Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study† ‡

Single-layer vs double-layer uterine closure during cesarean delivery: 3-year follow-up of a randomized controlled trial (2Close study)

BACKGROUND

The rising rate of cesarean deliveries has led to an increased incidence of long long-term complications, including niche formation in the uterine scar. Niche development is associated with various gynecologic complaints and complications in subsequent pregnancies, such as uterine rupture and placenta accreta spectrum disorders. Although uterine closure technique is considered a potential risk factor for niche development, consensus on the optimal technique remains elusive.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate the effect of single-layer vs double-layer closure of the uterine incision on live birth rate at a 3-year follow-up with secondary objectives focusing on gynecologic, fertility, and obstetrical outcomes at the same follow-up.

STUDY DESIGN

A multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial was performed at 32 hospitals in the Netherlands. Women ≥18 years old undergoing a first cesarean delivery were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either single-layer or double-layer closure of the uterine incision. The primary outcome of the long-term follow-up was the live birth rate; with secondary outcomes, including pregnancy rate, the need for fertility treatment, mode of delivery, and obstetrical and gynecologic complications. This trial is registered on the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform www.who.int (NTR5480; trial finished).

RESULTS

Between 2016 and 2018, the 2Close study randomly assigned 2292 women, with 830 of 1144 and 818 of 1148 responding to the 3-year questionnaire in the single-layer and double-layer closure. No differences were observed in live birth rates; also there were no differences in pregnancy rate, need for fertility treatments, mode of delivery, or uterine ruptures in subsequent pregnancies. High rates of gynecologic symptoms, including spotting (30%-32%), dysmenorrhea (47%-49%), and sexual dysfunction (Female Sexual Function Index score, 23) are reported in both groups.

CONCLUSION

The study did not demonstrate the superiority of double-layer closure over single-layer closure in terms of reproductive outcomes after a first cesarean delivery. This challenges the current recommendation favoring double-layer closure, and we propose that surgeons can choose their preferred technique. Furthermore, the high risk of gynecologic symptoms after a cesarean delivery should be discussed with patients.

The neglected emotional drawbacks of the prioritization of embryos to transfer

In recent years, increasing efforts have been made to develop advanced techniques that could predict the potential of implantation of each single embryo and prioritize the transfer of those at higher chance. The most promising include non-invasive preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy and artificial intelligence-based algorithms using time lapse images. The psychological effect of these add-ons is neglected. One could speculate that embarking on another transfer after one or more failures with the prospect of receiving an embryo of lower potential may be distressing for the couple. In addition, the symbolic and mental representation of an embryo with 'lower capacity to implant' is currently unknown but could affect couples' choices and wellbeing. These emotional responses may also undermine adherence to the programme and, ultimately, its real effectiveness. Future trials aimed at evaluating the validity of prioritization procedures must also consider the emotional burden on the couples.

Antibiotics prior to or at the time of embryo transfer in ART

BACKGROUND

After an assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycle, embryo transfer (ET) involves the placement of one or more embryos into the uterine cavity, usually by passing a catheter through the cervical os. Despite the transfer of high-quality embryos, many ETs do not result in a pregnancy. There are many factors that may affect the success of ET. There is some evidence to suggest that increased endocervical microbial colonization at the time of ET results in lower pregnancy rates. The association between the cervico-vaginal microbiome and reduced pregnancy rates after ET may indicate either pre-existing dysbiosis in this patient population, or that the passage of the ET catheter itself may be introducing microbes that alter the microbiome of the endometrial cavity or lead to infection. Such an upper genital tract infection, contamination or alteration may have a negative impact on implantation and in vitro fertilization (IVF) success rates by both endometrial and embryonic mechanisms. The administration of antibiotics at the time of ET has been suggested as an intervention to reduce levels of microbial colonization and hence improve pregnancy rates.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the benefits and harms of antibiotic administration prior to or at the time of embryo transfer (ET) during assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL (now containing output from two trial registers and CINAHL), MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. The search date was November 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included two randomized controlled trials (RCT) that compared antibiotics administered by any route versus no antibiotics prior to ET.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane, including assessing risk of bias of the included studies using the RoB 2 tool. The primary review outcome was live birth rate (LBR) or ongoing pregnancy, and secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), genital tract colonization rate, miscarriage rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, fetal abnormalities, adverse events and pelvic infection.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two RCTs with 377 women in the review. Using the GRADE method, we assessed the certainty of the evidence as very low to low across measured outcomes. We are uncertain whether antibiotics given prior to or at the time of ET improved LBR (odds ratio (OR) 0.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.10 to 2.23; 1 study, 27 women; low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that if LBR without antibiotics was 60%, the rate with antibiotics would be between 13% and 77%. We are uncertain whether antibiotics given prior to or at the time of ET improve CPR (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.55; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 377 women; low-certainty evidence). If the CPR without antibiotics was 37%, the rate with antibiotics would be between 29% and 48%. The administration of antibiotics prior to or at the time of ET may reduce genital tract colonization slightly (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.95; 1 study, 130 women; very low-certainty evidence). If the genital tract colonization rate without antibiotics was 29%, the rate with antibiotics would be between 13% and 28%. However, this did not correspond to an effect on the pregnancy outcome. Only one study with low numbers of women reported on miscarriage rate, with one miscarriage reported in the group not receiving antibiotics (OR 4.04, 0.15 to 108.57; 1 study, 27 women; low-certainty evidence). There was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion regarding adverse effects and other outcomes as no studies reported data suitable for analysis.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain if administration of antibiotics prior to or at the time of ET improves LBR in women undergoing ART based on a single study of 27 women with low-certainty evidence. We are uncertain whether there was a difference in CPR. There was evidence for a reduction in genital tract colonization rates, but the evidence was very low certainty. Data were lacking on other secondary outcomes. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution, due to the small number of women included in the analysis.

Effectiveness of atosiban in women with previous single implantation failure undergoing frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Uterine contractions may interfere with embryo implantation in assisted reproductive technology. To reduce these contractions and improve success rates, the oxytocin antagonist atosiban has been suggested for administration during embryo transfer. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of atosiban in increasing live birth rates among women who have previously experienced a single implantation failure and are scheduled for single blastocyst transfer.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We conduct a single-centre randomised controlled study comparing atosiban and placebo in women undergoing a single blastocyst transfer with a previous failed blastocyst transfer. Women with endocrine or systemic illnesses, recurrent miscarriages, uterine malformations or fibroids, untreated hydrosalpinx, endometriosis (stage III or IV) or uterine fibroids, as well as women undergoing preimplantation genetic testing, are ineligible. The primary outcome is live birth resulting from the frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Secondary outcomes include biochemical/clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, multiple pregnancies as well as maternal and perinatal outcomes. We plan to recruit 1100 women (550 women per group). This will allow us to demonstrate or refute an increase in live birth rate from 40% to 50%. Data analysis will follow the intention-to-treat principle. We will measure patterns of uterine peristalsis which will allow subgroup analysis for women with or without uterine peristalsis.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of Northwest Women's and Children's Hospital (No. SZ2019001). Written informed consent will be obtained from each participant before randomisation. The results of the trial will be presented at scientific meetings and reported in publications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR1900022333.

In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility

BACKGROUND

In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a treatment for unexplained subfertility but is invasive, expensive, and associated with risks.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IVF versus expectant management, unstimulated intrauterine insemination (IUI), and IUI with ovarian stimulation using gonadotropins, clomiphene citrate (CC), or letrozole in improving pregnancy outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched following databases from inception to November 2021, with no language restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL. We searched reference lists of articles and conference abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness of IVF for unexplained subfertility with expectant management, unstimulated IUI, and stimulated IUI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed standard Cochrane methods.

