Progesterone in Pregnancy: Evidence-Based Strategies to Reduce Miscarriage and Enhance Assisted Reproductive Technology

The incidence of miscarriage in early pregnancy, between 5-20 weeks, is common, with a prevalence of between 5-22% of all pregnancies. Miscarriage can have physical, social, and mental health impacts on women and their families. In societies such as Taiwan, where the birth rate is falling and life expectancy is increasing, there is concern that factors that reduce birth rates will have detrimental economic and societal effects. Progesterone has a significant role in maintaining early and successful pregnancy to term. Evidence from preclinical and clinical research on the roles of progesterone has supported recent clinical guidelines in obstetrics and gynecology to reduce rates of early miscarriage and improve methods of assisted reproductive technology (ART). This article aims to present an evidence-based review of current recommendations for the use of progesterone in early pregnancy to reduce miscarriage rates and in luteal phase support for ART, including embryo transfer.

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.

Donor-centred care: the facilitating and constraining factors experienced by gamete donors in a public bank

The provision of care that is responsive to the preferences, needs and values of gamete donors is key to improving their recruitment and ensuring the functioning of gamete banks. This qualitative study aimed to explore gamete donors' experiences about the facilitating and constraining human and system factors to donor-centred healthcare delivery in gamete banks. It is based on 20 semi-structured interviews with oocyte and sperm donors, recruited at the Portuguese Public Bank of Gametes, conducted from November 2017 to February 2019. Deductive content analysis was performed using the software NVivo12, following the patient-centred infertility care model. Interviewees identified facilitating factors mostly related with the human dimension of care (i.e. careful and available attitude and behaviours of health professionals, as well as their good communication skills and emotional support). Constraining factors were predominantly identified at the system level (i.e. insufficient information provision, poor coordination, and integration). Lack of privacy emerged simultaneously as a human and a system constraining factor (i.e. physical discomfort during medical-technical acts or gamete collection). There is room for improving clinical practice and the organisation of healthcare services within a context where the competence and attitude of, and relationship with, the staff are highly valued.

Canadian Support for IVF Access and Use

OBJECTIVE

Apply Weiner's attribution-affect-action (AAA) model to the context of societal support for access to assisted reproductive technology (ART).

METHODS

Five hundred and fifty-four Canadians were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 vignette conditions describing reproductively challenged women differentiated by the root cause of their need for ART. Following this, participants completed an online questionnaire measuring the components of the AAA model.

RESULTS

The overall expected relationships among the AAA framework variables were found. Participants were least willing to support access to ART for women perceived as relatively more responsible for their fertility issues and who elicited lower levels of sympathy, whereas participants were most willing to support access for women viewed as less responsible and who elicited more sympathy. Additionally, participants were most supportive of general access to ART and least supportive when asked to offer personal funds to assist the women with access.

CONCLUSION

These findings have potential implications for Canadian health care policy decisions on funding fertility treatments through the universal health care system. Further research on this issue, as well as the development and testing of interventions aimed at addressing beliefs around equitable and inclusive access to ART, are warranted.

Safety and Assisted Reproductive Technology Outcomes of Hysteroscopic Tubal Microinserts Versus Laparoscopic Proximal Tubal Occlusion or Salpingectomy for Hydrosalpinges Treatment

OBJECTIVE

This study sought to answer the following question: What are the complications and assisted reproductive technology outcomes among women with hydrosalpinges managed by hysteroscopic microinsert tubal occlusion compared with women with hydrosalpinges managed by laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion or salpingectomy?

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted from January 2009 to December 2014 at two academic, tertiary care, in vitro fertilization centres in Toronto, Ontario. All patients (n = 52) who underwent hysteroscopic tubal occlusion for hydrosalpinges were identified. Patients who proceeded with embryo transfer cycles after hysteroscopic microinsert (n = 33) were further age matched to a cohort of patients who underwent embryo transfer after laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion or salpingectomy (n = 33). Main outcome measures were clinical pregnancy rate per patient and per embryo transfer cycle.

RESULTS

Among 33 patients, there were 39 fresh and 37 frozen embryo transfer cycles in the hysteroscopic group (group A); among 33 patients in the laparoscopic group (group B), there were 42 fresh and 29 frozen embryo transfer cycles. The cumulative clinical pregnancy rate in group A and group B was similar (66.7% vs. 69.7%, respectively; P = 0.8). The clinical pregnancy rate per embryo transfer cycle was also similar in both groups (28.9% in group A vs. 32.4% in group B; P = 0.6). There were two incidents of ectopic pregnancy in the laparoscopic group and no ectopic pregnancy in the hysteroscopic group. There were three major complications: tubo-ovarian abscess, distal migration of the coil after microinsert placement, and an acute abdomen following the hysteroscopic procedure.

