Laboratory reference intervals during pregnancy, delivery and the early postpartum period

Background: Physiological changes during pregnancy may affect laboratory parameters. Reference values based on samples from non-pregnant women are not necessarily useful for clinical decisions during pregnancy. There is a need to establish reference values during pregnancy in order to recognize pathological conditions. Methods: Eight hundred and one women with expected normal pregnancies were included in the study. Of these, 391 had no complications during pregnancy, delivery, or the early postpartum period. Blood samples were obtained at gestational weeks 13–20, 21–28, 29–34, 35–42, at labor, and 1 and 2 days postpartum. Reference intervals were calculated for 36 tests as recommended by the International Federation of Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine. Results: Many tests showed such large variations indicating that gestational age-specific reference intervals were necessary. Other tests had different but stable values when compared to non-pregnant women. A minor decrease in albumin levels was observed. This was not only due to pregnancy-associated hemodilution, since other components with the same or a larger molecular diameter did not show a similar decrease. Many tests exhibited a broad distribution around vaginal delivery and in the early postpartum period. Conclusions: Only a few parameters were unaffected during uncomplicated pregnancy, delivery, and the early postpartum period suggesting that implementation of gestational age-specific reference intervals is necessary. Clin Chem Lab Med 2010;48:237–48.Peer Reviewe

Weight reduction intervention for obese infertile women prior to IVF : A randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION Does an intensive weight reduction programme prior to IVF increase live birth rates for infertile obese women? SUMMARY ANSWER An intensive weight reduction programme resulted in a large weight loss but did not substantially affect live birth rates in obese women scheduled for IVF. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN Among obese women, fertility and obstetric outcomes are influenced negatively with increased risk of miscarriage and a higher risk of maternal and neonatal complications. A recent large randomized controlled trial found no effect of lifestyle intervention on live birth in infertile obese women. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A prospective, multicentre, randomized controlled trial was performed between 2010 and 2016 in the Nordic countries. In total, 962 women were assessed for eligibility and 317 women were randomized. Computerized randomization with concealed allocation was performed in the proportions 1:1 to one of two groups: weight reduction intervention followed by IVF-treatment or IVF-treatment only. One cycle per patient was included. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Nine infertility clinics in Sweden, Denmark and Iceland participated. Women under 38 years of age planning IVF, and having a BMI ≥30 and <35 kg/m 2 were randomized to two groups: an intervention group (160 patients) with weight reduction before IVF, starting with 12 weeks of a low calorie liquid formula diet (LCD) of 880 kcal/day and thereafter weight stabilization for 2-5 weeks, or a control group (157 patients) with IVF only. MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE In the full analysis set (FAS), the live birth rate was 29.6% (45/152) in the weight reduction and IVF group and 27.5% (42/153) in the IVF only group. The difference was not statistically significant (difference 2.2%, 95% CI: 12.9 to -8.6, P = 0.77). The mean weight change was -9.44 (6.57) kg in the weight reduction and IVF group as compared to +1.19 (1.95) kg in the IVF only group, being highly significant (P < 0.0001). Significantly more live births were achieved through spontaneous pregnancies in the weight reduction and IVF group, 10.5% (16) as compared to the IVF only group 2.6% (4) (P = 0.009). Miscarriage rates and gonadotropin dose used for IVF stimulation did not differ between groups. Two subgroup analyses were performed. The first compared women with PCOS in the two randomized groups, and the second compared women in the weight reduction group reaching BMI ≤ 25 kg/m 2 or reaching a weight loss of at least five BMI units to the IVF only group. No statistical differences in live birth rates between the groups in either subgroup analysis were found. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION The study was not powered to detect a small increase in live births due to weight reduction and was not blinded for the patients or physician. Further, the intervention group had a longer time to achieve a spontaneous pregnancy, but were therefore slightly older than the control group at IVF. The study only included women with a BMI lower than 35 kg/m 2. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The study suggests that weight loss for obese women (BMI: 30-34.9 kg/m 2) may not rectify the outcome in IVF cycles, although a significant higher number of spontaneous conceptions occurred in the weight loss group. Also, the study suggests that intensive weight reduction with LCD treatment does not negatively affects the results. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The study was funded by Sahlgrenska University Hospital (ALFGBG-70 940), Merck AB, Solna, Sweden (an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), Impolin AB, Hjalmar Svensson Foundation and Jane and Dan Olsson Foundation. Dr Thurin-Kjellberg reports grants from Merck, non-financial support from Impolin AB, during the conduct of the study, and personal fees from Merck outside the submitted work. Dr Friberg reports personal fees from Ferring, Merck, MSD, Finox and personal fees from Studentlitteratur, outside the submitted work. Dr Englund reports personal fees from Ferring, and non-financial support from Merck, outside the submitted work. Dr Bergh reports and has been reimbursed for: writing a newsletter twice a year (Ferring), lectures (Ferring, MSD, Merck), and Nordic working group meetings (Finox). Dr Karlström reports lectures (Ferring, Finox, Merck, MSD) and Nordic working group meetings (Ferring). Ms Kluge, Dr Einarsson, Dr Pinborg, Dr Klajnbard, Dr Stenlöf, Dr Larsson, Dr Loft and Dr Wistrand have nothing to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01566929. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 23-03-2012. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT 05-10-2010

Microdissection Testicular Sperm Extraction Versus Multiple Needle-pass Percutaneous Testicular Sperm Aspiration in Men with Nonobstructive Azoospermia : A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Surgical extraction of testicular spermatozoa is needed in men with nonobstructive azoospermia (NOA) who wish to become biological fathers. Based on available uncontrolled studies with unspecific patient selection, microdissection testicular sperm extraction (mTESE), having a sperm retrieval rate (SRR) of 50%, is considered the most efficient sperm retrieval procedure. However, no randomized clinical trials for comparison of different sperm retrieval procedures exist. Testicular sperm aspiration (TESA) is simple and commonly used, and we hypothesized that this technique using multiple needle passes would give similar SRRs to mTESE. Objective: To compare mTESE and multiple needle-pass TESA in men with NOA. Design, setting, and participants: A randomized clinical trial was performed between June 2017 and April 2021, with inclusion of 100 men with NOA from four centers in Denmark and Sweden. All participants received treatment at the same institution. Intervention: Participants were randomized to mTESE (n = 49) or multiple needle-pass TESA (n = 51). Patients with failed multiple needle-pass TESA proceeded directly to salvage mTESE. Outcome measurements and statistical analysis: The primary outcome was SRR. Secondary outcomes included complications and changes in reproductive hormones after surgery. Results and limitations: Spermatozoa were retrieved in 21/49 (43%) men after mTESE and in 11/51 (22%) men after multiple needle-pass TESA (rate difference –0.21; 95% confidence interval –0.39 to –0.03; p = 0.02). The combined SRR for multiple needle-pass TESA + salvage mTESE was 15/51 (29%). No complications occurred after multiple needle-pass TESA only, while 5/89 (6%) men having mTESE experienced a complication requiring surgical intervention. Overall, no statistically significant differences in reproductive hormones were observed between groups after 6 mo. Limitations include the low number of patients in secondary outcome data. Conclusions: In direct comparison, SRR was higher in mTESE than in multiple needle-pass TESA. Patient summary: Men with azoospermia need surgical extraction of spermatozoa to become biological fathers. In this randomized trial, we compared two surgeries (microdissection testicular sperm extraction [mTESE] and testicular sperm aspiration [TESA]) and found that mTESE gives a higher sperm retrieval rate than multiple needle-pass TESA