MAIN RESULTS

IVF versus expectant management (two RCTs) We are uncertain whether IVF improves live birth rate (LBR) and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) compared to expectant management (odds ratio (OR) 22.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.56 to 189.37; 1 RCT; 51 women; very low-quality evidence; OR 3.24, 95% CI 1.07 to 9.8; 2 RCTs; 86 women; I2 = 80%; very low-quality evidence). Adverse effects were not reported. Assuming 4% LBR and 12% CPR with expectant management, these would be 8.8% to 9% and 13% to 58% with IVF. IVF versus unstimulated IUI (two RCTs) IVF may improve LBR compared to unstimulated IUI (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.19 to 5.12; 2 RCTs; 156 women; I2 = 60%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there is a difference between IVF and IUI for multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.04 to 27.29; 1 RCT; 43 women; very low-quality evidence) and miscarriage rate (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.14 to 21.25; 1 RCT; 43 women; very low-quality evidence). No study reported ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Assuming 16% LBR, 3% MPR, and 6% miscarriage rate with unstimulated IUI, these outcomes would be 18.5% to 49%, 0.1% to 46%, and 0.9% to 58% with IVF. IVF versus IUI + ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins (6 RCTs), CC (1 RCT), or letrozole (no RCTs) Stratified analysis was based on pretreatment status. Treatment-naive women There may be little or no difference in LBR between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.61; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.92; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I2 = 54%; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 2.51, 95% CI 0.96 to 6.55; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 42% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles) and 26% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle), LBR would be 39% to 54% and 24% to 51% with IVF. Assuming 15% LBR with IUI + CC, LBR would be 15% to 54% with IVF. There may be little or no difference in CPR between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.59; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 4.59, 95% CI 1.86 to 11.35; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 3.58, 95% CI 1.51 to 8.49; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 48% CPR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles) and 17% with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle), CPR would be 44% to 60% and 28% to 70% with IVF. Assuming 21% CPR with IUI + CC, CPR would be 29% to 69% with IVF. There may be little or no difference in multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.77; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.58; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.41; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference in OHSS between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins with 1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles (OR 6.86, 95% CI 0.35 to 134.59; 1 RCT; 207 women; very low-quality evidence); and there may be little or no difference in OHSS with 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.16; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.24 to 9.57; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference in miscarriage rate between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins with 1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.04; 1 RCT; 207 women; very low-quality evidence); and there may be little or no difference with 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.02; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.54 to 4.05; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). In women pretreated with IUI + CC IVF may improve LBR compared with IUI + gonadotropins (OR 3.90, 95% CI 2.32 to 6.57; 1 RCT; 280 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 22% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins, LBR would be 39% to 65% with IVF. IVF may improve CPR compared with IUI + gonadotropins (OR 14.13, 95% CI 7.57 to 26.38; 1 RCT; 280 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 30% CPR with IUI + gonadotropins, CPR would be 76% to 92% with IVF.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

IVF may improve LBR over unstimulated IUI. Data should be interpreted with caution as overall evidence quality was low.

Core outcome set for perinatal interventions for congenital diaphragmatic hernia

OBJECTIVE

To develop a core set of prenatal and neonatal outcomes for clinical studies evaluating perinatal interventions for congenital diaphragmatic hernia, using a validated consensus-building method.

METHODS

An international steering group comprising 13 leading maternal-fetal medicine specialists, neonatologists, pediatric surgeons, patient representatives, researchers and methodologists guided the development of this core outcome set. Potential outcomes were collected through a systematic review of the literature and entered into a two-round online Delphi survey. A call was made for stakeholders with experience of congenital diaphragmatic hernia to review the list and score outcomes based on their perceived relevance. Outcomes that fulfilled the consensus criteria defined a priori were discussed subsequently in online breakout meetings. Results were reviewed in a consensus meeting, during which the core outcome set was defined. Finally, the definitions, measurement methods and aspirational outcomes were defined in online and in-person definition meetings by a selection of 45 stakeholders.

RESULTS

Overall, 221 stakeholders participated in the Delphi survey and 198 completed both rounds. Fifty outcomes met the consensus criteria and were discussed and rescored by 78 stakeholders in the breakout meetings. During the consensus meeting, 93 stakeholders agreed eventually on eight outcomes, which constituted the core outcome set. Maternal and obstetric outcomes included maternal morbidity related to the intervention and gestational age at delivery. Fetal outcomes included intrauterine demise, interval between intervention and delivery and change in lung size in utero around the time of the intervention. Neonatal outcomes included neonatal mortality, pulmonary hypertension and use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. Definitions and measurement methods were formulated by 45 stakeholders, who also added three aspirational outcomes: duration of invasive ventilation, duration of oxygen supplementation and use of pulmonary vasodilators at discharge.

CONCLUSIONS

We developed with relevant stakeholders a core outcome set for studies evaluating perinatal interventions in congenital diaphragmatic hernia. Its implementation should facilitate the comparison and combination of trial results, enabling future research to better guide clinical practice. © 2023 International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology.

The optimal route of progesterone administration for luteal phase support in a frozen embryo transfer: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the optimal route of progesterone administration for luteal phase support in a frozen embryo transfer.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

PATIENTS

Women undergoing frozen embryo transfer (FET).

INTERVENTIONS

We conducted an extensive database search of Medline (PubMed), Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Trials Register using relevant keywords and their combinations to find randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the routes (i.e., oral, vaginal, intramuscular) of progesterone administration for luteal phase support (LPS) in artificial FET.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical pregnancy, live birth, miscarriage.

RESULTS

Four RCTs with 3245 participants undergoing artificial endometrial preparation (EP) cycles during FET were found to be eligible. Four trials compared vaginal progesterone with intramuscular progesterone and two trials compared vaginal progesterone with oral progesterone. One study favored of vaginal versus oral progesterone for clinical pregnancy rates (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.22-0.92) and other study favored intramuscular versus vaginal progesterone for clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.21-1.76) and live birth rates (RR 1.62, 95% CI 1.28-2.05). Tabulation of overall evidence strength assessment showed low-quality evidence on the basis that for each outcome-comparison pair, there were deficiencies in either directness of outcome measurement or study quality.

CONCLUSION

There was little consensus and evidence was heterogeneous on the optimal route of administration of progesterone for LPS during FET in artificial EP cycles. This warrants more trials, indirect comparisons, and network meta-analyses.

PROPERO NO

CRD42021251017.

Phytoestrogen Treatment for Menopausal Vasomotor Symptoms after Breast Cancer

Introduction

In breast cancer patients, menopausal symptoms are often reached earlier and in a more severe manner than in healthy women. They can dramatically reduce a patient's quality of life. Treatment for breast cancer patients remains difficult due to hormone replacement therapy being contraindicated. Therefore, treatment alternatives like herbal phytoestrogen preparations are considered to be a treatment option.

Methods

All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated comparisons of food products, extracts, or dietary supplements containing phytoestrogens in women with a diagnosis of breast cancer were included in the analysis.

Results

There was no evidence that phytoestrogen preparations had a benefit over placebo in the treatment of breast cancer patients with menopausal symptoms. Neither the frequency nor severity of menopausal symptoms and the quality of life or occurrence of adverse events were reduced in comparison to a placebo.

Conclusion

As we cannot prove a benefit of plant extracts in the treatment of menopausal symptoms in breast cancer patients, different herbal preparations should be analyzed in RCTs in order to find sufficient and safe new treatment options for symptomatic menopausal breast cancer patients. A focus should also be laid on developing a core outcome set to simplify pooling of different studies.

Can Dietary Patterns Impact Fertility Outcomes? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

There are conflicting results on the effect of diet on fertility. This study aimed to assess the effect of different dietary patterns on fertility outcomes in populations who conceive spontaneously and those requiring assisted reproductive technology (ART). A systematic search and meta-analysis were performed for studies investigating dietary patterns or whole diets in reproductive aged women requiring ART or conceived naturally. Outcomes were live births, pregnancy rates and infertility rates. In amount of 15,396 studies were screened with 11 eligible studies. Ten different diet patterns were grouped broadly into categories: Mediterranean, Healthy or Unhealthy. For the Mediterranean diet, on excluding high risk-of-bias studies (n = 3), higher adherence was associated with improved live birth/pregnancy rates in ART [OR 1.91 (95% CI 1.14-3.19, I² 43%)] (n = 2). Adherence to various Healthy diets was associated with improved ART outcomes (ProFertility diet and Dutch Dietary Guidelines) and natural conception outcomes (Fertility diet). However, due to the variability in Healthy diets' components, results were not pooled. Studies demonstrated preliminary evidence for the role of dietary patterns or whole diets in improving pregnancy and live birth rates. However, due to heterogeneity across the literature it is currently unclear which diet patterns are associated with improvements in fertility and ART outcomes.

