The Immunomodulatory Role of Syncytiotrophoblast Microvesicles

Immune adaptation is a critical component of successful pregnancy. Of primary importance is the modification of cytokine production upon immune activation. With the discovery that normal pregnancy itself is a pro-inflammatory state, it was recognised that the classical Th1/Th2 cytokine paradigm, with a shift towards ‘type 2’ cytokine production (important for antibody production), and away from ‘type 1’ immunity (associated with cell mediated immunity and graft rejection), is too simplistic. It is now generally agreed that both arms of cytokine immunity are activated, but with a bias towards ‘type 2’ immunity. Many factors are released from the placenta that can influence the maternal cytokine balance. Here we focus on syncytiotrophoblast microvesicles (STBM) which are shed from the placenta into the maternal circulation. We show that STBM can bind to monocytes and B cells and induce cytokine release (TNFα, MIP-1α, IL-1α, IL-1β, IL-6, IL-8). Other cytokines are down-modulated, such as IP-10 which is associated with ‘type 1’ immunity. Therefore STBM may aid the ‘type 2’ skewed nature of normal pregnancy. We also observed that PBMC from third trimester normal pregnant women produce more TNFα and IL-6 in response to STBM than PBMC from non-pregnant women, confirming that maternal immune cells are primed by pregnancy, possibly through their interaction with STBM

Secondary sex ratio in assisted reproduction: an analysis of 1 376 454 treatment cycles performed in the UK.

STUDY QUESTION: Does ART impact the secondary sex ratio (SSR) when compared to natural conception? SUMMARY ANSWER: IVF and ICSI as well as the stage of embryo transfer does impact the overall SSR. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The World Health Organization quotes SSR for natural conception to range between 103 and 110 males per 100 female births. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: A total of 1 376 454 ART cycles were identified, of which 1 002 698 (72.8%) cycles involved IVF or ICSI. Of these, 863 859 (85.2%) were fresh cycles and 124 654 (12.4%) were frozen cycles. Missing data were identified in 14 185 (1.4%) cycles. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: All cycles recorded in the anonymized UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) registry database between 1991 and 2016 were analysed. All singleton live births were included, and multiple births were excluded to avoid duplication. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The overall live birth rate per cycle for all IVF and ICSI treatments was 26.2% (n = 262 961), and the singleton live birth rate per cycle was 17.1% (n = 171 399). The overall SSR for this study was 104.0 males per 100 female births (binomial exact 95% CI: 103.1-105.0) for all IVF and ICSI cycles performed in the UK recorded through the HFEA. This was comparable to the overall SSR for England and Wales at 105.3 males per 100 female births (95% CI: 105.2-105.4) from 1991 to 2016 obtained from the Office of National Statistics database. Male predominance was seen with conventional insemination in fresh IVF treatment cycles (SSR 110.0 males per 100 female births; 95% CI: 108.6-111.5) when compared to micro-injection in fresh ICSI treatment cycles (SSR 97.8 males per 100 female births; 95% CI: 96.5-99.2; odds ratio (OR) 1.16, 95% CI 1.12-1.19, P < 0.0001), as well as with blastocyst stage embryo transfers (SSR 104.8 males per 100 female births; 95% CI: 103.5-106.2) when compared to a cleavage stage embryo transfer (SSR 101.2 males per 100 female births; 95% CI: 99.3-103.1; OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.06, P = 0.011) for all fertilization methods. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The quality of the data relies on the reporting system. Furthermore, success rates through ART have improved since 1991, with an increased number of blastocyst stage embryo transfers. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the largest study to date evaluating the impact of ART on SSR. The results demonstrate that, overall, ART does have an impact on the SSR when assessed according to the method of fertilization (ICSI increased female births while IVF increased males). However, given the ratio of IVF to ICSI cycles at present with 60% of cycles from IVF and 40% from ICSI, the overall SSR for ART closely reflects the population SSR for, largely, natural conceptions in England and Wales. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study received no funding. C.M.B. is a member of the independent data monitoring group for a clinical endometriosis trial by ObsEva. He is on the scientific advisory board for Myovant and medical advisory board for Flo Health. He has received research grants from Bayer AG, MDNA Life Sciences, Volition Rx and Roche Diagnostics as well as from Wellbeing of Women, Medical Research Council UK, the NIH, the UK National Institute for Health Research and the European Union. He is the current Chair of the Endometriosis Guideline Development Group for ESHRE and was a co-opted member of the Endometriosis Guideline Group by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). I.G. has received research grants from Wellbeing of Women, the European Union and Finox. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable

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

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

STUDY QUESTION Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection and reporting across future infertility research be developed? SUMMARY ANSWER A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition and an arbitrary consensus threshold. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, 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. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study, the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of data, or manuscript preparation. B.W.J.M. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). S.B. was supported by University of Auckland Foundation Seelye Travelling Fellowship. S.B. 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. 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.J.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. 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. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. 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

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

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

Study Question Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection, and reporting across future infertility research be developed? Summary Answer A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. What is Known Already Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions, and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. Study Design, Size, Duration A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). Participants/Materials, Setting, Methods Healthcare professionals, researchers, and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. Main Results and the Role of Chance The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin, and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. Limitations, Reasons for Caution We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition, and an arbitrary consensus threshold. Wider Implications of the Findings Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection, and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Ferility and Sterility, and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set