To investigate the efficacy of hCG in the management of recurrent early pregnancy loss.
Design
A prospective, randomized, controlled trial.
Setting
Miscarriage Clinic, Women's Hospital, Liverpool, United Kingdom.
Subjects
Eighty-one women attending the miscarriage clinic with idiopathic recurrent pregnancy loss were randomized to receive hCG supplementation or placebo in early pregnancy.
Main Outcome Measure
The success rate or live birth rate.
Results
In women with regular menstrual cycles it was found that hCG had no beneficial effect, the pregnancy success rate being 86% in both groups. However, women with oligomenorrhea had a pregnancy success rate of 40% in the placebo group but a statistically significant improvement to 86% if hCG was given.
Conclusions
Human chorionic gonadotropin can be recommended for idiopathic recurrent pregnancy loss in women with oligomenorrhea.
hCG supplementation recurrent pregnancy loss randomized controlled trial, human chorionic gonadotropin recurrent miscarriage treatment, oligomenorrhea recurrent pregnancy loss hCG efficacy, Quenby Farquharson hCG recurrent miscarriage, idiopathic recurrent pregnancy loss hormonal support, hCG early pregnancy support live birth rate, progesterone support alternatives recurrent miscarriage, oligomenorrhea irregular cycles miscarriage treatment, placebo controlled trial hCG pregnancy loss, luteal phase support recurrent early pregnancy loss
PMID 7646609 7646609 DOI 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)56992-1 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)56992-1
Cite this article
Quenby, S., & Farquharson, R. G. (1994). Human chorionic gonadotropin supplementation in recurring pregnancy loss: a controlled trial. Fertility and sterility, 62(4), 708-710. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0015-0282(16)56992-1
Quenby S, Farquharson RG. Human chorionic gonadotropin supplementation in recurring pregnancy loss: a controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 1994;62(4):708-710. doi:10.1016/s0015-0282(16)56992-1
Quenby, S., and R. G. Farquharson. "Human chorionic gonadotropin supplementation in recurring pregnancy loss: a controlled trial." Fertility and sterility, vol. 62, no. 4, 1994, pp. 708-710.
Harrison RF, 1985·Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol
Human chorionic gonadotropin was administered intramuscularly in an open study of 32 women whose last three pregnancies had ended in spontaneous abortion. An initial dosage of 10 000 iu on earliest diagnosis of pregnancy was followed up by 5000 IU twice weekly up to wk 12, then once weekly up to wk 16. Only 2 of the 32 patients aborted (6.2%). Using the same regime a further 20 habitual aborters were randomly allocated double-blind to either hCG or placebo. All 10 women on active therapy continued (100%) compared with only 3 on placebo (30%) (P less than 0.01). These results suggest that hCG should be considered as treatment in women with habitual abortion where other specific causes have been ruled out and a potentially treatable hormonal imbalance surmised.
Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, 2026·Fertility and Sterility
Current strategies for the assessment and treatment of recurrent pregnancy loss are discussed. This replaces the previous document, titled, "Evaluation and treatment a committee opinion," last published in 2012.
This narrative review examines the evidence for medical optimization of inflammatory conditions, vitamin deficiencies, endocrine disorders, immune dysregulation, oligo-ovulation, and luteal phase factors to improve fertility outcomes in women attempting to conceive through natural or timed intercourse. Overall, there is a paucity of data with respect to these categories among patients pursuing timed intercourse, precluding our ability to draw strong recommendations. However, there is strong evidence supporting treatment of endocrine disorders, specifically overt thyroid dysfunction and hyperprolactinemia, as well as oligo-ovulation. Conversely, treatment of subclinical hypothyroidism is not recommended. The current data are insufficient to support empiric use of antiinflammatory medications, corticosteroids, thyroid hormones, or vitamins or supplements to improve chances of pregnancy in a general infertility population.
Restorative Reproductive Medicine (RRM) aims to restore fertility by diagnosing and treating the underlying causes of infertility. RRM is frequently promoted as an alternative to assisted reproductive technology (ART), despite uncertainty regarding its comparative effectiveness and safety. Where delayed childbearing and infertility are becoming more common, reliance on optimization of natural physiology alone may delay effective treatment and compromise reproductive outcomes. A systematic review of the current evidence comparing RRM to either ART or unassisted conception is, therefore, essential to inform clinical practice, guideline development, and shared decision-making for patients experiencing infertility. To assess the effectiveness and safety of RRM approaches, evaluated as a whole, rather than as individual components, compared with ART and medically unassisted conception in couples experiencing infertility. A systematic literature search of MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and the Journal of Restorative Reproductive Medicine from inception to 28 November 2025. We included randomized control trials (RCTs) or nonrandomized comparative studies evaluating reproductive and safety outcomes of RRM as a unified treatment, compared with either ART or expectant management (attempted medically unassisted conception). Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. We retrieved 724 records, of which 16 studies underwent full-text review. No RCTs or comparative observational studies were identified. All 16 full-text studies were excluded for an ineligible study design (no control group); most were cohort studies in which all participants underwent RRM. Ten studies reported reproductive outcomes; nine of these made claims regarding the benefits or effectiveness of RRM. None of these claims were supported by the study designs used, as the lack of a comparison group precludes reliable estimation of treatment effects. Consequently, these studies cannot provide valid estimates of RRM success rates, nor permit any meaningful inference about its effectiveness relative to unassisted conception or ART. Large-scale RCTs or prospective cohort studies reporting effectiveness and safety outcomes are required to inform evidence-based fertility guidelines. There are no comparative studies to support reliable estimates of the safety and effectiveness of RRM compared with ART or medically unassisted conception for couples experiencing infertility.