The risk of miscarriage following COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY QUESTION

What is the risk of miscarriage among pregnant women who received any of the COVID-19 vaccines?

SUMMARY ANSWER

There is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are associated with an increased risk of miscarriage.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the mass roll-out of vaccines helped to boost herd immunity and reduced hospital admissions, morbidity, and mortality. Still, many were concerned about the safety of vaccines for pregnancy, which may have limited their uptake among pregnant women and those planning a pregnancy.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception until June 2022 using a combination of keywords and MeSH terms.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

We included observational and interventional studies that enrolled pregnant women and evaluated any of the available COVID-19 vaccines compared to placebo or no vaccination. We primarily reported on miscarriage in addition to ongoing pregnancy and/or live birth.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

We included data from 21 studies (5 randomized trials and 16 observational studies) reporting on 149 685 women. The pooled rate of miscarriage among women who received a COVID-19 vaccine was 9% (n = 14 749/123 185, 95% CI 0.05-0.14). Compared to those who received a placebo or no vaccination, women who received a COVID-19 vaccine did not have a higher risk of miscarriage (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% CI 0.89-1.28, I2 35.8%) and had comparable rates for ongoing pregnancy or live birth (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97-1.03, I2 10.72%).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Our analysis was limited to observational evidence with varied reporting, high heterogeneity and risk of bias across included studies, which may limit the generalizability and confidence in our findings.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

COVID-19 vaccines are not associated with an increase in the risk of miscarriage or reduced rates of ongoing pregnancy or live birth among women of reproductive age. The current evidence remains limited and larger population studies are needed to further evaluate the effectiveness and safety of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No direct funding was provided to support this work. M.P.R. was funded by the Medical Research Council Centre for Reproductive Health Grant No: MR/N022556/1. B.H.A.W. hold a personal development award from the National Institute of Health Research in the UK. All authors declare no conflict of interest.

REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021289098.

Time to live birth: towards a common agreement

The major purpose of a couple at the first infertility appointment is to get a healthy baby as soon as possible. From diagnosis and decision on which assisted reproduction technique (ART) and controlled ovarian stimulation, to the selection of which embryo to transfer, the dedicated team of physicians and embryologists puts all efforts to shorten the time to pregnancy and live birth. Time seems thus central in assisted reproduction, and we can conveniently use it as a measure of treatment efficiency. How can we measure time to live birth? What timelines do we need to consider to evaluate efficiency? In this paper, we will discuss the importance of "Time" as a fundamental parameter for measuring ART success.

Long-term outcomes of switching to gonadotrophins versus continuing with clomiphene citrate, with or without intrauterine insemination, in women with normogonadotropic anovulation and clomiphene failure: follow-up study of a factorial randomized clinical trial

STUDY QUESTION

What are the long-term outcomes after allocation to use of gonadotrophins versus clomiphene citrate (CC) with or without IUI in women with normogonadotropic anovulation and clomiphene failure?

SUMMARY ANSWER

About four in five women with normogonadotropic anovulation and CC failure had a live birth, with no evidence of a difference in pregnancy outcomes between the allocated groups.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

CC has long been used as first line treatment for ovulation induction in women with normogonadotropic anovulation. Between 2009 and 2015, a two-by-two factorial multicentre randomized clinical trial in 666 women with normogonadotropic anovulation and six cycles of CC failure was performed (M-ovin trial). This study compared a switch to gonadotrophins with continued treatment with CC for another six cycles, with or without IUI within 8 months. Switching to gonadotrophins increased the chance of conception leading to live birth by 11% over continued treatment with CC after six failed ovulatory cycles, at a cost of €15 258 per additional live birth. The addition of IUI did not significantly increase live birth rates.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

In order to investigate the long-term outcomes of switching to gonadotrophins versus continuing treatment with CC, and undergoing IUI versus continuing with intercourse, we conducted a follow-up study. The study population comprised all women who participated in the M-ovin trial.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The participating women were asked to complete a web-based questionnaire. The primary outcome of this study was cumulative live birth. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancies, multiple pregnancies, miscarriage, stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy, fertility treatments, neonatal outcomes and pregnancy complications.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

We approached 564 women (85%), of whom 374 (66%) responded (184 allocated to gonadotrophins; 190 to CC). After a median follow-up time of 8 years, 154 women in the gonadotrophin group had a live birth (83.7%) versus 150 women in the CC group (78.9%) (relative risk (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.96-1.17). A second live birth occurred in 85 of 184 women (49.0%) in the gonadotrophin group and in 85 of 190 women (44.7%) in the CC group (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.83-1.29). Women allocated to gonadotrophins had a third live birth in 6 of 184 women (3.3%) and women allocated to CC had a third live birth in 14 of 190 women (7.4%). There were respectively 12 and 11 twins in the gonadotrophin and CC groups. The use of fertility treatments in the follow-up period was comparable between both groups. In the IUI group, a first live birth occurred in 158 of 192 women (82.3%) and while in the intercourse group, 146 of 182 women (80.2%) reached at least one live birth (RR: 1.03 95% CI 0.93-1.13; 2.13%, 95% CI -5.95, 10.21).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We have complete follow-up results for 57% of the women.There were 185 women who did not respond to the questionnaire, while 102 women had not been approached due to missing contact details. Five women had not started the original trial.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Women with normogonadotropic anovulation and CC failure have a high chance of reaching at least one live birth. In terms of pregnancy rates, the long-term differences between initially switching to gonadotrophins are small compared to continuing treatment with CC.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The original study received funding from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw number: 80-82310-97-12067). A.H. reports consultancy for development and implementation of a lifestyle App, MyFertiCoach, developed by Ferring Pharmaceutical Company. M.G. receives unrestricted grants for scientific research and education from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigatorgrant (GNT1176437). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva and Merck and travel support from Merck. All other authors have nothing to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This follow-up study was registered in the OSF Register, https://osf.io/pf24m. The original M-ovin trial was registered in the Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR1449.

Live birth is not the only relevant outcome in research assessing assisted reproductive technology

In assisted reproductive technology (ART) research, live birth has been generally accepted as an important outcome, if not the most important one. However, it has been reported inconsistently in the literature and solely focusing on live birth can lead to misinterpretation of research findings. In this review, we provide an overview on the definitions of live birth, including various denominators and numerators use. We present a series of real clinical examples in ART research to demonstrate the impact of variations in live birth on research findings and the importance of other outcomes, including multiple pregnancy, pregnancy loss, time to pregnancy leading to live birth, other short and long term maternal and offspring health outcomes and cost effectiveness measures. We suggest that outcome choices in ART research should be tailored for the research questions. A holistic outcome assessment beyond live birth would provide a full picture to address research questions in ART in terms of effectiveness and safety, and thus facilitate evidence-based decision making.

Systematic review of pregnancy and renal outcomes for women with chronic kidney disease receiving assisted reproductive therapy

BACKGROUND

As awareness around infertility is increasing among patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD), ever more of them are seeking Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART). Our aim was to perform a systematic review to describe obstetric and renal outcomes in women with CKD following ART.

METHODS

The following databases were searched from 1946 to May 2021: (1) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), (2) Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), (3) Embase and (4) MEDLINE.

RESULTS

The database search identified 3520 records, of which 32 publications were suitable. A total of 84 fertility treatment cycles were analysed in 68 women. Median age at time of pregnancy was 32.5 years (IQR 30.0, 33.9 years). There were 60 clinical pregnancies resulting in 70 live births (including 16 multifetal births). Four women developed ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome which were associated with acute kidney injury. Hypertensive disorders complicated 26 pregnancies (38.3%), 24 (35.3%) pregnancies were preterm delivery, and low birth weight was present in 42.6% of pregnancies. Rates of live birth and miscarriage were similar for women with CKD requiring ART or having natural conception. However, more women with ART developed pre-eclampsia (p < 0.05) and had multifetal deliveries (p < 0.001), furthermore the babies were lower gestational ages (p < 0.001) and had lower birth weights (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This systematic review represents the most comprehensive assessment of fertility outcomes in patients with CKD following ART. However, the high reported live birth rate is likely related to reporting bias. Patient selection remains crucial in order to maximise patient safety, screen for adverse events and optimise fertility outcomes.

