Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medline Book to support NIHPA logoLink to Medline Book to support NIHPA
. 2020 Jun;24(33):1–70. doi: 10.3310/hta24330

Progesterone to prevent miscarriage in women with early pregnancy bleeding: the PRISM RCT.

Arri Coomarasamy, Hoda M Harb, Adam J Devall, Versha Cheed, Tracy E Roberts, Ilias Goranitis, Chidubem B Ogwulu, Helen M Williams, Ioannis D Gallos, Abey Eapen, Jane P Daniels, Amna Ahmed, Ruth Bender-Atik, Kalsang Bhatia, Cecilia Bottomley, Jane Brewin, Meenakshi Choudhary, Fiona Crosfill, Shilpa Deb, W Colin Duncan, Andrew Ewer, Kim Hinshaw, Thomas Holland, Feras Izzat, Jemma Johns, Mary-Ann Lumsden, Padma Manda, Jane E Norman, Natalie Nunes, Caroline E Overton, Kathiuska Kriedt, Siobhan Quenby, Sandhya Rao, Jackie Ross, Anupama Shahid, Martyn Underwood, Nirmala Vaithilingham, Linda Watkins, Catherine Wykes, Andrew W Horne, Davor Jurkovic, Lee J Middleton
PMCID: PMC7355406  PMID: 32609084

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.

OBJECTIVES

(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 400 mg 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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Plain language summary

Miscarriage is a common complication of pregnancy that affects one in five pregnancies. Several small studies have suggested that progesterone, a hormone essential for maintaining a pregnancy, may reduce the risk of miscarriage in women presenting with early pregnancy bleeding. This research was undertaken to test whether or not progesterone given to pregnant women with early pregnancy bleeding would increase the number of live births when compared with placebo (dummy treatment). The women participating in the study had an equal chance of receiving progesterone or placebo, as determined by a computer; one group received progesterone (400 mg twice daily as vaginal pessaries) and the other group received placebo with an identical appearance. Treatment began when women presented with vaginal bleeding, were < 12 weeks of gestation and were found to have at least a pregnancy sac on an ultrasound scan. Treatment was stopped at 16 weeks of gestation, or earlier if the pregnancy ended before 16 weeks. Neither the participants nor their health-care professionals knew which treatment was being received. In total, 23,775 women were screened and 4153 women were randomised to receive either progesterone or placebo pessaries. Altogether, 2972 participants had a live birth after at least 34 weeks of gestation. Overall, the live birth rate in the progesterone group was 75% (1513 out of 2025 participants), compared with 72% (1459 out of 2013 participants) in the placebo group. Although the live birth rate was 3% higher in the progesterone group than in the placebo group, there was statistical uncertainty about this finding. However, it was observed that women with a history of one or more previous miscarriages and vaginal bleeding in their current pregnancy may benefit from progesterone. For women with no previous miscarriages, our analysis showed that the live birth rate was 74% (824 out of 1111 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 75% (840 out of 1127 participants) in the placebo group. For women with one or more previous miscarriages, the live birth rate was 75% (689 out of 914 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 70% (619 out of 886 participants) in the placebo group. The potential benefit appeared to be most strong for women with three or more previous miscarriages, who had a live birth rate of 72% (98 out of 137 participants) in the progesterone group compared with 57% (85 out of 148 participants) in the placebo group. Treatment with progesterone did not appear to have any negative effects.

Full text of this article can be found in Bookshelf.

