Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist protocols for pituitary suppression in assisted reproduction

Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Constructing a protocol for the evaluation of residents' competency with office hysteroscopy

There is an increasing need for clinician self-evaluation. The need becomes bigger when it comes to assess residents in operative procedures; office hysteroscopy in its current form is one of the best examples to teach and to assess them. We propose a simple protocol for the evaluation of residents in office hysteroscopy that can be used as a platform for future improvement. This will improve their learning experience and ensure that they do not miss any steps of the procedure. As each task is outlined on the evaluation checklist, it is easier to objectively demonstrate the strengths and deficiencies of each one with respect to the given procedure. This can be the basis for application of extra attention and highlights the areas in which each individual needs to improve. The advantage of recording parameters, such as duration of the procedure and pain scores, is that they can serve as tools that demonstrate acquisition of experience and of confidence. © 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

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

Metabolomics for improving pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies

Background In order to overcome the low effectiveness of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and the high incidence of multiple births, metabolomics is proposed as a non-invasive method to assess oocyte quality, embryo viability, and endometrial receptivity, and facilitate a targeted subfertility treatment. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of metabolomic assessment of oocyte quality, embryo viability, and endometrial receptivity for improving live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates in women undergoing ART, compared to conventional methods of assessment. Search methods We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trial registers (November 2016). We also examined the reference lists of primary studies and review articles, citation lists of relevant publications, and abstracts of major scientific meetings. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on metabolomic assessment of oocyte quality, embryo viability, and endometrial receptivity in women undergoing ART. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted the data. The primary outcomes were rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (composite outcome) and miscarriage. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, multiple and ectopic pregnancy, cycle cancellation, and foetal abnormalities. We combined data to calculate odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous data and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I-2 statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. Main results We included four trials with a total of 802 women, with a mean age of 33 years. All assessed the role of metabolomic investigation of embryo viability. We found no RCTs that addressed the metabolomic assessment of oocyte quality or endometrial receptivity. We found low-quality evidence of little or no difference between metabolomic and non-metabolomic assessment of embryos for rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.48; I-2 = 0%; four RCTs; N = 802), or miscarriage (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.78; I-2 = 0%; two RCTs; N = 434). A sensitivity analysis excluding studies at high risk of bias did not change the interpretation of the results for live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.38; I-2 = 0%; two RCTs; N = 621). Our findings suggested that if the rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy was 36% in the non-metabolomic group, it would be between 32% and 45% with the use of metabolomics. We found low-quality evidence of little or no difference between groups in rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.62; I-2 = 26%; four trials; N = 802), or multiple pregnancy (OR 1.52, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.23; I-2 = 0%; two RCTs, N = 181). There was very low-quality evidence of little or no difference between groups in ectopic pregnancy rates (OR 3.37, 95% CI 0.14 to 83.40; one RCT; N = 309), and foetal abnormalities (no events; one RCT; N = 125), and very low-quality evidence of higher rates of cycle cancellation in the metabolomics group (OR 1.78, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.69; I-2 = 51%; two RCTs; N = 744). Data were lacking on other adverse effects. A sensitivity analysis excluding studies at high risk of bias did not change the interpretation of the results for clinical pregnancy (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.57; I-2 = 0%; two RCTs; N = 621). The overall quality of the evidence ranged from very low to low. Limitations included serious risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods, attrition bias, selective reporting, and other biases), imprecision, and inconsistency across trials. Authors’ conclusions According to current trials in women undergoing ART, there is insufficient evidence to show that metabolomic assessment of embryos before implantation has any meaningful effect on rates of live birth, ongoing pregnancy, or miscarriage rates. The existing evidence varied from very low to low-quality. Data on adverse events were sparse, so we could not reach conclusions on these. At the moment, there is no evidence to support or refute the use of this technique for subfertile women undergoing ART. Robust evidence is needed from further RCTs, which study the effects on live birth and miscarriage rates for the metabolomic assessment of embryo viability. Well designed and executed trials are also needed to study the effects on oocyte quality and endometrial receptivity, since none are currently available

Endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant for subfertile women in assisted reproduction