Management of recurrent implantation failure: British Fertility Society policy and practice guideline

Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) is defined as the absence of a positive pregnancy test after three consecutive transfers of good quality embryos. There remains significant variation in clinical practice in the management of RIF. This British Fertility Society (BFS) Policy and Practice guideline analyses the evidence for investigations and therapies that are employed in RIF and provides recommendations for clinical practice and for further research. Evidence for investigations of sperm and egg quality, uterine and adnexal factors, immunological factors and thrombophilia, endocrine conditions and genetic factors and for associated therapies have been evaluated. This guideline has been devised to assist reproductive medicine specialists and patients in making shared decisions concerning management of RIF. Finally, suggestions for research towards improving understanding and management of RIF have also been provided.

Day 5 versus day 3 embryo biopsy for preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic/single gene defects

BACKGROUND

Assisted reproductive technology (ART) has allowed couples with a family history of a monogenic genetic disease, or a disease-carrying gene, to reduce the chance of them having a child with the genetic disorder. This is achieved by genetically testing the embryos using an advanced process called preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic or single gene disorders (PGT-M), such as Huntington's disease or cystic fibrosis. This current terminology (PGT-M) has replaced the formerly-known preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). During PGT-M, one or more embryo cells are biopsied and analysed for genetic or chromosomal anomalies before transferring the embryos to the endometrial cavity. Biopsy for PGT-M can be performed at day 3 of cleavage-stage embryo development when the embryo is at the six- to the eight-cell stage, with either one or two blastomeres being removed for analysis. Biopsy for PGT-M can also be performed on day 5 of the blastocyst stage of embryo development when the embryo has 80 to 100 cells, with five to six cells being removed for analysis. Day 5 biopsy has taken over from day 3 biopsy as the most widely-used biopsy technique; however, there is a lack of summarised evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that assesses the effectiveness and safety of day 5 biopsy compared to day 3 biopsy. Since biopsy is an invasive process, whether it is carried out at day 3 or day 5 of embryo development may have different impacts on further development, implantation, pregnancy, live birth and perinatal outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of day 5 embryo biopsy, in comparison to day 3 biopsy, in PGT-M in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic bibliographic databases in December 2021 to identify relevant RCTs: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) Specialised Trials Register; CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO. We also handsearched grey literature, such as trial registers, relevant journals, reference lists, Google Scholar, and published conference abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Eligible RCTs compared day 5 versus day 3 embryo biopsy for PGT-M.  DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live births and miscarriages. We calculated outcomes per woman/couple randomised and reported odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included one RCT involving 20 women. The evidence was of very low certainty; the main limitations of the study were serious risk of bias due to lack of blinding of study personnel, and imprecision. We are uncertain whether day 5 embryo biopsy compared to day 3 biopsy has an effect on live births (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.26 to 8.82; 1 RCT, 20 women; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth following day 3 biopsy was assumed to be 40%, then the chance with day 5 biopsy is between 15% and 85%. It is also uncertain whether day 5 embryo biopsy compared to day 3 biopsy has an effect on miscarriages (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.05 to 18.57; 1 RCT, 20 women; very low-certainty evidence).  We are uncertain whether day 5 embryo biopsy compared to day 3 biopsy has an effect on other secondary outcome measures, including viable intrauterine pregnancies (OR 2.25, 95% CI 0.38 to 13.47; 1 RCT, 20 women; very low-certainty evidence), ectopic pregnancies (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.01 to 3.85; 1 RCT, 20 women; very low-certainty evidence), stillbirths (OR not estimable as no events in either group; 1 RCT, 20 women; very low-certainty evidence) or termination of pregnancies (OR 3.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 91.60; 1 RCT, 20 women; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported on gestational age at birth, birthweight, neonatal mortality and major congenital anomaly.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain if there is a difference in live births and miscarriages, viable intrauterine pregnancies, ectopic pregnancies, stillbirths or termination of pregnancies between day 5 and day 3 embryo biopsy for PGT-M. There was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions regarding other adverse outcomes. The results should be interpreted with caution, as the evidence was of very low certainty due to limited studies, high risk of bias in the included study, and an overall low level of precision.

Dietary and/or physical activity interventions in women with overweight or obesity prior to fertility treatment: protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Dietary and/or physical activity interventions are often recommended for women with overweight or obesity as the first step prior to fertility treatment. However, randomised controlled trials (RCTs) so far have shown inconsistent results. Therefore, we propose this individual participant data meta-analysis (IPDMA) to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of dietary and/or physical activity interventions in women with infertility and overweight or obesity on reproductive, maternal and perinatal outcomes and to explore if there are subgroup(s) of women who benefit from each specific intervention or their combination (treatment-covariate interactions).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will include RCTs with dietary and/or physical activity interventions as core interventions prior to fertility treatment in women with infertility and overweight or obesity. The primary outcome will be live birth. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and trial registries to identify eligible studies. We will approach authors of eligible trials to contribute individual participant data (IPD). We will perform risk of bias assessments according to the Risk of Bias 2 tool and a random-effects IPDMA. We will then explore treatment-covariate interactions for important participant-level characteristics.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Formal ethical approval for the project (Venus-IPD) was exempted by the medical ethics committee of the University Medical Center Groningen (METc code: 2021/563, date: 17 November 2021). Data transfer agreement will be obtained from each participating institute/hospital. Outcomes will be disseminated internationally through the collaborative group, conference presentations and peer-reviewed publication.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021266201.

Expectant management versus IUI in unexplained subfertility and a poor pregnancy prognosis (EXIUI study): a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION

For couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, is 6 months expectant management (EM) inferior to IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS), in terms of live births?

SUMMARY ANSWER

In couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, 6 months of EM is inferior compared to IUI-OS in terms of live births.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis are often treated with IUI-OS. In couples with unexplained subfertility and a relatively good prognosis for natural conception (>30% in 12 months), IUI-OS does not increase the live birth rate as compared to 6 months of EM. However, in couples with a poor prognosis for natural conception (<30% in 12 months), the effectiveness of IUI-OS is uncertain.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We performed a non-inferiority multicentre randomized controlled trial within the infrastructure of the Dutch Consortium for Healthcare Evaluation and Research in Obstetrics and Gynaecology. We intended to include 1091 couples within 3 years. The couples were allocated in a 1:1 ratio to 6 months EM or 6 months IUI-OS with either clomiphene citrate or gonadotrophins.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

We studied heterosexual couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception (<30% in 12 months). The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to a live birth. Non-inferiority would be shown if the lower limit of the one-sided 90% risk difference (RD) CI was less than minus 7% compared to an expected live birth rate of 30% following IUI-OS. We calculated RD, relative risks (RRs) with 90% CI and a corresponding hazard rate for live birth over time based on intention-to-treat and per-protocol (PP) analysis.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Between October 2016 and September 2020, we allocated 92 couples to EM and 86 to IUI-OS. The trial was halted pre-maturely owing to slow inclusion. Mean female age was 34 years, median duration of subfertility was 21 months. Couples allocated to EM had a lower live birth rate than couples allocated to IUI-OS (12/92 (13%) in the EM group versus 28/86 (33%) in the IUI-OS group; RR 0.40 90% CI 0.24 to 0.67). This corresponds to an absolute RD of minus 20%; 90% CI: -30% to -9%. The hazard ratio for live birth over time was 0.36 (95% CI 0.18 to 0.70). In the PP analysis, live births rates were 8 of 70 women (11%) in the EM group versus 26 of 73 women (36%) in the IUI-OS group (RR 0.32, 90% CI 0.18 to 0.59; RD -24%, 90% CI -36% to -13%) in line with inferiority of EM.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Our trial did not reach the planned sample size, therefore the results are limited by the number of participants.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study confirms the results of a previous trial that in couples with unexplained subfertility and a poor prognosis for natural conception, EM is inferior to IUI-OS.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The trial was supported by a grant of the SEENEZ healthcare initiative. The subsidizing parties were The Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW 837004023, www.zonmw.nl) and the umbrella organization of 10 health insurers in The Netherlands. E.R.G. receives personal fees from Titus Health care outside the submitted work. M.G. declares unrestricted research and educational grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring not related to the presented work, paid to their institution VU medical centre. A.B.H. reports receiving travel and speakers fees from Nordic Pharma and Merck and he is member of the Nordic Pharma ANGEL group and of the Safety Monitoring Board of Womed. C.B.L. reports speakers fee from Inmed and Yingming, and his department receives research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet paid to VU medical centre. B.W.J.M. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437) and reports consultancy for ObsEva and Merck. M.v.W. received a grant from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development ZonMW (80-8520098-91072). F.M. received two grants from the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development ZonMW (NTR 5599 and NTR 6590). The other authors report no competing interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Dutch Trial register NL5455 (NTR5599).