References

  1. Wahabi HA, Fayed AA, Esmaeil SA, Bahkali KH. Progestogen for treating threatened miscarriage. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;8:CD005943. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005943.pub5 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005943.pub5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  2. Coomarasamy A, Williams H, Truchanowicz E, Seed PT, Small R, Quenby S, et al. A randomized trial of progesterone in women with recurrent miscarriages. N Engl J Med 2015;373:2141–8. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1504927 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1504927. [DOI] [PubMed]
  3. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Ectopic Pregnancy and Miscarriage: Diagnosis and Initial Management. NICE Clinical Guidelines 154. London: NICE; 2012.
  4. Hemminki E. Treatment of miscarriage: current practice and rationale. Obstet Gynecol 1998;91:247–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00606-6 doi: 10.1016/S0029-7844(97)00606-6. [DOI] [PubMed]
  5. Farren J, Jalmbrant M, Ameye L, Joash K, Mitchell-Jones N, Tapp S, et al. Post-traumatic stress, anxiety and depression following miscarriage or ectopic pregnancy: a prospective cohort study. BMJ Open 2016;6:e011864. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011864 doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011864. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  6. Ehrenskjöld ML, Bondo B, Weile F. [Treatment of threatened abortion with dydrogesterone.] Ugeskr Laeg 1967;129:1678–9. [PubMed]
  7. El-Zibdeh MY, Yousef LT. Dydrogesterone support in threatened miscarriage. Maturitas 2009;65(Suppl. 1):43–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.11.013 doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.11.013. [DOI] [PubMed]
  8. Gerhard I, Gwinner B, Eggert-Kruse W, Runnebaum B. Double-blind controlled trial of progesterone substitution in threatened abortion. Biol Res Pregnancy Perinatol 1987;8:26–34. [PubMed]
  9. Mistò A. [Experiences with 6-dehydro-retroprogesterone int the treatment of placental insufficiency.] Ann Ostet Ginecol Med Perinat 1967;89:102–12. [PubMed]
  10. Omar MH, Mashita MK, Lim PS, Jamil MA. Dydrogesterone in threatened abortion: pregnancy outcome. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 2005;97:421–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsbmb.2005.08.013 doi: 10.1016/j.jsbmb.2005.08.013. [DOI] [PubMed]
  11. Palagiano A, Bulletti C, Pace MC, DE Ziegler D, Cicinelli E, Izzo A. Effects of vaginal progesterone on pain and uterine contractility in patients with threatened abortion before twelve weeks of pregnancy. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2004;1034:200–10. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1335.022 doi: 10.1196/annals.1335.022. [DOI] [PubMed]
  12. Pandian RU. Dydrogesterone in threatened miscarriage: a Malaysian experience. Maturitas 2009;65(Suppl. 1):47–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.11.016 doi: 10.1016/j.maturitas.2009.11.016. [DOI] [PubMed]
  13. Coomarasamy A, Williams H, Truchanowicz E, Seed PT, Small R, Quenby S, et al. PROMISE: first-trimester progesterone therapy in women with a history of unexplained recurrent miscarriages – a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, international multicentre trial and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess 2016;20(41). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta20410 doi: 10.3310/hta20410. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  14. Carmichael SL, Shaw GM, Laurent C, Croughan MS, Olney RS, Lammer EJ. Maternal progestin intake and risk of hypospadias. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2005;159:957–62. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.159.10.957 doi: 10.1001/archpedi.159.10.957. [DOI] [PubMed]
  15. International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO). ISO 27000 – Information technology, Security Techniques, Information Security Management Systems, Overview and Vocabulary. URL: www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:std:iso-iec:27000:ed-5:v1:en (accessed 22 June 2019).
  16. e-CFR. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations. 2019. URL: https://gov.ecfr.io/cgi-bin/ECFR (accessed 22 August 2019).
  17. US Food and Drug Administration. CFR – Code of Federal Regulations Title 21. 2018. URL: www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=11 (accessed 22 June 2019).
  18. Pocock SJ, Simon R. Sequential treatment assignment with balancing for prognostic factors in the controlled clinical trial. Biometrics 1975;31:103–15. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529712 doi: 10.2307/2529712. [DOI] [PubMed]
  19. White SJ, Freedman LS. Allocation of patients to treatment groups in a controlled clinical study. Br J Cancer 1978;37:849–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1978.124 doi: 10.1038/bjc.1978.124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  20. Bottomley C, Van Belle V, Pexsters A, Papageorghiou AT, Mukri F, Kirk E, et al. A model and scoring system to predict outcome of intrauterine pregnancies of uncertain viability. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2011;37:588–95. https://doi.org/10.1002/uog.9007 doi: 10.1002/uog.9007. [DOI] [PubMed]
  21. European Commission. EudraLex – Volume 4 – Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) Guidelines. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/eudralex/vol-4_en (accessed 22 June 2019).
  22. Official Journal of the European Union. Commission Directive 2005/28/EC of 8 April 2005 Laying Down Principles and Detailed Guidelines for Good Clinical Practice as Regards Investigational Medicinal Products For Human Use, as well as the Requirements for Authorisation of the Manufacturing or Importation of Such Products. 2005. URL: https://ec.europa.eu/health//sites/health/files/files/eudralex/vol-1/dir_2005_28/dir_2005_28_en.pdf (accessed 22 June 2019).
  23. Great Britain. The Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004. London: The Stationery Office; 2004. URL: www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/1031/contents/made (accessed 22 June 2019).
  24. Besins Healthcare (UK) Ltd. Utrogestan Vaginal 200mg Capsules. 2019. URL: www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/3244 (accessed 22 June 2019).
  25. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Progesterone. URL: https://bnf.nice.org.uk/drug/progesterone.html (accessed 22 June 2019).
  26. Nosarka S, Kruger T, Siebert I, Grové D. Luteal phase support in in vitro fertilization: meta-analysis of randomized trials. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2005;60:67–74. https://doi.org/10.1159/000084546 doi: 10.1159/000084546. [DOI] [PubMed]
  27. van der Linden M, Buckingham K, Farquhar C, Kremer JA, Metwally M. Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;7:CD009154. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009154.pub3 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD009154.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  28. Rai R, Regan L. Recurrent miscarriage. Lancet 2006;368:601–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69204-0 doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69204-0. [DOI] [PubMed]
  29. Li TC, Spuijbroek MD, Tuckerman E, Anstie B, Loxley M, Laird S. Endocrinological and endometrial factors in recurrent miscarriage. BJOG 2000;107:1471–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb11670.x doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb11670.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  30. Li TC, Tuckerman EM, Laird SM. Endometrial factors in recurrent miscarriage. Hum Reprod Update 2002;8:43–52. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/8.1.43 doi: 10.1093/humupd/8.1.43. [DOI] [PubMed]
  31. Szekeres-Bartho J, Balasch J. Progestagen therapy for recurrent miscarriage. Hum Reprod Update 2008;14:27–35. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmm035 doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmm035. [DOI] [PubMed]
  32. Bulletti C, de Ziegler D, Flamigni C, Giacomucci E, Polli V, Bolelli G, Franceschetti F. Targeted drug delivery in gynaecology: the first uterine pass effect. Hum Reprod 1997;12:1073–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/12.5.1073 doi: 10.1093/humrep/12.5.1073. [DOI] [PubMed]
  33. Cicinelli E, Cignarelli M, Sabatelli S, Romano F, Schonauer LM, Padovano R, Einer-Jensen N. Plasma concentrations of progesterone are higher in the uterine artery than in the radial artery after vaginal administration of micronized progesterone in an oil-based solution to postmenopausal women. Fertil Steril 1998;69:471–3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(97)00545-1 doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(97)00545-1. [DOI] [PubMed]
  34. Coomarasamy A, Thangaratinam S, Gee H, Khan KS. Progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth: a critical evaluation of evidence. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2006;129:111–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.05.013 doi: 10.1016/j.ejogrb.2006.05.013. [DOI] [PubMed]
  35. da Fonseca EB, Bittar RE, Carvalho MH, Zugaib M. Prophylactic administration of progesterone by vaginal suppository to reduce the incidence of spontaneous preterm birth in women at increased risk: a randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2003;188:419–24. https://doi.org/10.1067/mob.2003.41 doi: 10.1067/mob.2003.41. [DOI] [PubMed]
  36. Fonseca EB, Celik E, Parra M, Singh M, Nicolaides KH, Fetal Medicine Foundation Second Trimester Screening Group. Progesterone and the risk of preterm birth among women with a short cervix. N Engl J Med 2007;357:462–9. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa067815 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa067815. [DOI] [PubMed]
  37. Dodd JM, Jones L, Flenady V, Cincotta R, Crowther CA. Prenatal administration of progesterone for preventing preterm birth in women considered to be at risk of preterm birth. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;7:CD004947. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004947.pub3 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004947.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  38. Meis PJ, Klebanoff M, Thom E, Dombrowski MP, Sibai B, Moawad AH, et al. Prevention of recurrent preterm delivery by 17 alpha-hydroxyprogesterone caproate. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2379–85. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa035140 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa035140. [DOI] [PubMed]
  39. Coomarasamy A, Devall AJ, Cheed V, Harb H, Middleton LJ, Gallos ID, et al. A randomised trial of progesterone in women with bleeding in early pregnancy. N Engl J Med 2019;380:1815–24. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1813730 doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1813730. [DOI] [PubMed]
  40. Zou G. A modified poisson regression approach to prospective studies with binary data. Am J Epidemiol 2004;159:702–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwh090 doi: 10.1093/aje/kwh090. [DOI] [PubMed]
  41. Peto R, Pike MC, Armitage P, Breslow NE, Cox DR, Howard SV, et al. Design and analysis of randomized clinical trials requiring prolonged observation of each patient. I. Introduction and design. Br J Cancer 1976;34:585–612. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.1976.220 doi: 10.1038/bjc.1976.220. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  42. Chatfield A, Caglia JM, Dhillon S, Hirst J, Cheikh Ismail L, Abawi K, et al. Translating research into practice: the introduction of the INTERGROWTH-21st package of clinical standards, tools and guidelines into policies, programmes and services. BJOG 2013;120(Suppl. 2):139–42. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.12416 doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12416. [DOI] [PubMed]