Background Despite substantial improvements in the success of assisted reproduction techniques (ART), live birth rates may remain consistently low, and practitioners may look for innovative treatments to improve the outcomes. The injection of embryo culture supernatant in the endometrial cavity can be undertaken at various time intervals before embryo transfer. It provides an altered endometrial environment through the secretion of factors considered to facilitate implantation. It is proposed that injection of the supernatant into the endometrial cavity prior to embryo transfer will stimulate the endometrium and provide better conditions for implantation to take place. An increased implantation rate would subsequently increase rates of clinical pregnancy and live birth, but current robust evidence on the efficacy of injected embryo culture supernatant is lacking. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer in women undergoing ART. Search methods Our search strategies were designed with the help of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Information Specialist. We sought to identify all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) meeting inclusion criteria. Searches were performed on 2 December 2019. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CI NAHL, trials registries and grey literature. We made further searches in the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) fertility assessment and treatment guidelines. We handsearched reference lists of relevant systematic reviews and RCTs, together with searches of PubMed and Google for any recent trials that have not yet been indexed in the major databases. We had no language or location restrictions. Selection criteria We included RCTs testing the use of endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer during an ART cycle, compared with the non-use of this intervention, the use of placebo or the use of any other similardrug. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data from studies and attempted to contact the authors where data were missing. We pooled studies using a fixed-effect model. Our primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and miscarriage. We performed statisticaL analysis using Review Manager 5. We assessed evidence quaLity using GRADE methods. Main results We found five RCTs suitable for inclusion in the review (526 women analysed). We made two comparisons: embryo culture supernatant use versus standard care or no intervention; and embryo culture supernatant use versus culture medium. All studies were published as full-text articles. Data derived from the reports or through direct communication with investigators were available for the fina[ meta-a nalysis performed. The GRADE evidence quality of studies ranged from very low-quality to moderate-qu a Lity. Factors reducing evidence quality included high risk of bias due to lack of blinding, unclear risk of publication bias and selective outcome reporting, serious inconsistency among study outcomes, and serious imprecision due to wide confidence intervaLs (as) and low numbers of events. Comparison 1. Endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer versus standard care or no intervention: One study reported live birth only and two reported the composite outcome live birth and ongoing pregnancy. We are uncertain whether endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer during an ART cycle improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates compared to no intervention (odds ratio ()R) 1.11, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.70; 3 RCTs; n = 340,12 = 840/0; very low-quality evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of live birth/ongoing pregnancy following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 420/0, the chance following the endometrial injection of embryo cuLture supernatant before embryo transfer would vary between 22% and 810/0. We are also uncertain whether the endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant could decrease miscarriage rates, compared to no intervention (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.78, 4 RCTs, n = 430,12 = 58%, very low-quality evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of miscarriage following placebo or no treatment is assumed to be 90/0, the chance following injection of embryo culture supernatant would vary between 3% and 30%. Concerning the secondary outcomes, we are uncertain whether the injection of embryo culture supernatant prior to embryo transfer could increase clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.13, 950/0 CI 0.80 to 1.61; 5 RCTs; n = 526,12= 0%; very low-quality evidence), decrease ectopic pregnancy rates (OR 0.32, 95% C10.01 to 8.24; n = 250; 2 RCTs; 12 = 41%; very low-quality evidence), decrease multiple pregnancy rates (OR 0.70, 950/0 CI 0.26 to 1.83; 2 RCTs; n = 150; 12 = 630/0; very low-quality evidence), or decrease preterm delivery rates (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.42; 1 RCT; n = 90;12= 00/0; very Low-quality evidence), compared to no intervention. Finally, there may have been little or no difference in foetal abnormality rates between the two groups (OR 3.10, 95% C10.12 to 79.23; 1 RCT; n = 60; 12 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Comparison 2. Endometrial injection of embryo cuLture supernatant versus endometriaL injection of culture medium before embryo transfer We are uncertain whether the use of embryo culture supernatant improves clinical pregnancy rates, compared tothe use of culture medium (OR 1.09, 95% C10.48 to 2. 46; n = 96; 1 RCT; very Low-quality evidence). No study reported live birth/ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, ectopic or multiple pregnancy, preterm delivery or foetal abnormalities. Authors’ conclusions We are uncertain whether the addition of endometrial injection of embryo cuLture supernatant before embryo transfer as a routine method for the treatment of women undergoing ART can improve pregnancy outcomes. This conclusion is based on current available data from five RCTs, with evidence quality ranging from very low to moderate across studies. Further large we Li-designed RCTs reporting on Live births and adverse clinical outcomes are still required to clarify the exact role of endometrial injection of embryo culture supernatant before embryo transfer

Androgens (dehydroepiandrosterone or testosterone) for women undergoing assisted reproduction