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

18 December 2015.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

26 January 2017.

Effects of preconception weight loss after lifestyle intervention on fertility outcomes and pregnancy complications

It is well documented that obesity decreases natural fertility among men and women as well as pregnancy chances after conventional infertility and assisted reproductive technology (ART)-based treatments. Moreover, pregnancy complications are increased in women with overweight and obesity. General guidelines on the treatment of obesity recommend lifestyle intervention, including diet and exercise as the first-line treatment, coupled with or without medical treatments, such as weight loss medication or bariatric surgery, to reduce complications of obesity in adults. In the context of infertility in various countries and infertility clinics, there is a body mass index limit for public refund of infertility treatment of women with obesity. In this respect, it is important to investigate the evidence of effects of lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment on reproductive outcomes. The combined results of 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of the effectiveness of preconception lifestyle intervention on reproductive outcomes documented in the latest systemic review and meta-analysis, together with the most recent RCT performed in 2022 are discussed. The current evidence suggests that greater weight loss and increase in clinical pregnancy, live birth, and natural conception rates after lifestyle intervention compared with no intervention were observed, but it seems no beneficial effect of lifestyle intervention preceding ART was observed on these parameters. With respect to potential harm of lifestyle intervention, there is no significant increased risk of early pregnancy loss, although the most recent RCT (not included in the systematic review and meta-analysis) showed a trend toward an increased risk. Complications during pregnancy, such as early pregnancy loss and maternal as well as fetal and neonatal complications, are underreported in most studies and need further analysis in an individual participant data meta-analysis. Limitations of the studies as well as future perspectives and challenges in this field of research will be highlighted.

Core outcome set for early intervention trials to prevent obesity in childhood (COS-EPOCH): Agreement on "what" to measure

Background

Heterogeneity in the outcomes collected and reported in trials of interventions to prevent obesity in the first five years of life highlights the need for a core outcome set to streamline intervention evaluation and synthesis of effects. This study aimed to develop a core outcome set for use in early childhood obesity prevention intervention studies in children from birth to five years of age (COS-EPOCH).

Methods

The development of the core outcome set followed published guidelines and consisted of three stages: (1) systematic scoping review of outcomes collected and reported in early childhood obesity prevention trials; (2) e-Delphi study with stakeholders to prioritise outcomes; (3) meeting with stakeholders to reach consensus on outcomes. Stakeholders included parents/caregivers of children aged ≤ five years, policy-makers/funders, researchers, health professionals, and community and organisational stakeholders interested in obesity prevention interventions.

Results

Twenty-two outcomes from nine outcome domains (anthropometry, dietary intake, sedentary behaviour, physical activity, sleep, outcomes in parents/caregivers, environmental, emotional/cognitive functioning, economics) were included in the core outcome set: infant tummy time; child diet quality, dietary intake, fruit and vegetable intake, non-core food intake, non-core beverage intake, meal patterns, weight-based anthropometry, screentime, time spent sedentary, physical activity, sleep duration, wellbeing; parent/caregiver physical activity, sleep and nutrition parenting practices; food environment, sedentary behaviour or physical activity home environment, family meal environment, early childhood education and care environment, household food security; economic evaluation.

Conclusions

The systematic stakeholder-informed study identified the minimum outcomes recommended for collection and reporting in early childhood obesity prevention trials. Future work will investigate the recommended instruments to measure each of these outcomes. The core outcome set will standardise guidance on the measurement and reporting of outcomes from early childhood obesity prevention interventions, to better facilitate evidence comparison and synthesis, and maximise the value of data collected across studies.

Individual participant data meta-analysis of trials comparing frozen versus fresh embryo transfer strategy (INFORM): a protocol

INTRODUCTION

Existing randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a freeze-all embryo transfer strategy and a fresh embryo transfer strategy have shown conflicting results. A freeze-all or a fresh transfer policy may be preferable for some couples undergoing in-vitro fertilisation (IVF), but it is unclear which couples would benefit most from each policy, how and under which protocols. Therefore, we plan a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis of RCTs comparing a freeze-all and a fresh transfer policy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and CENTRAL) and trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform) from their inception to present to identify eligible RCTs. We will also check reference lists of relevant papers. The search was performed on 23 September 2020 and will be updated. We will include RCTs comparing a freeze-all embryo transfer strategy and a fresh embryo transfer strategy in couples undergoing IVF. The primary outcome will be live birth resulting from the first embryo transfer. All outcomes listed in the core outcome set for infertility research will be reported. We will invite the lead investigators of eligible trials to join the Individual participant data meta-analysis of trials comparing frozen versus fresh embryo transfer strategy (INFORM) collaboration and share the deidentified individual participant data (IPD) of their trials. We will harmonise the IPD and perform a two-stage meta-analysis and examine treatment-covariate interactions for important baseline characteristics.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study ethics have been granted by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (Project ID: 30391). The findings will be disseminated via presentations at international conferences and publication in peer-reviewed journals.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021296566.

Antioxidants for male subfertility

BACKGROUND

The inability to have children affects 10% to 15% of couples worldwide. A male factor is estimated to account for up to half of the infertility cases with between 25% to 87% of male subfertility considered to be due to the effect of oxidative stress. Oral supplementation with antioxidants is thought to improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative damage. Antioxidants are widely available and inexpensive when compared to other fertility treatments, however most antioxidants are uncontrolled by regulation and the evidence for their effectiveness is uncertain. We compared the benefits and risks of different antioxidants used for male subfertility.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of supplementary oral antioxidants in subfertile men.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, and two trial registers were searched on 15 February 2021, together with reference checking and contact with experts in the field to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment, or treatment with another antioxidant, among subfertile men of a couple attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded studies comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and studies that included men with idiopathic infertility and normal semen parameters or fertile men attending a fertility clinic because of female partner infertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth. Clinical pregnancy, adverse events and sperm parameters were secondary outcomes.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 90 studies with a total population of 10,303 subfertile men, aged between 18 and 65 years, part of a couple who had been referred to a fertility clinic and some of whom were undergoing medically assisted reproduction (MAR). Investigators compared and combined 20 different oral antioxidants. The evidence was of 'low' to 'very low' certainty: the main limitation was that out of the 67 included studies in the meta-analysis only 20 studies reported clinical pregnancy, and of those 12 reported on live birth. The evidence is current up to February 2021. Live birth: antioxidants may lead to increased live birth rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07 to 1.91, P = 0.02, 12 RCTs, 1283 men, I2 = 44%, very low-certainty evidence). Results in the studies contributing to the analysis of live birth rate suggest that if the baseline chance of live birth following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 16%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 17% and 27%. However, this result was based on only 246 live births from 1283 couples in 12 small or medium-sized studies. When studies at high risk of bias were removed from the analysis, there was no evidence of increased live birth (Peto OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.75, 827 men, 8 RCTs, P = 0.27, I2 = 32%). Clinical pregnancy rate: antioxidants may lead to increased clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.45 to 2.47, P < 0.00001, 20 RCTs, 1706 men, I2 = 3%, low-certainty evidence) compared with placebo or no treatment. This suggests that, in the studies contributing to the analysis of clinical pregnancy, if the baseline chance of clinical pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 15%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 20% and 30%. This result was based on 327 clinical pregnancies from 1706 couples in 20 small studies. Adverse events Miscarriage: only six studies reported on this outcome and the event rate was very low. No evidence of a difference in miscarriage rate was found between the antioxidant and placebo or no treatment group (OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.83, P = 0.27, 6 RCTs, 664 men, I2 = 35%, very low-certainty evidence). The findings suggest that in a population of subfertile couples, with male factor infertility, with an expected miscarriage rate of 5%, the risk of miscarriage following the use of an antioxidant would be between 4% and 13%. Gastrointestinal: antioxidants may lead to an increase in mild gastrointestinal discomfort when compared with placebo or no treatment (OR 2.70, 95% CI 1.46 to 4.99, P = 0.002, 16 RCTs, 1355 men, I2 = 40%, low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of gastrointestinal discomfort following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 2%, the chance following the use of antioxidants is estimated to be between 2% and 7%. However, this result was based on a low event rate of 46 out of 1355 men in 16 small or medium-sized studies, and the certainty of the evidence was rated low and heterogeneity was high. We were unable to draw conclusions from the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison as insufficient studies compared the same interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In this review, there is very low-certainty evidence from 12 small or medium-sized randomised controlled trials suggesting that antioxidant supplementation in subfertile males may improve live birth rates for couples attending fertility clinics. Low-certainty evidence suggests that clinical pregnancy rates may increase. There is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, however antioxidants may give more mild gastrointestinal discomfort, based on very low-certainty evidence. Subfertile couples should be advised that overall, the current evidence is inconclusive based on serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods of randomisation, failure to report on the clinical outcomes live birth rate and clinical pregnancy, often unclear or even high attrition, and also imprecision due to often low event rates and small overall sample sizes. Further large well-designed randomised placebo-controlled trials studying infertile men and reporting on pregnancy and live births are still required to clarify the exact role of antioxidants.

