Link to full-text [open access - no password required]

Altmetrics:

Mifepristone and misoprostol versus misoprostol alone for the management of missed miscarriage (MifeMiso): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (2020)

Posted on by

Type of publication:
Randomised controlled trial

Author(s):
Chu, Justin J; Devall, Adam J; Beeson, Leanne E; Hardy, Pollyanna; Cheed, Versha; Sun, Yongzhong; Roberts, Tracy E; Ogwulu, C Okeke; Williams, Eleanor; Jones, Laura L; La Fontaine Papadopoulos, Jenny H; Bender-Atik, Ruth; Brewin, Jane; Hinshaw, Kim; Choudhary, Meenakshi; Ahmed, Amna; Naftalin, Joel; Nunes, Natalie; Oliver, Abigail; Izzat, Feras; Bhatia, Kalsang; Hassan, Ismail; Jeve, Yadava; Hamilton, Judith; Deb, Shilpa; Bottomley, Cecilia; Ross, Jackie; Watkins, Linda; *Underwood, Martyn; Cheong, Ying; Kumar, Chitra S; Gupta, Pratima; Small, Rachel; Pringle, Stewart; Hodge, Frances; Shahid, Anupama; Gallos, Ioannis D; Horne, Andrew W; Quenby, Siobhan; Coomarasamy, Arri

Citation:
Lancet; Sep 2020; vol. 396 (no. 10253); p. 770-778

Abstract:
BACKGROUND The anti-progesterone drug mifepristone and the prostaglandin misoprostol can be used to treat missed miscarriage. However, it is unclear whether a combination of mifepristone and misoprostol is more effective than administering misoprostol alone. We investigated whether treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol would result in a higher rate of completion of missed miscarriage compared with misoprostol alone. METHODS MifeMiso was a multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial in 28 UK hospitals. Women were eligible for enrolment if they were aged 16 years and older, diagnosed with a missed miscarriage by pelvic ultrasound scan in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy, chose to have medical management of miscarriage, and were willing and able to give informed consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to a single dose of oral mifepristone 200 mg or an oral placebo tablet, both followed by a single dose of vaginal, oral, or sublingual misoprostol 800 μg 2 days later. Randomisation was managed via a secure web-based randomisation program, with minimisation to balance study group assignments according to maternal age (<30 years vs ≥30 years), body-mass index (<35 kg/m2vs ≥35 kg/m2), previous parity (nulliparous women vs parous women), gestational age (<70 days vs ≥70 days), amount of bleeding (Pictorial Blood Assessment Chart score; ≤2 vs ≥3), and randomising centre. Participants, clinicians, pharmacists, trial nurses, and midwives were masked to study group assignment throughout the trial. The primary outcome was failure to spontaneously pass the gestational sac within 7 days after random assignment. Primary analyses were done according to intention-to-treat principles. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN17405024. FINDINGS Between Oct 3, 2017, and July 22, 2019, 2595 women were identified as being eligible for the MifeMiso trial. 711 women were randomly assigned to receive either mifepristone and misoprostol (357 women) or placebo and misoprostol (354 women). 696 (98%) of 711 women had available data for the primary outcome. 59 (17%) of 348 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group did not pass the gestational sac spontaneously within 7 days versus 82 (24%) of 348 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (risk ratio [RR] 0·73, 95% CI 0·54-0·99; p=0·043). 62 (17%) of 355 women in the mifepristone plus misoprostol group required surgical intervention to complete the miscarriage versus 87 (25%) of 353 women in the placebo plus misoprostol group (0·71, 0·53-0·95; p=0·021). We found no difference in incidence of adverse events between the study groups. INTERPRETATION Treatment with mifepristone plus misoprostol was more effective than misoprostol alone in the management of missed miscarriage. Women with missed miscarriage should be offered mifepristone pretreatment before misoprostol to increase the chance of successful miscarriage management, while reducing the need for miscarriage surgery. FUNDING UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme.

Link to full-text [open access - no password required]

Altmetrics:

Progesterone to prevent miscarriage in women with early pregnancy bleeding: the PRISM RCT (2020)

Posted on by

Type of publication:
Randomised controlled trial

Author(s):
Coomarasamy A.; Harb H.M.; Devall A.J.; Williams H.M.; Gallos I.D.; Ewer A.; Cheed V.; Roberts T.E.; Ogwulu C.B.; Middleton L.J.; Goranitis I.; Eapen A.; Daniels J.P.; Ahmed A.; Hinshaw K.; Bender-Atik R.; Bhatia K.; Bottomley C.; Kriedt K.; Jurkovic D.; Brewin J.; Choudhary M.; Crosfill F.; Deb S.; Duncan W.C.; Norman J.E.; Horne A.W.; Holland T.; Izzat F.; Johns J.; Ross J.; Lumsden M.-A.; Manda P.; Nunes N.; Overton C.E.; Quenby S.; Rao S.; Shahid A.; *Underwood M. ; Vaithilingham N.; Watkins L.; Wykes C.