CONCLUSION

Pregnancy outcomes after hysteroscopic placement of a microinsert for hydrosalpinx management before embryo transfer were comparable to those following laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion or salpingectomy. However, caution is advised regarding microinsert placement for hydrosalpinges before proceeding with assisted reproductive technology.

Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction

BACKGROUND

Embryo incubation and assessment is a vital step in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Traditionally, embryo assessment has been achieved by removing embryos from a conventional incubator daily for quality assessment by an embryologist, under a light microscope. Over recent years time-lapse systems have been developed which can take digital images of embryos at frequent time intervals. This allows embryologists, with or without the assistance of embryo selection software, to assess the quality of the embryos without physically removing them from the incubator.The potential advantages of a time-lapse system (TLS) include the ability to maintain a stable culture environment, therefore limiting the exposure of embryos to changes in gas composition, temperature and movement. A TLS has the potential advantage of improving embryo selection for ART treatment by utilising additional information gained through continuously monitoring embryo development. Use of a TLS often adds significant extra cost onto an in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycle.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effect of a TLS compared to conventional embryo incubation and assessment on clinical outcomes in couples undergoing ART.

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard methodology recommended by Cochrane. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers on 2 August 2017.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the following comparisons: comparing a TLS, with or without embryo selection software, versus conventional incubation with morphological assessment; and TLS with embryo selection software versus TLS without embryo selection software among couples undergoing ART.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live birth, miscarriage and stillbirth. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy and cumulative clinical pregnancy. We reported quality of the evidence for important outcomes using GRADE methodology. We made the following comparisons.TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessmentTLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessment MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs (N = 2303 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were imprecision and risk of bias associated with lack of blinding of participants and researchers, and indirectness secondary to significant heterogeneity between interventions in some studies. There were no data on cumulative clinical pregnancy.TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessmentThere is no evidence of a difference between the interventions in terms of live birth rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.13, 2 RCTs, N = 440, I² = 11% , moderate-quality evidence) and may also be no evidence of difference in miscarriage rates (OR 2.25, 95% CI 0.84 to 6.02, 2 RCTs, N = 440, I² = 44%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the live birth rate associated with conventional incubation and assessment is 33%, the rate with use of TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images is between 19% and 36%; and that if the miscarriage rate with conventional incubation is 3%, the rate associated with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images would be between 3% and 18%. There is no evidence of a difference between the interventions in the stillbirth rate (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.49, 1 RCT, N = 76, low-quality evidence). There is no evidence of a difference between the interventions in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.33, 3 RCTs, N = 489, I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence).TLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS imagesNo data were available on live birth or stillbirth. We are uncertain whether TLS utilising embryo selection software influences miscarriage rates (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.01, 2 RCTs, N = 463, I² = 0%, very low-quality evidence) and there may be no difference in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42, 2 RCTs, N = 463, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the miscarriage rate associated with assessment of still TLS images is 5%, the rate with embryo selection software would be between 3% and 14%.TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessmentThere is no evidence of a difference between TLS utilising embryo selection software and conventional incubation improving live birth rates (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.54, 2 RCTs, N = 1017, I² = 0%, very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether TLS influences miscarriage rates (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.08, 3 RCTs, N = 1351, I² = 0%, very low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the live birth rate associated with no TLS is 38%, the rate with use of conventional incubation would be between 36% and 58%, and that if miscarriage rate with conventional incubation is 9%, the rate associated with TLS would be between 4% and 10%. No data on stillbirths were available. It was uncertain whether the intervention influenced clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.45, 3 RCTs, N = 1351, I² = 42%, very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence of differences in live birth, miscarriage, stillbirth or clinical pregnancy to choose between TLS, with or without embryo selection software, and conventional incubation. The studies were at high risk of bias for randomisation and allocation concealment, the result should be interpreted with extreme caution.

