Search

Aim: This pilot study aimed to assess the utility of an oral progesterone treatment protocol for women who commenced medical abortion and then changed their mind and wished instead to maintain their pregnancy. Methods: The Progesterone‐After‐Mifepristone—pilot for efficacy and reproducibility (PAMper) trial was designed as a prospective single‐arm pilot clinical trial, conducted via telehealth. Women aged 18 to 45 years in Australia who reported ingesting mifepristone within the last 72 h to initiate medical abortion and had not taken misoprostol were included. Initial contact was by a web‐based form. Following informed consent, participants were prescribed oral progesterone to be taken 400 mg twice per day for 3 days then 400 mg at night until completion of a 19 day course. Pregnancy viability was assessed by ultrasound scan after 14 days of progesterone treatment. Results: Between October 2020 and June 2021, nine women contacted the PAMper trial, of whom six enrolled and commenced progesterone treatment. These women reported ingesting mifepristone at 40–70 days of gestation, with progesterone being commenced within 5.7–72 h of mifepristone ingestion. Five participants had ongoing, live pregnancies at the primary endpoint (ultrasound at >2 weeks). One participant had a miscarriage after 9 days of progesterone treatment. There were no clinically significant adverse events. Conclusion: This small study demonstrated a clinically sound protocol for researching the use of progesterone‐after‐mifepristone for women in this circumstance. Results of this pilot study support the need for further larger scale trials in this field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION In women with threatened miscarriage, does progesterone supplementation until the completion of the first trimester of pregnancy increase the probability of live birth? SUMMARY ANSWER In women with threatened miscarriage, 400 mg vaginal progesterone nightly, from onset of bleeding until 12 weeks, did not increase live birth rates. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Limited evidence has indicated that vaginal micronized progesterone may make little or no difference to the live birth rate when compared with placebo in women with threatened miscarriage. Subgroup analysis of one recent randomized trial reported that in women with bleeding and at least one previous miscarriage, progesterone might be of benefit. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION We performed a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial between February 2012 and April 2019. Eligible pregnant women under 10 weeks gestation, experiencing a threatened miscarriage as apparent from vaginal bleeding were randomized into two groups in a 1:1 ratio: the intervention group received 400 mg progesterone as vaginal pessaries, the control group received placebo vaginal pessaries, both until 12 weeks gestation. The primary endpoint was live birth. We planned to randomize 386 women (193 per group). The study was stopped at a planned interim analysis for futility after randomization of 278 women. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS This trial was conducted at the Mater Mothers' Hospital, a tertiary centre for maternity care in South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. We randomized 139 women to the intervention group and 139 women to the placebo group. Primary outcome data were available for 136 women in the intervention group and 133 women in the placebo group. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The live birth rates were 82.4% (112/136) and 84.2% (112/133) in the intervention group and placebo group, respectively (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09; risk difference −0.02, 95% CI −0.11 to 0.07; P  = 0.683). Among women with at least one previous miscarriage, live birth rates were 80.6% (54/67) and 84.4% (65/77) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82–1.11; P  = 0.550). No significant effect was seen from progesterone in women with two (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.96–1.72; P  = 0.096) or more (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53–1.19; P  = 0.267) previous miscarriages. Preterm birth rates were 12.9% and 9.3%, respectively (RR 1.38; 95% CI 0.69 to 2.78; P  = 0.361). Median birth weight was 3310 vs 3300 g (P  = 0.992). There were also no other significant differences in obstetric and perinatal outcomes. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Our study was single centre and did not reach the planned sample size because it was stopped prematurely at an interim analysis. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS We did not find evidence supporting the treatment effect of vaginal progesterone in women with threatened miscarriage. Progesterone in this setting should not be routinely used for threatened miscarriage. The treatment effect in women with threatened miscarriage after previous miscarriages warrants further research. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) Mothers' and babies Golden Casket Clinical Fellowship (L.A.M.). Progesterone and placebo pessaries were provided by Perrigo Australia. B.W.J.M. reports grants from NHMRC, personal fees from ObsEva, personal fees from Merck KGaA, personal fees from Guerbet, personal fees from iGenomix, outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ACTRN12611000405910 TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 19 April 2011 DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT 06 February 2012 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to determine the satisfaction among subfertile women of a fertility awareness-based approach, including hormonal therapy to achieve a pregnancy by natural conception. Eighty four women attending a natural fertility service completed a postal questionnaire exploring (1) the acceptability of the sympto-thermal method and (2) the acceptability of using hormone support. Acceptability rates for the fertility charting, clinical service and clinical care were 64.9-91.6%. Acceptability rates were higher in women who did conceive or had experienced past recurrent miscarriages. Taking hormonal luteal support, by any method, was more acceptable for women over 35 years compared to those under 35 years (100% vs. 69.4%, p = 0.014). Vaginal pessaries were the preferred route of administration. The use of a fertility awareness-based method appears to be acceptable amongst subfertile women intending to conceive naturally. Most women using such a method for conception would be open to the use of hormonal support during the fertility cycle or early pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]