Intravenous immunoglobulin and idiopathic secondary recurrent miscarriage: a multicentered randomized placebo-controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Idiopathic secondary recurrent miscarriage may be associated with an abnormal maternal immune response to subsequent pregnancies. Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) has been studied in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with conflicting results. Therefore, a definitive trial was proposed. METHODS: We conducted an investigator-initiated, multicentered, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial comparing IVIG with saline in women with idiopathic secondary recurrent miscarriage, defined as a history of at least one prior ongoing pregnancy followed by three or more consecutive unexplained miscarriages. Subjects received either IVIG 500 mg/kg or the equivalent volume of normal saline. Preconception infusions were administered 14-21 days from the projected next menstrual period. With documentation of pregnancy, the subject received the same infusion every 4 weeks until 18-20 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome was an ongoing pregnancy of at least 20 weeks of gestation. RESULTS: A total of 82 patients enrolled, of whom 47 had an index pregnancy. All ongoing pregnancies resulted in live births. Therefore, the live birth rates were 70% (16/23) in the IVIG group and 63% (15/24) in the control group (P = 0.760); odds ratio (OR) 1.37 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.41-4.61]. Including only clinical pregnancies (embryo with cardiac activity at 6 weeks of gestation), the live birth rates were equivalent, 94% (16/17) and (15/16), respectively (P > 0.999); OR 1.07 (95% CI 0.06-18.62). Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IVIG for idiopathic secondary recurrent miscarriage revealed live birth rates of 70% (31/44) in the IVIG group and 62% (28/45) in the control group (P = 0.503); common OR 1.44 (95% CI 0.59-3.48). CONCLUSIONS: This is the largest RCT to date in which IVIG was evaluated in women with idiopathic secondary recurrent miscarriage; no treatment benefit was found. The meta-analysis, which combined our study results with two prior RCTs, also showed no significant effect of treatment with IVIG.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".