  43. Gardosi J, Mongelli M, Wilcox M, Chang A. An adjustable fetal weight standard. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1995;6:168–74. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-0705.1995.06030168.x doi: 10.1046/j.1469-0705.1995.06030168.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  44. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2013. [PubMed]
  45. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) – explanation and elaboration: a report of the ISPOR Health Economic Evaluation Publication Guidelines Good Reporting Practices Task Force. Value Health 2013;16:231–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002 doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.02.002. [DOI] [PubMed]
  46. Joint Formulary Committee. British National Formulary (Online). London: BMJ Group and Pharmaceutical Press; 2018. URL: www.medicinescomplete.com (accessed 22 June 2019).
  47. NHS Improvement. NHS Reference Costs 2016/17. 2017. London: NHS Improvement; 2017.
  48. Department of Health and Social Care. NHS Reference Costs 2013 to 2014. London: Department of Health and Social Care; 2014.
  49. Curtis L, Netten A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2002. Canterbury: PSSRU, University of Kent; 2002.
  50. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2017. Canterbury: PSSRU, University of Kent; 2017.
  51. Curtis L, Burns A. Unit Costs of Health and Social Care 2015. Canterbury: Personal Social Services Research Unit, University of Kent; 2015.
  52. Okeke Ogwulu CB, Goranitis I, Devall AJ, Cheed V, Gallos ID, Middleton LJ, et al. The cost-effectiveness of progesterone in preventing miscarriages in women with early pregnancy bleeding: an economic evaluation based on the PRISM trial. BJOG 2020;127:757–67. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-0528.16068 doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.16068. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  53. Intensive Care Society. Levels of Critical Care for Adult Patients. London: Intensive Care Society; 2009. URL: www.ics.ac.uk/ (accessed 10 May 2018).
  54. Barber JA, Thompson SG. Analysis of cost data in randomized trials: an application of the non-parametric bootstrap. Stat Med 2000;19:3219–36. https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-0258(20001215)19:23<3219::AID-SIM623>3.0.CO;2-P doi: 10.1002/1097-0258(20001215)19:23&#x0003c;3219::AID-SIM623&#x0003e;3.0.CO;2-P. [DOI] [PubMed]
  55. Zellner A. An efficient method of estimating seemingly unrelated regressions and tests for aggregation bias. J Am Stat Assoc 1962;57:348–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1962.10480664 doi: 10.1080/01621459.1962.10480664. [DOI]
  56. Moon HR, Perron B. Seemingly Unrelated Regressions. The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2008. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_2296-1 doi: 10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_2296-1. [DOI]
  57. Willan AR, Briggs AH, Hoch JS. Regression methods for covariate adjustment and subgroup analysis for non-censored cost-effectiveness data. Health Econ 2004;13:461–75. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.843 doi: 10.1002/hec.843. [DOI] [PubMed]
  58. Glick HA, Briggs AH, Polsky D. Quantifying stochastic uncertainty and presenting results of cost-effectiveness analyses. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res 2001;1:25–36. https://doi.org/10.1586/14737167.1.1.25 doi: 10.1586/14737167.1.1.25. [DOI] [PubMed]
  59. Black WC. The CE plane: a graphic representation of cost-effectiveness. Med Decis Making 1990;10:212–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X9001000308 doi: 10.1177/0272989X9001000308. [DOI] [PubMed]
  60. Simon J, Petrou S, Gray A. The valuation of prenatal life in economic evaluations of perinatal interventions. Health Econ 2009;18:487–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.1375 doi: 10.1002/hec.1375. [DOI] [PubMed]
  61. Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
  62. White IR, Royston P, Wood AM. Multiple imputation using chained equations: issues and guidance for practice. Stat Med 2011;30:377–99. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.4067 doi: 10.1002/sim.4067. [DOI] [PubMed]
  63. Petrou S, Trinder J, Brocklehurst P, Smith L. Economic evaluation of alternative management methods of first-trimester miscarriage based on results from the MIST trial. BJOG 2006;113:879–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00998.x doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2006.00998.x. [DOI] [PubMed]
  64. Norman JE, Marlow N, Messow CM, Shennan A, Bennett PR, Thornton S, et al. Does progesterone prophylaxis to prevent preterm labour improve outcome? A randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial (OPPTIMUM). Health Technol Assess 2018;22(35). https://doi.org/10.3310/hta22350 doi: 10.3310/hta22350. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  65. National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health (UK). Diabetes in Pregnancy—Management of Diabetes and its Complications from Preconception to the Postnatal Period. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2015. [PubMed]
  66. Ogasawara M, Aoki K, Okada S, Suzumori K. Embryonic karyotype of abortuses in relation to the number of previous miscarriages. Fertil Steril 2000;73:300–4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00495-1 doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00495-1. [DOI] [PubMed]
  67. European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: Guideline of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. Grimbergen: European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology; 2017.
  68. Devall AJ, Gallos, ID, Middleton, LJ, Coomarasamy A. Vaginal progesterone treatment during the first trimester of pregnancy for the prevention of miscarriage: an individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis. PROSPERO 2018:CRD42018064560. URL: www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018064560

RESOURCES