Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Clinical Updates in the Management of Recurrent Pregnancy Loss (RPL)

  • Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility (REI) (R Anchan, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Obstetrics and Gynecology Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

To apprise readers on recent updates in the clinical management of recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) and review the role of reproductive immunology in RPL.

Recent Findings

Topics discussed include the epidemiological and clinical definitions of RPL, a higher chromosomal abnormality rate in blastocysts from young patients with idiopathic RPL, and the role of uterine natural killer (uNK) cells in underlying reproductive immunopathology.

Summary

Although clinically recognized pregnancy loss occurs in 15–25% of pregnancies, only 1–5% of losses can be attributed to RPL, a unique disorder defined as two or more failed clinical pregnancies. Despite a comprehensive evaluation, however, the etiology of 50% of RPL losses will remain unknown. Treatment of RPL focuses on addressing the underlying etiology: preimplantation genetic testing for structural rearrangement (PGT-SR) is recommended for patients with a balanced translocation, and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) has been shown to improve clinical pregnancy and live birth in patients with RPL. Recent studies promote the use of preconception low-dose aspirin at least 4 days a week, initiation of luteal start vaginal micronized progesterone, and treatment of occult chronic endometritis.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Evaluation and treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012 Nov;98(5):1103–11.

  2. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address: asrm@asrm.org. Definitions of infertility and recurrent pregnancy loss: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2020 Mar;113(3):533–5.

  3. ESHRE guideline: recurrent pregnancy loss | Human Reproduction Open | Oxford Academic [Internet]. [cited 2021 Sep 13]. Available from: https://academic.oup.com/hropen/article/2018/2/hoy004/4963604.

  4. Stirrat GM. Recurrent miscarriage. Lancet Lond Engl. 1990 Sep 15;336(8716):673–5

  5. Jauniaux E, Farquharson RG, Christiansen OB, Exalto N. Evidence-based guidelines for the investigation and medical treatment of recurrent miscarriage. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2006 Sep;21(9):2216–22.

  6. Rasmark Roepke E, Matthiesen L, Rylance R, Christiansen OB. Is the incidence of recurrent pregnancy loss increasing? A retrospective register-based study in Sweden. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2017 Nov;96(11):1365-1372.

  7. Picut CA, Dixon D, de Rijk EPCT. Immunopathology of the female reproductive tract and mammary gland. In: Parker GA, editor. Immunopathology in toxicology and drug development: Volume 2, Organ Systems [Internet]. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2017 [cited 2021 Sep 13]. p. 541–614. [Molecular and Integrative Toxicology]. Available from https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-47385-7_11.

  8. Wu R, Van der Hoek KH, Ryan NK, Norman RJ, Robker RL. Macrophage contributions to ovarian function. Hum Reprod Update. 2004 Mar 1;10(2):119–33

  9. Gaynor LM, Colucci F. Uterine natural killer cells: functional distinctions and influence on pregnancy in humans and mice. Front Immunol. 2017 Apr 24;8:46

  10. Picut CA, Swanson CL, Parker RF, Scully KL, Parker GA. The metrial gland in the rat and its similarities to granular cell tumors. Toxicol Pathol. 2009 Jun;37(4):474–80

  11. Pinhal-Enfield G, Vasan NS, Leibovich SJ. The role of macrophages in the placenta [Internet]. Embryology - Updates and Highlights on Classic Topics. IntechOpen; 2012 [cited 2021 Sep 13]. Available from: https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/34561.

  12. Cao L, Tang Y, Niu X, Guo Q, Huang L. Mifepristone regulates macrophage-mediated natural killer cells function in decidua. Reprod Biol. 2021 Aug 1;21(3):100541.

  13. Johnston-MacAnanny EB, Hartnett J, Engmann LL, Nulsen JC, Sanders MM, Benadiva CA. Chronic endometritis is a frequent finding in women with recurrent implantation failure after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2010;93(2):437-441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Cicinelli E, Matteo M, Tinelli R, et al. Chronic endometritis due to common bacteria is prevalent in women with recurrent miscarriage as confirmed by improved pregnancy outcome after antibiotic treatment. Reprod Sci. 2014;21(5):640–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. • Cicinelli E, Resta L, Loizzi V, et al. Antibiotic therapy versus no treatment for chronic endometritis: a case-control study. Fertil Steril. 2021;115(6):1541–8. Findings from this study suggest that antibiotic treatment is superior to expectant management for treatment of chronic endometritis.

  16. Gay C, Hamdaoui N, Pauly V, et al. Impact of antibiotic treatment for chronic endometritis on unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2021 May;50(5):102034.

  17. Stephenson MD, Awartani KA, Robinson WP. Cytogenetic analysis of miscarriages from couples with recurrent miscarriage: a case-control study. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2002 Feb;17(2):446–51.

  18. Carp H, Toder V, Aviram A, Daniely M, Mashiach S, Barkai G. Karyotype of the abortus in recurrent miscarriage. Fertil Steril. 2001 Apr;75(4):678–82.

  19. Clifford K, Rai R, Regan L. Future pregnancy outcome in unexplained recurrent first trimester miscarriage. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 1997 Feb;12(2):387–9.

  20. Recurrent miscarriage, investigation and treatment of couples [Green-top Guideline No. 17] [Internet]. Royal College Obstet Gynaecol. [cited 2021 Sep 13]. Available from: https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/guidelines/gtg17/.