Effect of endometrial scratching on unassisted conception for unexplained infertility: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether endometrial scratching increases the chance of live birth in women with unexplained infertility attempting to conceive without assisted reproductive technology.

DESIGN

Randomized, placebo-controlled, participant-blind, multicenter international trial.

SETTING

Fertility clinics.

PATIENT(S)

Women with a diagnosis of unexplained infertility trying to conceive without assistance.

INTERVENTION(S)

Participants were randomly assigned to receive an endometrial biopsy or a placebo procedure (placement of a biopsy catheter in the posterior fornix, without inserting it into the external cervical os). Both groups performed regular unprotected intercourse with the intention of conceiving over three consecutive study cycles.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The primary outcome was live birth.

RESULT(S)

A total of 220 women underwent randomization. The live birth rate was 9% (10 of 113 women) in the endometrial-scratch group and 7% (7 of 107 women) in the control group (adjusted OR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.50-4.03). There were no differences between the groups in the secondary outcomes of clinical pregnancy, viable pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, and miscarriage. Endometrial scratching was associated with a higher pain score on a 10-point scale (adjusted mean difference, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.53-3.60).

CONCLUSION(S)

This trial did not find evidence that endometrial scratching improves the live birth rate in women with unexplained infertility trying to conceive without assistance.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12614000656639.

Protocol for the development of a core outcome set for stillbirth care research (iCHOOSE Study)

INTRODUCTION

Stillbirth is associated with significant physical, psychosocial and economic consequences for parents, families, wider society and the healthcare system. There is emerging momentum to design and evaluate interventions for care after stillbirth and in subsequent pregnancies. However, there is insufficient evidence to inform clinical practice compounded by inconsistent outcome reporting in research studies. To address this paucity of evidence, we plan to develop a core outcome set for stillbirth care research, through an international consensus process with key stakeholders including parents, healthcare professionals and researchers.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The development of this core outcome set will be divided into five distinct phases: (1) Identifying potential outcomes from a mixed-methods systematic review and analysis of interviews with parents who have experienced stillbirth; (2) Creating a comprehensive outcome long-list and piloting of a Delphi questionnaire using think-aloud interviews; (3) Choosing the most important outcomes by conducting an international two-round Delphi survey including high-income, middle-income and low-income countries; (4) Deciding the core outcome set by consensus meetings with key stakeholders and (5) Dissemination and promotion of the core outcome set. A parent and public involvement panel and international steering committee has been convened to coproduce every stage of the development of this core outcome set.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval for the qualitative interviews has been approved by Berkshire Ethics Committee REC Reference 12/SC/0495. Ethical approval for the think-aloud interviews, Delphi survey and consensus meetings has been awarded from the University of Bristol Faculty of Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee (Reference number: 116535). The dissemination strategy is being developed with the parent and public involvement panel and steering committee. Results will be published in peer-reviewed specialty journals, shared at national and international conferences and promoted through parent organisations and charities.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42018087748.

A randomized trial of endometrial scratching in women with PCOS undergoing ovulation induction cycles

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does endometrial scratching improve the chance of a live birth in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) undergoing ovulation induction and trying to conceive?

DESIGN

An international, multicentre, randomized, sham-controlled trial across six fertility clinics in three countries (New Zealand, UK and Brazil). Women with a diagnosis of PCOS who were planning to commence ovulation induction cycles (at least three cycles) in order to conceive were randomly assigned to receive the pipelle (scratch) procedure or a sham (placebo) procedure in the first cycle of ovulation induction. Women kept a diary of ovulation induction and sexual intercourse timing over three consecutive cycles and pregnancies were followed up to live birth. Primary outcome was live birth and secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, adverse pregnancy outcomes, neonatal outcomes, bleeding following procedure and pain score following procedure.

RESULTS

A total of 117 women were randomized; 58 to the scratch group and 59 to the sham group. Live birth occurred in 11 (19%) women in the scratch group and 14 (24%) in the sham group (odds ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30-1.92). Secondary outcomes were similar in each group. Significantly higher pain scores were reported in the scratch group (adjusted mean difference 3.2, 95% CI 2.5-3.9) when measured on a visual analogue scale.

CONCLUSION

No difference was detected in live birth rate for women with PCOS who received an endometrial scratch when trying to conceive using ovulation induction; however, uncertainty remains due to the small sample size in this study.

Synthesizing Core Outcome Sets for outcomes research in cohort studies: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Life course studies are designed to "collect once, use multiple times" for observational and, increasingly, interventional research. Core Outcome Sets (COS) are minimum sets developed for clinical trials by multi-stakeholder consensus methodologies. We aimed to synthesize published COS that might guide outcomes selection for early life cohorts with an interventional focus.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, Medline, COMET, and CROWN for COS published before January 2021 relevant to four life stages (pregnancy, newborns, children <8 years, and parents (adults aged 18-50 years)). We synthesized core outcomes into overarching constructs.

RESULTS

From 46 COS we synthesized 414 core outcomes into 118 constructs. "Quality of life", "adverse events", "medication use", "hospitalization", and "mortality" were consistent across all stages. For pregnancy, common constructs included "preterm birth", "delivery mode", "pre-eclampsia", "gestational weight gain", "gestational diabetes", and "hemorrhage"; for newborns, "birthweight", "small for gestational age", "neurological damage", and "morbidity" and "infection/sepsis"; for pediatrics, "pain", "gastrointestinal morbidity", "growth/weight", "breastfeeding", "feeding problems", "hearing", "neurodevelopmental morbidity", and "social development"; and for adults, "disease burden", "mental health", "neurological function/stroke", and "cardiovascular health/morbidity".

CONCLUSION

This COS synthesis generated outcome constructs that are of high value to stakeholders (participants, health providers, services), relevant to life course research, and could position cohorts for trial capabilities.

IMPACT

We synthesized existing Core Outcome Sets as a transparent methodology that could prioritize outcomes for lifecourse cohorts with an interventional focus. "Quality of life", "adverse events", "medication use", "hospitalization", and "mortality" are important outcomes across pregnancy, newborns, childhood, and early-to-mid-adulthood (the age range relevant to parents). Other common outcomes (such as "birthweight", "cognitive function/ability", "psychological health") are also highly relevant to lifecourse research. This synthesis could assist new early life cohorts to pre-select outcomes that are of high value to stakeholders (participants, health providers, services), are relevant to lifecourse research, and could position them for future trials and interventional capability.