Citation:
Health Technology Assessment (Winchester, England); Jun 2020; vol. 24 (no. 33); p. 1-70

Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Progesterone is essential for a healthy pregnancy. Several small trials have suggested that progesterone therapy may rescue a pregnancy in women with early pregnancy bleeding, which is a symptom that is strongly associated with miscarriage. OBJECTIVE(S): (1) To assess the effects of vaginal micronised progesterone in women with vaginal bleeding in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. (2) To evaluate the cost-effectiveness of progesterone in women with early pregnancy bleeding. DESIGN: A multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised trial of progesterone in women with early pregnancy vaginal bleeding. SETTING: A total of 48 hospitals in the UK. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 16-39 years with early pregnancy bleeding. INTERVENTIONS: Women aged 16-39 years were randomly assigned to receive twice-daily vaginal suppositories containing either 400mg of progesterone or a matched placebo from presentation to 16 weeks of gestation. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was live birth at >=34 weeks. In addition, a within-trial cost-effectiveness analysis was conducted from an NHS and NHS/Personal Social Services perspective. RESULT(S): A total of 4153 women from 48 hospitals in the UK received either progesterone (n=2079) or placebo (n=2074). The follow-up rate for the primary outcome was 97.2% (4038 out of 4153 participants). The live birth rate was 75% (1513 out of 2025 participants) in the progesterone group and 72% (1459 out of 2013 participants) in the placebo group (relative rate 1.03, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.07; p=0.08). A significant subgroup effect (interaction test p=0.007) was identified for prespecified subgroups by the number of previous miscarriages: none (74% in the progesterone group vs. 75% in the placebo group; relative rate 0.99, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.04; p=0.72); one or two (76% in the progesterone group vs. 72% in the placebo group; relative rate 1.05, 95% confidence interval 1.00 to 1.12; p=0.07); and three or more (72% in the progesterone group vs. 57% in the placebo group; relative rate 1.28, 95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.51; p=0.004). A significant post hoc subgroup effect (interaction test p=0.01) was identified in the subgroup of participants with early pregnancy bleeding and any number of previous miscarriage(s) (75% in the progesterone group vs. 70% in the placebo group; relative rate 1.09, 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.15; p=0.003). There were no significant differences in the rate of adverse events between the groups. The results of the health economics analysis show that progesterone was more costly than placebo (7655 vs. 7572), with a mean cost difference of 83 (adjusted mean difference 76, 95% confidence interval -559 to 711) between the two arms. Thus, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of progesterone compared with placebo was estimated as 3305 per additional live birth at >=34 weeks of gestation. CONCLUSION(S): Progesterone therapy in the first trimester of pregnancy did not result in a significantly higher rate of live births among women with threatened miscarriage overall, but an important subgroup effect was identified. A conclusion on the cost-effectiveness of the PRISM trial would depend on the amount that society is willing to pay to increase the chances of an additional live birth at >=34 weeks. For future work, we plan to conduct an individual participant data meta-analysis using all existing data sets. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN14163439, EudraCT 2014-002348-42 and Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) 158326. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 24, No. 33. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Link to full-text [no password required]

Altmetrics:

The Prevalence of Thyroid Dysfunction and Autoimmunity in Women With History of Miscarriage or Subfertility (2020)

Posted on by

Type of publication:
Journal article

Author(s):
Rima K Dhillon-Smith, Aurelio Tobias, Paul P Smith, Lee J Middleton, Kirandeep K Sunner, Krystyna Baker, Samantha Farrell-Carver, Ruth Bender-Atik, Rina Agrawal, Kalsang Bhatia, Justin J Chu, Edmond Edi-Osagie, Ayman Ewies, Tarek Ghobara, Pratima Gupta, Davor Jurkovic, Yacoub Khalaf, Khashia Mulbagal, Natalie Nunes, Caroline Overton, Siobhan Quenby, Raj Rai, Nick Raine-Fenning, Lynne Robinson, Jackie Ross, Andrew Sizer, Rachel Small, *Martyn Underwood , Mark D Kilby, Jane Daniels, Shakila Thangaratinam, Shiao Chan, Kristien Boelaert, Arri Coomarasamy

Citation:
The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, Volume 105, Issue 8, August 2020

Abstract:
Objective: To describe the prevalence of and factors associated with different thyroid dysfunction phenotypes in women who are asymptomatic preconception.
Design: Observational cohort study.
Setting: A total of 49 hospitals across the United Kingdom between 2011 and 2016.
Participants: Women aged 16 to 41 years with history of miscarriage or subfertility trying for a pregnancy.
Methods: Prevalences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using the binomial exact method. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify risk factors for thyroid disease.
Intervention: None.
Main Outcome Measure: Rates of thyroid dysfunction.
Results: Thyroid function and thyroid peroxidase antibody (TPOAb) data were available for 19213 and 19237 women, respectively. The prevalence of abnormal thyroid function was 4.8% (95% CI, 4.5-5.1); euthyroidism was defined as levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) of 0.44 to 4.50 mIU/L and free thyroxine (fT4) of 10 to 21 pmol/L. Overt hypothyroidism (TSH > 4.50 mIU/L, fT4 < 10 pmol/L) was present in 0.2% of women (95% CI, 0.1-0.3) and overt hyperthyroidism (TSH < 0.44 mIU/L, fT4 > 21 pmol/L) was present in 0.3% (95% CI, 0.2-0.3). The prevalence of subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) using an upper TSH concentration of 4.50 mIU/L was 2.4% (95% CI, 2.1-2.6). Lowering the upper TSH to 2.50 mIU/L resulted in higher rates of SCH, 19.9% (95% CI, 19.3-20.5). Multiple regression analyses showed increased odds of SCH (TSH > 4.50 mIU/L) with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 35.0 kg/m2 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.71; 95% CI, 1.13-2.57; P = 0.01) and Asian ethnicity (aOR 1.76; 95% CI, 1.31-2.37; P < 0.001), and increased odds of SCH (TSH ≥ 2.50 mIU/L) with subfertility (aOR 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04-1.29; P = 0.008). TPOAb positivity was prevalent in 9.5% of women (95% CI, 9.1-9.9).
Conclusions: The prevalence of undiagnosed overt thyroid disease is low. SCH and TPOAb are common, particularly in women with higher BMI or of Asian ethnicity. A TSH cutoff of 2.50 mIU/L to define SCH results in a significant proportion of women potentially requiring levothyroxine treatment.

Link to full-text [no password required]

Altmetrics:

Levothyroxine to increase live births in euthyroid women with thyroid antibodies trying to conceive: the TABLET RCT (2019)

Posted on by

Type of publication:
Journal article

Author(s):
Dhillon-Smith R K, Middleton L J, Sunner K K, Cheed V, Baker K, Farrell-Carver S, Bender-Atik R, Agrawal R, Bhatia K, Edi-Osagie E, Ghobara T, Gupta P, Jurkovic D, Khalaf Y, MacLean M, McCabe C, Mulbagal K, Nunes N, Overton C, Quenby S, Rai R, Raine-Fenning N, Robinson L, Ross J, Sizer A, Small R, Tan A, *Underwood M , Kilby M D, Boelaert K, Daniels J, Thangaratinam S, Chan S,  Coomarasamy A.

Citation:
Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation; Volume: 6, Issue: 11, October 2019