  21. Stephenson MD, Sierra S. Reproductive outcomes in recurrent pregnancy loss associated with a parental carrier of a structural chromosome rearrangement. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2006 Apr;21(4):1076–82.

  22. •• Liu XY, Fan Q, Wang J, Li R, Xu Y, Guo J. Higher chromosomal abnormality rate in blastocysts from young patients with idiopathic recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril. 2020 Apr;113(4):853-864. Findings from this study suggest that young patients with RPL have a significantly higher rate of chromosomal abnormalities in blastocysts compared to patients with no history of clinical miscarriage.

  23. •• Sato T, Sugiura-Ogasawara M, Ozawa F, et al. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: a comparison of live birth rates in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss due to embryonic aneuploidy or recurrent implantation failure [published correction appears in Hum Reprod. 2020 Jan 1;35(1):255]. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(12):2340-2348. Findings from this study indicate that PGT-A does not improve the live birth rate per patient, but does have the advantage of reducing the number of embryo transfers required to achieve a similar number of live births compared to those not undergoing PGTA.

  24. •• Bhatt SJ, Marchetto NM, Roy J, Morelli SS, McGovern PG. 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. Hum Reprod. 2021;36(8):2339–2344. This is the largest study to date assessing the utility of PGT-A in women with RPL. PGT-A was associated with improvement in live birth and clinical pregnancy in women with RPL, with the largest difference noted in the group of women with age greater than 42 years. Based on this data, patients with RPL should be counseled on the utility of IVF with PGT-A to preferentially select a euploid embryo.

  25. Saravelos SH, Cocksedge KA, Li T-C. Prevalence and diagnosis of congenital uterine anomalies in women with reproductive failure: a critical appraisal. Hum Reprod Update. 2008;14(5):415–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Grimbizis GF, Camus M, Tarlatzis BC, Bontis JN, Devroey P. Clinical implications of uterine malformations and hysteroscopic treatment results. Hum Reprod Update. 2001;7(2):161–74.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Chan YY, Jayaprakasan K, Tan A, Thornton JG, Coomarasamy A, Raine-Fenning NJ. Reproductive outcomes in women with congenital uterine anomalies: a systematic review. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol Off J Int Soc Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2011 Oct;38(4):371–82

  28. • Rikken JFW, Kowalik CR, Emanuel MH, Bongers MY, Spinder T, Jansen FW, et al. Septum resection versus expectant management in women with a septate uterus: an international multicentre open-label randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2021 Apr 20;36(5):1260–7. Findings from this study suggest that hysteroscopic resection of a uterine septum does not improve live birth rates when compared to expectant management, thereby questioning the rationale behind surgery.

  29. Haas DM, Hathaway TJ, Ramsey PS. Progestogen for preventing miscarriage in women with recurrent miscarriage of unclear etiology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;10(10):CD003511.

  30. Hussain M, El-Hakim S, Cahill DJ. Progesterone supplementation in women with otherwise unexplained recurrent miscarriages. J Hum Reprod Sci. 2012;5(3):248–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Coomarasamy A, Truchanowicz EG, Rai R. Does first trimester progesterone prophylaxis increase the live birth rate in women with unexplained recurrent miscarriages?. BMJ. 2011;342:d1914. Published 2011 Apr 18.

  32. • Stephenson MD, McQueen D, Winter M, Kliman HJ. Luteal start vaginal micronized progesterone improves pregnancy success in women with recurrent pregnancy loss. Fertil Steril. 2017;107(3):684-690.e2. (Findings from this study suggest that luteal start vaginal micronized progesterone was improved with improved pregnancy success in a cohort of women with RPL.)

  33. Vane JR, Botting RM. The mechanism of action of aspirin. Thromb Res. 2003;110(5–6):255–8.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. James AH, Brancazio LR, Price T. Aspirin and reproductive outcomes. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2008;63(1):49–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Schisterman EF, Silver RM, Lesher LL, et al. Preconception low-dose aspirin and pregnancy outcomes: results from the EAGeR randomised trial. Lancet. 2014;384(9937):29–36.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. •• Naimi AI, Perkins NJ, Sjaarda LA, 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. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174(5):595–601. Findings from this study suggest that preconception use of LDA at least 4 days per week may improve reproductive outcomes for women who have had 1 or 2 pregnancy losses. Increasing adherence to daily LDA seems to be key to improving effectiveness.

  37. Egerup P, Kolte AM, Larsen EC, Krog M, Nielsen HS, Christiansen OB. Recurrent pregnancy loss: what is the impact of consecutive versus non-consecutive losses? Hum Reprod Oxf Engl. 2016 Nov;31(11):2428–34.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Center for Infertility and Reproductive Surgery, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis Street, Boston, MA, 02115, USA

    Jenny S. George, Roisin Mortimer & Raymond M. Anchan

Authors
  1. Jenny S. George
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Roisin Mortimer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Raymond M. Anchan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Raymond M. Anchan.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility (REI)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

George, J.S., Mortimer, R. & Anchan, R.M. Clinical Updates in the Management of Recurrent Pregnancy Loss (RPL). Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep 11, 118–124 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-022-00328-5

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13669-022-00328-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation