Epidemiology of critical states during pregnancy after assisted reproductive technologies

Effect of piroxicam administration in infertile women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate piroxicam effect on different pregnancy outcomes among infertile women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART).

METHODS

We searched for the available randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in four different databases during January 2021 that compared piroxicam (intervention group) to placebo/no treatment (control group) in infertile women performing ART. We extracted the available data from included studies and pooled them in a meta-analysis model using RevMan software. We pooled the dichotomous data as risk ratios (RR) with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI) using RevMan software. Our outcomes were rates of clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, and any adverse events.

RESULTS

Seven RCTs met our inclusion criteria with a total number of 1226 patients. Piroxicam was linked to a significant increase in clinical pregnancy rate compared to control group (RR = 1.30, 95% CI [1.09, 1.55], p = .003). However, we did not report any significant difference between both groups in ongoing pregnancy rate (RR = 1.27, 95% CI [0.72, 2.24], p = .41). In addition, the rates of miscarriage and adverse events were not different among both groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Piroxicam administration increases the clinical pregnancy rate among infertile women. However, piroxicam does not affect miscarriage and ongoing pregnancy rates.

Assisted reproductive technology and the risk of gestational diabetes mellitus: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) is increasing worldwide, and observational studies have indicated that women who conceived by ART have an increased risk of pregnancy complications including gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM). We aimed to determine the risk of GDM among women who conceived with ART by systematic review and meta-analysis.

Main text

A systematic literature search was conducted in ISI Web of Knowledge, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Embase through May 2017 for English-language articles using a list of keywords. All studies comparing GDM in women conceived by ART and those who conceived spontaneously were included. Data extraction was performed by two authors independently and discrepancies were resolved by discussion. In total, 48 studies with 91,487 pregnancies conceived through ART and 2,525,234 spontaneously conceived met the inclusion criteria. There was evidence of substantial heterogeneity among these studies (P < 0.001, I2 = 98.6%). Random effects meta-analysis showed a significant increase in GDM among those who conceived by ART compared with those who conceived spontaneously (pooled relative risk = 1.51, 95% confidence interval = 1.18–1.93). Visual inspection of the funnel plot did not reveal any publication bias, which was supported by Egger’s test and Begg’s test.

Conclusion

The findings of this systematic review indicate that the use of ART treatment is associated with a 1.51-fold increase in GDM. Women need to be counselled carefully before undergoing ART treatment about the possibility and risk of GDM.

Risk of gestational diabetes mellitus following assisted reproductive technology: systematic review and meta-analysis of 59 cohort studies

OBJECTIVE

The use of assisted reproductive technology (ART) has been associated with an increased risk of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) in previous studies, but its risk has not been consistent. Therefore, we aimed to estimate the risk of GDM in women who conceived with ART via a systematic review and meta-analysis of cohort studies.

METHODS

ISI Web of Knowledge, Medline/PubMed, Scopus, and Embase databases were searched to identify studies that evaluated the risk of GDM through May 2017 using the relevant keywords. Two reviewers independently performed the screening, data extraction, and quality assessment. Meta-analysis was performed with a random effects model.

RESULTS

The search yielded 957 records relating to GDM and use of ART, from which 59 eligible cohorts were selected for meta-analysis (n = 96,785). There was evidence of substantial heterogeneity among these studies (χ₍₅₈₎² = 3072.34, p < .001; I²=98.1%). The pooled estimate of GDM risk using the random effects model was 9.00% (95% CI: 7.90-10.20). Visual inspection of the funnel plot indicated the presence of low publication bias, but Egger's test did not reveal publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings revealed that the risk of GDM was very high among women who conceived with ART treatment. GDM screening, management, and improved care are vital in ART pregnancy.