Prospective multicenter non-interventional real-world study to assess the patterns of use, effectiveness and safety of follitropin delta in routine clinical practice (the PROFILE study)

OBJECTIVE

To observe the real-world utilization patterns, effectiveness and safety profile of follitropin delta in women ≥18 years naïve to ovarian stimulation undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

DESIGN

Prospective, multinational, multicenter, observational study. All IVF/ICSI treatment protocols were conducted according to routine clinical practice, including undertaking fresh/frozen transfers. Outcomes included use of dosing algorithm, follitropin delta dosing patterns, ovarian response, pregnancy rates and adverse drug reactions (ADRs).

RESULTS

The first ovarian stimulation cycle using follitropin delta was initiated in 944 women. Mean baseline demographics were: age, 33.5 ± 4.7 years; bodyweight, 67.1 ± 13.6 kg; anti-Müllerian hormone, 20.3 ± 16.1 pmol/L (2.84 ± 2.25 ng/mL). The dosing algorithm was used to calculate the follitropin delta daily starting dose in 893/944 women (94.5%). The mean difference between the calculated and prescribed daily dose was small (0.2 ± 1.40 µg). The mean daily starting follitropin delta dose was 10.4 ± 2.72 µg and the mean total dose administered was 104 µg. Follitropin delta dose adjustments were reported for 57/944 (6.0%) women. The mean number of retrieved oocytes was 10.1 ± 7.03. Ongoing pregnancy at 10-11 weeks was reported for 255 women (27.0% per initiated cycle and 43.1% per fresh transfer [n=592]). Cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate after fresh and/or frozen transfer was 36.4% (344/944). Four women discontinued follitropin delta due to ADRs. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) was the most frequently reported ADR (n=37 [3.9%]); most cases of OHSS were of mild or moderate intensity (n=30 [3.2%]).

CONCLUSIONS

This large real-world study of follitropin delta utilization patterns confirms its good pregnancy rates while minimizing OHSS risk during first ovarian stimulation cycle.

OUP accepted manuscript

STUDY QUESTION

What is the methodological validity and usefulness of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on pain relief during oocyte retrieval for IVF and ICSI?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Key methodological characteristics such as randomization, allocation concealment, primary outcome measure and sample size calculation were inadequately reported in 33–43% of the included RCTs, and a broad heterogeneity is revealed in the studied outcome measures.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

A Cochrane review on conscious sedation and analgesia for women undergoing oocyte retrieval concluded that the overall quality of evidence was low or very low, mainly owing to poor reporting. This, and heterogeneity of studied outcome measures, limits generalizability and eligibility of results for meta-analysis.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

For this review, a systematic search for RCTs on pain relief during oocyte retrieval was performed on 20 July 2020 in CENTRAL CRSO, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO ICTRP, Web of Science, Portal Regional da BVS and Open Grey.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

RCTs with pain or patient satisfaction as an outcome were included and analysed on a set of methodological and clinical characteristics, to determine their validity and usefulness.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Screening of 2531 articles led to an inclusion of 51 RCTs. Randomization was described inadequately in 33% of the RCTs. A low-risk method of allocation concealment was reported in 55% of the RCTs. Forty-nine percent of the RCTs reported blinding of participants, 33% of blinding personnel and 43% of blinding the outcome assessor. In 63% of the RCTs, the primary outcome was stated, but a sample size calculation was described in only 57%. Data were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle in 73%. Treatment groups were not treated identically other than the intervention of interest in 10% of the RCTs. The primary outcome was intraoperative pain in 28%, and postoperative pain in 2%. The visual analogue scale (VAS) was the most used pain scale, in 69% of the RCTs in which pain was measured. Overall, nine other scales were used. Patient satisfaction was measured in 49% of the RCTs, for which 12 different methods were used. Occurrence of side-effects and complications were assessed in 77% and 49% of the RCTs: a definition for these was lacking in 13% and 20% of the RCTs, respectively. Pregnancy rate was reported in 55% of the RCTs and, of these, 75% did not adequately define pregnancy. To improve the quality of future research, we provide recommendations for the design of future trials. These include use of the VAS for pain measurement, use of validated questionnaires for measurement of patient satisfaction and the minimal clinically relevant difference to use for sample size calculations.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Consensus has not been reached on some methodological characteristics, for which we formulated recommendations. To prevent further heterogeneity in research on this topic, recommendations were formulated based on expert opinion, or on the most used method thus far. Future research may provide evidence to base new recommendations on.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Use of the recommendations given for design of trials on this topic can increase the generalizability of future research, increasing eligibility for meta-analyses and preventing wastefulness.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No specific funding was obtained for this study. S.B. reports being the editor-in-chief of Human Reproduction Open. For this manuscript, he was not involved with the handling process within Human Reproduction Open, or with the final decision. Furthermore, S.B. reports personal fees from Remuneration from Oxford University Press as editor-in-chief of Human Reproduction Open, personal fees from Editor and contributing author, Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG, Cambridge University Press. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest in relation to the work presented.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Not applicable.

Single oral dose of vitamin D3 supplementation prior to in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer in normal weight women: the SUNDRO randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Improving in vitro fertilization success is an unmet need. Observational studies have suggested that women with deficient or insufficient vitamin D have lower chances of in vitro fertilization success, but whether supplementation improves clinical pregnancy rate remains unclear.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to determine whether oral vitamin D₃ supplementation improves clinical pregnancy in women undergoing an in vitro fertilization cycle.

STUDY DESIGN

The "supplementation of vitamin D and reproductive outcome" trial is a 2-center randomized superiority double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Subjects were recruited between October 2016 and January 2019. Participants were women aged 18 to 39 years with low vitamin D (peripheral 25-hydroxyvitamin D of <30 ng/mL), serum calcium of ≥10.6 mg/dL, body mass index of 18 to 25 kg/m², and antimüllerian hormone levels of >0.5 ng/mL and starting their first, second, or third treatment cycle of conventional in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The primary outcome was the cumulative clinical pregnancy rate per cycle. Pregnancies obtained with both fresh or frozen embryo transfers were included. Clinical pregnancy was defined as an intrauterine gestational sac with a viable fetus. The primary analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle and could also include natural conceptions. Secondary outcomes included total dose of gonadotropins used, embryologic variables (number of oocytes retrieved, number of suitable oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate, and rate of top-quality embryos), and clinical outcomes (miscarriage rate and live birth rate).

RESULTS

Overall, 630 women were randomized 2 to 12 weeks before the initiation of the in vitro fertilization cycle to receive either a single dose of 600,000 IU of vitamin D₃ (n=308) or placebo (n=322). Interestingly, 113 (37%) and 130 (40%) women achieved a clinical pregnancy in the treatment and placebo groups, respectively (P=.37). The risk ratio of clinical pregnancy in women receiving vitamin D₃ was 0.91 (95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.11). Compared with the placebo, vitamin D₃ supplementation did not improve the rate of clinical pregnancy. Exploratory subgroup analyses for body mass index, age, indication to in vitro fertilization, ovarian reserve, interval between drug administration and initiation of the cycle, and basal levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D failed to highlight any clinical situation that could benefit from the supplementation.

CONCLUSION

In women with normal weight with preserved ovarian reserve and low vitamin D levels undergoing in vitro fertilization cycles, a single oral dose of 600,000 IU of vitamin D₃ did not improve the rate of clinical pregnancy. Although the findings do not support the use of vitamin D₃ supplementation to improve in vitro fertilization success rates, further studies are required to rule out milder but potentially interesting benefits and explore the effectiveness of alternative modalities of supplementation.

Standardizing abortion research outcomes (STAR): Results from an international consensus development study

Objective

To develop a minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, for future abortion randomized controlled trials.

Study design

We extracted outcomes from quantitative and qualitative systematic reviews of abortion studies to assess using a modified Delphi method. Via email, we invited researchers, clinicians, patients, and healthcare organization representatives with expertise in abortion to rate the importance of the outcomes on a 9-point Likert scale. After 2 rounds, we used descriptive analyses to determine which outcomes met the predefined consensus criteria. We finalized the core outcome set during a series of consensus development meetings.

