Differences in pregnancy outcomes in donor egg frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles following preimplantation genetic screening (PGS): a single center retrospective study

PURPOSE: This study aims to test the hypothesis, in a single-center retrospective analysis, that live birth rates are significantly different when utilizing preimplantation genetic screening (PGS) compared to not utilizing PGS in frozen–thawed embryo transfers in our patients that use eggs from young, anonymous donors. The question therefore arises of whether PGS is an appropriate intervention for donor egg cycles. METHODS: Live birth rates per cycle and live birth rates per embryo transferred after 398 frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles were examined from patients who elected to have PGS compared to those who did not. Blastocysts derived from donor eggs underwent trophectoderm biopsy and were tested for aneuploidy using array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) or next-generation sequencing (NGS), then vitrified for future use (test) or were vitrified untested (control). Embryos were subsequently warmed and transferred into a recipient or gestational carrier uterus. Data was analyzed separately for single embryo transfer (SET), double embryo transfer (DET), and for own recipient uterus and gestational carrier (GC) uterus recipients. RESULTS: Rates of implantation of embryos leading to a live birth were significantly higher in the PGS groups transferring two embryos (DET) compared to the no PGS group (GC, 72 vs. 56 %; own uterus, 60 vs. 36 %). The live birth implantation rate in the own uterus group for SET was higher in the PGS group compared to the control (58 vs. 36 %), and this almost reached significance but the live birth implantation rate for the SET GC group remained the same for both tested and untested embryos. Live births per cycle were nominally higher in the PGS GC DET and own uterus SET and DET groups compared to the non-PGS embryo transfers. These differences almost reached significance. The live birth rate per cycle in the SET GC group was almost identical. CONCLUSIONS: Significant differences were noted only for DET; however, benefits need to be balanced against risks associated with multiple pregnancies. Results observed for SET need to be confirmed on larger series and with randomized cohorts

A multi-center prospective study of plant-based nutritional support in adult community-based patients at risk of disease-related malnutrition

IntroductionThere is an emerging need for plant-based, vegan options for patients requiring nutritional support.MethodsTwenty-four adults at risk of malnutrition (age: 59 years (SD 18); Sex: 18 female, 6 male; BMI: 19.0 kg/m2 (SD 3.3); multiple diagnoses) requiring plant-based nutritional support participated in a multi-center, prospective study of a (vegan suitable) multi-nutrient, ready-to-drink, oral nutritional supplement (ONS) [1.5 kcal/mL; 300 kcal, 12 g protein/200 mL bottle, mean prescription 275 mL/day (SD 115)] alongside dietary advice for 28 days. Compliance, anthropometry, malnutrition risk, dietary intake, appetite, acceptability, gastrointestinal (GI) tolerance, nutritional goal(s), and safety were assessed.ResultsPatients required a plant-based ONS due to personal preference/variety (33%), religious/cultural reasons (28%), veganism/reduce animal-derived consumption (17%), environmental/sustainability reasons (17%), and health reasons (5%). Compliance was 94% (SD 16). High risk of malnutrition (‘MUST’ score ≥ 2) reduced from 20 to 16 patients (p = 0.046). Body weight (+0.6 kg (SD 1.2), p = 0.02), BMI (+0.2 kg/m2 (SD 0.5), p = 0.03), total mean energy (+387 kcal/day (SD 416), p < 0.0001) and protein intake (+14 g/day (SD 39), p = 0.03), and the number of micronutrients meeting the UK reference nutrient intake (RNI) (7 vs. 14, p = 0.008) significantly increased. Appetite (Simplified Nutritional Appetite Questionnaire (SNAQ) score; p = 0.13) was maintained. Most GI symptoms were stable throughout the study (p > 0.06) with no serious adverse events related.DiscussionThis study highlights that plant-based nutrition support using a vegan-suitable plant-based ONS is highly complied with, improving the nutritional outcomes of patients at risk of malnutrition

A systematic review of gut symptoms and complications in cystic fibrosis: prevalence, mechanisms and treatments - Review Protocol

A rapid systematic review of gut symptoms and complications found in people with cystic fibrosis (CF). This review will focus on describing the incidence, prevalence and causes of these symptoms and complications. This page outlines the study protocol for the systematic review

Thinking outside the box: A review of gastrointestinal symptoms and complications in cystic fibrosis

IntroductionGastrointestinal (GI)-related symptoms, complications, and comorbidities in cystic fibrosis (CF) are common and research to reduce their burden is a priority for the CF community. To enable future research, this review aimed to summarize the range of GI symptoms, complications and comorbidities seen in CF, the underlying pathophysiology, and treatments.Areas coveredThis was a rapid systematic review undertaken using the recommendations from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. We searched databases including PubMed, Embase, Medline and the Cochrane database and identified those studies reporting GI-related symptoms, complications, or comorbidities in CF or their treatment. Our searches identified 2,930 studies and a total 119 studies met our inclusion criteria. Where a prevalence could be determined, GI symptoms were reported in 33.7% of study participants. The range of symptoms reported was broad and the highest median prevalence included flatulence (43.5%), bloating and abdominal distension (36%), and fatty stool (36%). Meconium ileus was reported in 12% and distal intestinal obstruction syndrome in 8.5%Expert opinionGI-related symptoms, complications, and comorbidities in CF are common. More consistent characterization and recording of these symptoms in clinical studies may help achieve the priority of reducing the burden of GI disease in CF