Dopamine agonists for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome

BACKGROUND

Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is a potentially serious complication of ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction technology (ART). It is characterised by enlarged ovaries and an acute fluid shift from the intravascular space to the third space, resulting in bloating, increased risk of venous thromboembolism and decreased organ perfusion. Most cases are mild, but forms of moderate or severe OHSS appear in 3% to 8% of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles. The dopamine agonist cabergoline was introduced as a secondary prevention intervention for OHSS in women at high risk of OHSS undergoing ART treatment. As cabergoline seemed to be effective in preventing OHSS, other types of dopamine agonists, such as quinagolide and bromocriptine, have since been studied in ART to prevent OHSS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of dopamine agonists in preventing OHSS in high-risk women undergoing ART treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched several databases from inception to August 2016 (Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register of trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Clinicaltrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP)) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effect of dopamine agonist in preventing OHSS. We handsearched the reference lists of relevant studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered RCTs which compared dopamine agonists with placebo/no intervention or another intervention for preventing OHSS in high-risk women for inclusion. Primary outcome measures were incidence of moderate or severe OHSS and live birth rate. Secondary endpoints were clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate and any other adverse effects of the treatment.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened titles, abstracts and full texts of publications, selected studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved any disagreements by consensus. We reported pooled results as odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) by the Mantel-Haenszel method. In addition, we graded the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified 14 new RCTs since the last published version of this review, resulting in 16 included RCTs involving 2091 high-risk women for this updated review. They evaluated three types of dopamine agonists: cabergoline, quinagolide and bromocriptine.When compared with placebo or no intervention, dopamine agonists seemed effective in the prevention of moderate or severe OHSS (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.39; 1022 participants; 8 studies; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence). This suggests that if 29% of women undergoing ART experience moderate or severe OHSS, the use of dopamine agonists will lower this to 7% to 14% of women. There was no evidence of a difference in live birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate or miscarriage rate (very low to moderate quality evidence). However, taking dopamine agonists (especially quinagolide) may increase the incidence of adverse events such as gastrointestinal adverse effects (OR 4.54, 95% CI 1.49 to 13.84; 264 participants; 2 studies; I² = 49%, very low quality evidence).When we compared dopamine agonist plus co-intervention with co-intervention, there was no evidence of a difference in the outcomes of moderate or severe OHSS, live birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate or adverse events. The co-interventions were hydroxyethyl starch (two RCTs) and albumin (one RCT).Cabergoline was associated with a lower risk of moderate or severe OHSS compared with human albumin (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.38; 296 participants; 3 studies; I² = 72%). However, there was no evidence of a difference between cabergoline and hydroxyethyl starch, coasting (withholding any more ovarian stimulation for a few days) or prednisolone. There was an increased clinical pregnancy rate in the cabergoline group when cabergoline was compared with coasting (OR 2.65, 95% CI 1.13 to 6.21; 120 participants; 2 studies; I² = 0%). In other respects, there was no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate or miscarriage rate between cabergoline and other active interventions.The quality of the evidence between dopamine agonist and placebo or no intervention ranged from very low to moderate, mainly due to poor reporting of study methods (mostly a lack of details on randomisation or blinding) and serious imprecision for some comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Dopamine agonists appear to reduce the incidence of moderate or severe OHSS in women at high risk of OHSS (moderate quality evidence). If a fresh embryo transfer is performed, the use of dopamine agonists does not affect the pregnancy outcome (live birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate and miscarriage rate) (very low to moderate quality evidence). However, dopamine agonists might increase the risk of adverse events, such as gastrointestinal symptoms. Further research should focus on dose-finding, comparisons with other effective treatments and consideration of combination treatments. Therefore, large, well-designed and well-executed RCTs that involve more clinical endpoints (e.g., live birth rate) are necessary to further evaluate the role of dopamine agonists in OHSS prevention.

Out-of-Pocket Costs for Men Undergoing Infertility Care and Associated Financial Strain

INTRODUCTION

We determined the out-of-pocket expenses, measures taken to finance these expenses and associated financial strain for men seeking fertility care.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort the patients completed questionnaires recording the total amount of money spent on infertility care and on what aspect of care the money was spent. Participants also recorded measures taken to finance these costs, the amount of financial strain experienced, and how this strain impacted decisions to seek and continue care. Multivariable logistic regression was performed to assess the relationships of fertility characteristics to financial costs and financial strain.

RESULTS

A total of 111 participants completed the full survey. During the course of care 16% of patients spent more than $50,000 dollars. 16% spent between $30,000 and $49,999, 32% spent between $15,000 and $29,999, and 37% spent less than $15,000. Procedures comprised the largest component of costs. Of the subjects 47% reported financial strain. On multivariate analysis patients who used savings and went into debt were significantly more likely to experience financial strain (p = 0.03 and <0.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This study elucidates the previously uncharacterized economic hardships of male infertility care. Overall 64% of men who pursued fertility treatment had out-of-pocket expenses exceeding $15,000 dollars. Almost half reported financial strain and limitation of treatment options due to these expenses. These data give men and their partners a realistic expectation of the cost of pursuing fertility treatment, the extreme measures that many patients take to finance care and the financial strain associated with such options.