Results

We entered 42 outcomes, organized in 15 domains, into the Delphi survey. Two-hundred eighteen of 251 invitees (87%) provided responses (203 complete responses) for round 1 and 118 of 218 (42%) completed round2. Sixteen experts participated in the development meetings. The final outcome set includes 15 outcomes: 10 outcomes apply to all abortion trials (successful abortion, ongoing pregnancy, death, hemorrhage, uterine infection, hospitalization, surgical intervention, pain, gastrointestinal symptoms, and patients’ experience of abortion); 2 outcomes apply to only surgical abortion trials (uterine perforation and cervical injury), one applies only to medical abortion trials (uterine rupture); and 2 apply to trials evaluating abortions with anesthesia (over-sedation/respiratory depression and local anesthetic systemic toxicity).

Conclusion

Using robust consensus science methods we have developed a core outcome set for future abortion research.

Implications

Standardized outcomes in abortion research could decrease heterogeneity among trials and improve the quality of systematic reviews and clinical guidelines. Researchers should select, collect, and report these core outcomes in future abortion trials. Journal editors should advocate for core outcome set reporting.

Effect of Local Anesthetics on Postoperative Pain in Patients Undergoing Gynecologic Laparoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Trials

OBJECTIVE

Pain remains a common complication after gynecologic laparoscopy. Use of local anesthesia may be beneficial in reducing postoperative pain. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess whether local anesthetic decreases postoperative pain after laparoscopic gynecologic procedures.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Embase, and Medline from inception to November 2020 using Medical Subject Headings and free text combinations.

METHODS OF TRIAL SELECTION

We included randomized controlled trials of patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy receiving port site subcutaneous, subfascial, or intraperitoneal local anesthetic compared with placebo or no intervention. We included 20 trials (1861 participants) with size varying between 28 and 164 participants.

TABULATIONS, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS

Meta-analysis was performed with RevMan 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration, London, United Kingdom), with standard mean differences (SMDs) and random-effects model. Port site infiltration reduces postoperative pain at 4 hours (SMD -0.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.44 to -0.06; 4 trials; 545 participants) and 6 hours (SMD -0.44; 95% CI, -0.82 to -0.06; 4 trials; 455 participants) after surgery. The administration of intraperitoneal local anesthetics reduces pain at 6 hours (-1.42; 95% CI, -3.22 to -0.30; 4 trials; 277 participants) after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of port site and intraperitoneal local anesthetic decreases immediate postoperative pain in patients undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy, although its impact on analgesia requirements is unclear. Routine usage of local anesthetics should be considered for people undergoing gynecologic laparoscopy.

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study† ‡

STUDY QUESTION

Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements and a standardized reporting table have been developed.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and a financial interest in NexHand. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

Preconception lifestyle advice for people with infertility

BACKGROUND

Infertility is a prevalent problem that has significant consequences for individuals, families, and the community. Modifiable lifestyle factors may affect the chance of people with infertility having a baby. However, no guideline is available about what preconception advice should be offered. It is important to determine what preconception advice should be given to people with infertility and to evaluate whether this advice helps them make positive behavioural changes to improve their lifestyle and their chances of conceiving.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the safety and effectiveness of preconception lifestyle advice on fertility outcomes and lifestyle behavioural changes for people with infertility.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL, trial registers, Google Scholar, and Epistemonikos in January 2021; we checked references and contacted field experts to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), randomised cross-over studies, and cluster-randomised studies that compared at least one form of preconception lifestyle advice with routine care or attention control for people with infertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary effectiveness outcomes were live birth and ongoing pregnancy. Primary safety outcomes were adverse events and miscarriage. Secondary outcomes included reported behavioural changes in lifestyle, birth weight, gestational age, clinical pregnancy, time to pregnancy, quality of life, and male factor infertility outcomes. We assessed the overall quality of evidence using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in the review seven RCTs involving 2130 participants. Only one RCT included male partners. Three studies compared preconception lifestyle advice on a combination of topics with routine care or attention control. Four studies compared preconception lifestyle advice on one topic (weight, alcohol intake, or smoking) with routine care for women with infertility and specific lifestyle characteristics. The evidence was of low to very low-quality. The main limitations of the included studies were serious risk of bias due to lack of blinding, serious imprecision, and poor reporting of outcome measures. Preconception lifestyle advice on a combination of topics versus routine care or attention control Preconception lifestyle advice on a combination of topics may result in little to no difference in the number of live births (risk ratio (RR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.10; 1 RCT, 626 participants), but the quality of evidence was low. No studies reported on adverse events or miscarriage. Due to very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain whether preconception lifestyle advice on a combination of topics affects lifestyle behavioural changes: body mass index (BMI) (mean difference (MD) -1.06 kg/m², 95% CI -2.33 to 0.21; 1 RCT, 180 participants), vegetable intake (MD 12.50 grams/d, 95% CI -8.43 to 33.43; 1 RCT, 264 participants), alcohol abstinence in men (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.58; 1 RCT, 210 participants), or smoking cessation in men (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.12; 1 RCT, 212 participants). Preconception lifestyle advice on a combination of topics may result in little to no difference in the number of women with adequate folic acid supplement use (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.01; 2 RCTs, 850 participants; I² = 4%), alcohol abstinence (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.17; 1 RCT, 607 participants), and smoking cessation (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.04; 1 RCT, 606 participants), on low quality evidence. No studies reported on other behavioural changes. Preconception lifestyle advice on weight versus routine care Studies on preconception lifestyle advice on weight were identified only in women with infertility and obesity. Compared to routine care, we are uncertain whether preconception lifestyle advice on weight affects the number of live births (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.43; 2 RCTs, 707 participants; I² = 68%; very low-quality evidence), adverse events including gestational diabetes (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.26; 1 RCT, 317 participants; very low-quality evidence), hypertension (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.75; 1 RCT, 317 participants; very low-quality evidence), or miscarriage (RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.37; 1 RCT, 577 participants; very low-quality evidence). Regarding lifestyle behavioural changes for women with infertility and obesity, preconception lifestyle advice on weight may slightly reduce BMI (MD -1.30 kg/m², 95% CI -1.58 to -1.02; 1 RCT, 574 participants; low-quality evidence). Due to very low-quality evidence, we are uncertain whether preconception lifestyle advice affects the percentage of weight loss, vegetable and fruit intake, alcohol abstinence, or physical activity. No studies reported on other behavioural changes. Preconception lifestyle advice on alcohol intake versus routine care Studies on preconception lifestyle advice on alcohol intake were identified only in at-risk drinking women with infertility. We are uncertain whether preconception lifestyle advice on alcohol intake affects the number of live births (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.50; 1 RCT, 37 participants; very low-quality evidence) or miscarriages (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.21 to 8.34; 1 RCT, 37 participants; very low-quality evidence). One study reported on behavioural changes for alcohol consumption but not as defined in the review methods. No studies reported on adverse events or other behavioural changes. Preconception lifestyle advice on smoking versus routine care Studies on preconception lifestyle advice on smoking were identified only in smoking women with infertility. No studies reported on live birth, ongoing pregnancy, adverse events, or miscarriage. One study reported on behavioural changes for smoking but not as defined in the review methods.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Low-quality evidence suggests that preconception lifestyle advice on a combination of topics may result in little to no difference in the number of live births. Evidence was insufficient to allow conclusions on the effects of preconception lifestyle advice on adverse events and miscarriage and on safety, as no studies were found that looked at these outcomes, or the studies were of very low quality. This review does not provide clear guidance for clinical practice in this area. However, it does highlight the need for high-quality RCTs to investigate preconception lifestyle advice on a combination of topics and to assess relevant effectiveness and safety outcomes in men and women with infertility.

Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study† ‡

STUDY QUESTION

Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties was entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI and IVF) and ethics, access and organization of care were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research and population science.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgment and arbitrary consensus definitions.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. G.D.A. reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. A.W.H. reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist's Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma and Roche Diagnostics. M.L.H. reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. N.P.J. reports research sponsorship from AbbVie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics and Vifor Pharma. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring and retains a financial interest in NexHand. J.S. reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.