Background: Infertility is a condition affecting 10% to 15% of couples of reproductive age. It is generally defined as "the failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after 12 months or more of regular unprotected sexual intercourse". The treatment of infertility may involve manipulation of gametes or of the embryos themselves. These techniques are together known as assisted reproductive technology (ART). Practitioners are constantly seeking alternative or adjunct treatments, or both, in the hope that they may improve the outcome of assisted reproductive techniques. This Cochrane review focusses on the adjunct use of synthetic versions of two naturally-produced hormones, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) and testosterone (T), in assisted reproduction. DHEA and its derivative testosterone are steroid hormones proposed to increase conception rates by positively affecting follicular response to gonadotrophin stimulation, leading to greater oocyte yields and, in turn, increased chance of pregnancy. Objectives: To assess the effectiveness and safety of DHEA and testosterone as pre- or co-treatments in subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction. Search methods: We searched the following electronic databases, trial registers and websites up to 12 March 2015: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, electronic trial registers for ongoing and registered trials, citation indexes, conference abstracts in the Web of Science, PubMed and OpenSIGLE. We also carried out handsearches. There were no language restrictions. Selection criteria: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing DHEA or testosterone as an adjunct treatment to any other active intervention, placebo, or no treatment in women undergoing assisted reproduction. Data collection and analysis: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted relevant data and assessed them for risk of bias. We pooled studies using fixed-effect models. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) for each dichotomous outcome. Analyses were stratified by type of treatment. There were no data for the intended groupings by dose, mode of delivery or after one/more than one cycle. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main findings using the GRADE working group methods. Main results: We included 17 RCTs with a total of 1496 participants. Apart from two trials, the trial participants were women identified as 'poor responders' to standard IVF protocols. The included trials compared either testosterone or DHEA treatment with placebo or no treatment. When DHEA was compared with placebo or no treatment, pre-treatment with DHEA was associated with higher rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.88, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.71; eight RCTs, N = 878, I2 statistic = 27%, moderate quality evidence). This suggests that in women with a 12% chance of live birth/ongoing pregnancy with placebo or no treatment, the live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate in women using DHEA will be between 15% and 26%. However, in a sensitivity analysis removing trials at high risk of performance bias, the effect size was reduced and no longer reached significance (OR 1.50, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.56; five RCTs, N = 306, I2 statistic = 43%). There was no evidence of a difference in miscarriage rates (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.17; eight RCTs, N = 950, I2 statistic = 0%, moderate quality evidence). Multiple pregnancy data were available for five trials, with one multiple pregnancy in the DHEA group of one trial (OR 3.23, 95% CI 0.13 to 81.01; five RCTs, N = 267, very low quality evidence). When testosterone was compared with placebo or no treatment we found that pre-treatment with testosterone was associated with higher live birth rates (OR 2.60, 95% CI 1.30 to 5.20; four RCTs, N = 345, I2 statistic = 0%, moderate evidence). This suggests that in women with an 8% chance of live birth with placebo or no treatment, the live birth rate in women using testosterone will be between 10% and 32%. On removal of studies at high risk of performance bias in a sensitivity analysis, the remaining study showed no evidence of a difference between the groups (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.17 to 23.49; one RCT, N = 53). There was no evidence of a difference in miscarriage rates (OR 2.04, 95% CI 0.58 to 7.13; four RCTs, N = 345, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence). Multiple pregnancy data were available for three trials, with four events in the testosterone group and one in the placebo/no treatment group (OR 3.09, 95% CI 0.48 to 19.98; three RCTs, N = 292, very low quality evidence). One study compared testosterone with estradiol and reported no evidence of a difference in live birth rates (OR 2.06, 95% CI 0.43 to 9.87; one RCT, N = 46, very low quality evidence) or miscarriage rates (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.64; one RCT, N = 46, very low quality evidence). The quality of the evidence was moderate, the main limitations being lack of blinding in the included trials, inadequate reporting of study methods, and low event and sample sizes in some trials. Authors' conclusions: In women identified as poor responders undergoing ART, pre-treatment with DHEA or testosterone may be associated with improved live birth rates. The overall quality of the evidence is moderate. There is insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions about the safety of either androgen. Definitive conclusions regarding the clinical role of either androgen awaits evidence from further well-designed studies

Angiopoietin-2 primes infection-induced preterm delivery.

Current knowledge on the participation of angiopoietin-2 (Ang-2) in the inflammatory process and on the importance of bacterial endotoxins (LPS) in the induction of preterm delivery (PTD) led us to investigate the role of Ang-2/LPS interplay in the pathogenesis of PTD. At a first stage, Ang-2 was measured at the end of the first trimester of pregnancy in the serum of 50 women who delivered prematurely; of 88 women well-matched for age and parity who delivered full-term; and of 20 non-pregnant healthy women. Ang-2 was greater in pregnant than in non-pregnant women. The time until delivery was shorter among those with Ang-2 greater than 4 ng/ml (odds ratio for delivery until week 34; p: 0.040). To further investigate the role of Ang-2 for PTD, an experimental model of PTD induced by the intraperitoneal injection of LPS in mice was used. Ang-2 was administered intraperitoneally before LPS on day 14 of pregnancy. When Ang-2 was administered before the LPS diluent, all mice delivered full-term. However, administration of Ang-2 prior LPS accelerated further the time until delivery. Sacrifice experiments showed that the effect of Ang-2 was accompanied by decrease of the penetration of Evans Blue in the embryos and by increase of its penetration in maternal tissues. In parallel, the concentration of tumour necrosis factor-alpha in the maternal circulation, in fetal tissues and in the placentas was significantly decreased. Results indicate that Ang-2 accelerated the phenomena of PTD induced by LPS. This is related with deprivation of fetal perfusion