A blended preconception lifestyle programme for couples undergoing IVF:lessons learned from a multicentre randomized controlled trial

Study question: What is the effect of a blended preconception lifestyle programme on reproductive and lifestyle outcomes of couples going through their first 12 months of IVF as compared to an attention control condition?Summery answer:This randomized controlled trial (RCT) was stopped prematurely because of the coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19) pandemic but the available data did not suggest that a blended preconception lifestyle programme could meaningfully affect time to ongoing pregnancy or other reproductive and lifestyle outcomes.What is know already:Increasing evidence shows associations between a healthy lifestyle and IVF success rates. Lifestyle programmes provided through a mobile phone application have yet to be evaluated by RCTs in couples undergoing IVF.Study design, size, duration:A multicentre RCT (1:1) was carried out. The RCT started in January 2019 and was prematurely stopped because of the Covid-19 pandemic, leading to a reduced sample size (211 couples initiating IVF) and change in primary outcome (cumulative ongoing pregnancy to time to ongoing pregnancy).Participants/materials, setting, methods:Heterosexual couples initiating IVF in five fertility clinics were randomized between an attention control arm and an intervention arm for 12 months. The attention control arm received treatment information by mobile phone in addition to standard care. The intervention arm received the blended preconception lifestyle (PreLiFe)-programme in addition to standard care. The PreLiFe-programme included a mobile application, offering tailored advice and skills training on diet, physical activity and mindfulness, in combination with motivational interviewing over the telephone. The primary outcome was 'time to ongoing pregnancy'. Secondary reproductive outcomes included the Core Outcome Measures for Infertility Trials and IVF discontinuation. Changes in the following secondary lifestyle outcomes over 3 and 6 months were studied in both partners: diet quality, fruit intake, vegetable intake, total moderate to vigorous physical activity, sedentary behaviour, emotional distress, quality of life, BMI, and waist circumference. Finally, in the intervention arm, acceptability of the programme was evaluated and actual use of the mobile application part of the programme was tracked. Analysis was according to intention to treat.Main results and the role of chance:A total of 211 couples were randomized (105 control arm, 106 intervention arm). The hazard ratio of the intervention for time to ongoing pregnancy was 0.94 (95% CI 0.63 to 1.4). Little to no effect on other reproductive or lifestyle outcomes was identified. Although acceptability of the programme was good (6/10), considerable proportions of men (38%) and 9% of women did not actively use all the modules of the mobile application (diet, physical activity, or mindfulness).Limitations, reasons for caution:The findings of this RCT should be considered exploratory, as the Covid-19 pandemic limited its power and the actual use of the mobile application was low.Wider implications of the findings:This is the first multicentre RCT evaluating the effect of a blended preconception lifestyle programme for women and their partners undergoing IVF on both reproductive and lifestyle outcomes. This exploratory RCT highlights the need for further studies into optimal intervention characteristics and actual use of preconception lifestyle programmes, as well as RCTs evaluating effectiveness.Study fonding/competing intrest(s):Supported by the Research foundation Flanders (Belgium) (FWO-TBM; reference: T005417N). No competing interests to declare.Trial registration number:ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03790449TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 31 December 2018DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT 2 January 201

Non-human primate to human immunobridging to infer the protective effect of an Ebola virus vaccine candidate

Action Contro

Low-dose human menopausal gonadotrophin versus clomiphene citrate in subfertile couples treated with intrauterine insemination: a randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION: Can controlled ovarian stimulation with low-dose human menopausal gonadotrophin (hMG) improve the clinical pregnancy rate when compared with ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate (CC) in an intrauterine insemination (IUI) programme for subfertile couples? SUMMARY ANSWER: Ovarian stimulation with low-dose hMG is superior to CC in IUI cycles with respect to clinical pregnancy rate. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IUI after ovarian stimulation is an effective treatment for mild male subfertility, unexplained subfertility and minimal-mild endometriosis, but it is unclear which medication for ovarian stimulation is more effective. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A total of 330 women scheduled for IUI during 657 cycles (September 2004-December 2011) were enrolled in an open-label randomized clinical trial to ovarian stimulation with low-dose hMG subcutaneous (n = 334, 37.5-75 IU per day) or CC per oral (n = 323, 50 mg/day from Day 3-7). Assuming a difference of 10% in 'clinical pregnancy with positive fetal heart beat', we needed 219 cycles per group (alpha-error 0.05, power 0.80). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied subfertile couples with mild male subfertility, unexplained subfertility or minimal-mild endometriosis. Further inclusion criteria were failure to conceive for ≥12 months, female age ≤42 years, at least one patent Fallopian tube and a total motility count (TMC) ≥5.0 million spermatozoa after capacitation. The primary end-point was clinical pregnancy. Analysis was by intention to treat and controlled for the presence of multiple measures, as one couple could have more randomizations in multiple cycles. Linear mixed models were used for continuous measures. For binary outcomes we estimated the relative risk using a Poisson model with log link and using generalized estimating equations. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: When compared with ovarian stimulation with CC, hMG stimulation was characterized by a higher clinical pregnancy rate (hMG 48/334 (14.4%) versus CC 29/323 (9.0%), relative risk (RR) 1.6 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1-2.4)), higher live birth rate (hMG 46/334 (13.8%) versus CC 28/323 (8.7%), RR 1.6 (95% CI 1.0-2.4)), low and comparable multiple live birth rate (hMG 3/46 (6.5%) versus CC 1/28 (3.6%), P > 0.99), lower number of preovulatory follicles (hMG 1.2 versus CC 1.5, P < 0.001), increased endometrial thickness (hMG 8.5 mm versus CC 7.5 mm, P < 0.001), and a lower cancellation rate per started cycle (hMG 15/322 (4.7%) versus CC 46/298 (15.4%), P < 0.001). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We randomized patients at a cycle level, and not at a strategy over multiple cycles. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study showed better reproductive outcome after ovarian stimulation with low-dose gonadotrophins. A health economic analysis of our data is planned to test the hypothesis that ovarian stimulation with low-dose hMG combined with IUI is associated with increased cost-effectiveness when compared with ovarian stimulation with CC. STUDY FUNDING/ COMPETING INTERESTS: T.M.D. and K.P. were supported by the Clinical Research Foundation of UZ Leuven, Belgium. This study was also supported by the Ferring company (Copenhagen, Denmark) which provide free medication (Menopur) required for the group of patients who were randomized in the hMG COS group. The Ferring company was not involved in the study design, data analysis, writing and submission of the paper. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01569945 (ClinicalTrials.gov).Karen Peeraer, Sophie Debrock, Peter De Loecker, C. Tomassetti, A. Laenen, M. Welkenhuysen, L. Meeuwis, S. Pelckmans, B.W. Mol, C. Spiessens, D. De Neubourg and T.M. D'Hoogh