Abstract:
Background: Thyroid autoantibodies, specifically thyroid peroxidase antibodies, have been associated with miscarriage and pre-term birth in women with a normal thyroid function. Small randomised controlled trials have found that treatment with levothyroxine may reduce such adverse outcomes in pregnancy.
Objectives: The Thyroid AntiBodies and LEvoThyroxine (TABLET) trial was conducted to explore the effects of levothyroxine in euthyroid women with thyroid peroxidase antibodies. A concurrent mechanistic study was conducted to examine the effect of levothyroxine on immune responses.
Design: This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study.
Setting: The TABLET trial was conducted in 49 hospitals across the UK between 2011 and 2016.
Participants: Euthyroid women who tested positive for thyroid peroxidase antibodies, were aged between 16 and 41 years and were trying to conceive either naturally or through assisted conception were eligible.
Intervention: Participants were randomised to levothyroxine at a dose of 50 µg daily or placebo. The intervention was commenced preconception and continued until the end of a pregnancy. Women were given a 12-month period to conceive from randomisation.
Main outcome measures: The primary outcome was live birth at ≥ 34 completed weeks of gestation. The secondary outcomes included miscarriage at < 24 weeks; clinical pregnancy at 7 weeks; ongoing pregnancy at 12 weeks; gestation at delivery; birthweight; appearance, pulse, grimace, activity and respiration (Apgar) scores; congenital abnormalities; and neonatal survival at 28 days of life.
Methods: Participants were randomised in a 1 : 1 ratio. Minimisation was implemented for age (< 35 or ≥ 35 years), number of previous miscarriages (0, 1 or 2, ≥ 3), infertility treatment (yes/no) and baseline thyroid-stimulating hormone concentration (≤ 2.5 or > 2.5 mlU/l) to achieve balanced trial arms. Women were followed up every 3 months while trying to conceive to check thyroid function and general well-being, and, once pregnant, were seen each trimester: 6–8 weeks, 16–18 weeks and 28 weeks. Any abnormal thyroid results were managed in line with clinical guidance at the time.
Results: Of the 19,556 women screened, 1420 women were eligible and 952 were randomised to receive levothyroxine (n = 476) or placebo (n = 476). Six women from each arm either were lost to follow-up or withdrew from the trial. A total 540 women became pregnant: 266 in the levothyroxine arm and 274 in the placebo arm. The live birth rate was 37% (176/470) in the levothyroxine group and 38% (178/470) in the placebo group, translating to a relative risk of 0.97 (95% confidence interval 0.83 to 1.14; p = 0.74) and an absolute risk difference of –0.4% (95% confidence interval –6.6% to 5.8%). A subset of 49 trial participants (26 in the levothyroxine arm and 23 in the placebo arm) were recruited to assess changes in their serum chemocytokine concentrations. Treatment with levothyroxine resulted in some changes in chemocytokine concentrations in the non-pregnant state and in early pregnancy, but these had no association with clinical outcome.
Conclusions: Levothyroxine therapy in a dose of 50 µg per day does not improve live birth rate in euthyroid women with thyroid peroxidase antibodies.
Limitations: Titration of the levothyroxine dose based on thyroid-stimulating hormone/thyroid peroxidase concentrations was not explored.
Future work: Future research could explore the efficacy of levothyroxine administered for the treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism.
Trial registration: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15948785 and EudraCT 2011-000719-19.
Funding: This project was funded by the Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation programme, a Medical Research Council and National Institute for Health Research partnership.

Link to full-text [no password required]

Altmetrics:

The cost-effectiveness of progesterone in preventing miscarriages in women with early pregnancy bleeding: an economic evaluation based on the PRISM Trial (2020)

Posted on by

Type of publication:
Journal article

Author(s):
CB Okeke Ogwulu, I Goranitis, AJ Devall, V Cheed, ID Gallos, LJ Middleton, HM Harb, HM Williams, A Eapen, JP Daniels, A Ahmed, R Bender‐Atik, K Bhatia, C Bottomley, J Brewin, M Choudhary, S Deb, WC Duncan, AK Ewer, K Hinshaw, T Holland, F Izzat, J Johns, M Lumsden, P Manda, JE Norman, N Nunes, CE Overton, K Kriedt, S Quenby, S Rao, J Ross, A Shahid, *M Underwood , N Vaithilingham, L Watkins, C Wykes, AW Horne, D Jurkovic, A Coomarasamy, TE Roberts

Citation:
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology; May 2020; Vol 127 (no. 6); p. 757-767

Abstract:
Objectives: To assess the cost‐effectiveness of progesterone compared with placebo in preventing pregnancy loss in women with early pregnancy vaginal bleeding.
Design: Economic evaluation alongside a large multi‐centre randomised placebo‐controlled trial.
Setting: Forty‐eight UK NHS early pregnancy units.
Population: Four thousand one hundred and fifty‐three women aged 16–39 years with bleeding in early pregnancy and ultrasound evidence of an intrauterine sac.
Methods: An incremental cost‐effectiveness analysis was performed from National Health Service (NHS) and NHS and Personal Social Services perspectives. Subgroup analyses were carried out on women with one or more and three or more previous miscarriages.
Main outcome measures: Cost per additional live birth at ≥34 weeks of gestation.
Results: Progesterone intervention led to an effect difference of 0.022 (95% CI −0.004 to 0.050) in the trial. The mean cost per woman in the progesterone group was £76 (95% CI −£559 to £711) more than the mean cost in the placebo group. The incremental cost‐effectiveness ratio for progesterone compared with placebo was £3305 per additional live birth. For women with at least one previous miscarriage, progesterone was more effective than placebo with an effect difference of 0.055 (95% CI 0.014–0.096) and this was associated with a cost saving of £322 (95% CI −£1318 to £673).
Conclusions: The results suggest that progesterone is associated with a small positive impact and a small additional cost. Both subgroup analyses were more favourable, especially for women who had one or more previous miscarriages. Given available evidence, progesterone is likely to be a cost‐effective intervention, particularly for women with previous miscarriage(s).

Link to full-text [open access - no password required]

Altmetrics: