Managing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: A qualitative interview study with women and healthcare professionals.

AIM: To explore the experiences of women who have had ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, and healthcare professionals who care for them. BACKGROUND: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is a side effect of fertility treatment. Little research exists internationally that explores the experiences of women who have had this condition, or the healthcare professionals who manage it. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. METHODS: Eighteen interviews with women who had experienced ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (n = 10) and healthcare professionals (n = 8) in six UK fertility centres. Framework analysis was used. This paper is reported following COREQ guidelines. RESULTS: Women described a range of symptoms and severity, sometimes experiencing worrying physical health problems such as abdominal swelling and shortness of breath. The combination of the symptoms, and their management, on delaying future fertility treatment could cause emotional distress. Healthcare professionals at different centres described variation in practice, which generally involved 'active monitoring' until symptoms became severe, when women would be hospitalised. Women expressed feeling 'left in limbo' while waiting for symptoms to improve or worsen, and described a lack of control during this waiting period. Healthcare professionals felt they provided adequate information about ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and its management. This, however, did not align with women's perceptions that information, including potential delays to their fertility treatment, was missing. There was similar mismatch between women's and healthcare professionals' views of decision-making about fertility treatment following ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, including women's concerns about having to make rushed, unplanned decisions about their fertility treatment when they did not feel adequately informed to do so. CONCLUSION: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and its management can have a significant physical and emotional impact on women, and influence their fertility treatment. Improvements could be made to the information women receive about this condition, its management and its implications for wider fertility treatment. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Nurses have the skills and knowledge to support women through the physical and emotional stresses of fertility treatment. Therefore, they are well placed to provide specialist information and support for OHSS and ensure women are fully informed about all aspects of the condition, including how its management might delay fertility treatment.

Endometrial scratch in women undergoing first-time IVF treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

The endometrial scratch procedure is an IVF 'add-on' sometimes provided prior to the first IVF cycle. A 2019 systematic review concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show whether endometrial scratch has a significant effect on pregnancy outcomes (including live birth rate, LBR) when undertaken prior to the first IVF cycle. Further evidence was published following this review, including the Endometrial Scratch Trial (ISRCTN23800982). The objective of the current review was to synthesize and critically appraise the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and safety of the endometrial scratch procedure in women undergoing their first IVF cycle. Databases searched include MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and ClinicalTrials.gov. Eligible randomized controlled trials included women undergoing IVF for the first time that reported the effectiveness and/or safety of the endometrial scratch procedure; 12 studies were included. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a significant effect of the endometrial scratch on LBR (10 trials, odds ratio [OR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-1.79) or other pregnancy outcomes. This review confirms that there is a lack of evidence that endometrial scratch improves pregnancy outcomes, including LBR, for women undergoing their first IVF cycle. Clinicians are recommended not to perform this procedure in individuals undergoing their first cycle of IVF.

A randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of the endometrial scratch procedure prior to first-time IVF, with or without ICSI.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the clinical-effectiveness and safety of the endometrial scratch (ES) procedure compared to no ES, prior to usual first time in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER: ES was safe but did not improve pregnancy outcomes when performed in the mid-luteal phase prior to the first IVF cycle, with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: ES is an 'add-on' treatment that is available to women undergoing a first cycle of IVF, with or without ICSI, despite a lack of evidence to support its use. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This pragmatic, superiority, open-label, multi-centre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial involving 1048 women assessed the clinical effectiveness and safety of the ES procedure prior to first time IVF, with or without ICSI, between July 2016 and October 2019. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants aged 18-37 years undergoing their first cycle of IVF, with or without ICSI, were recruited from 16 UK fertility clinics and randomised (1:1) by a web-based system with restricted access rights that concealed allocation. Stratified block randomisation was used to allocate participants to TAU or ES in the mid-luteal phase followed by usual IVF with or without ICSI treatment. The primary outcome was live birth after completing 24 weeks gestation within 10.5 months of egg collection. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In total, 1048 women randomised to TAU (n = 525) and ES (n = 523) were available for intention to treat analysis. In the ES group, 453 (86.6%) received the ES procedure. IVF, with or without ICSI, was received in 494 (94.1%) and 497 (95.0%) of ES and TAU participants respectively. Live birth rate was 37.1% (195/525) in the TAU and 38.6% (202/523) in the ES: an unadjusted absolute difference of 1.5% (95% CI -4.4% to 7.4%, P = 0.621). There were no statistical differences in secondary outcomes. Adverse events were comparable across groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: A sham ES procedure was not undertaken in the control group, however, we do not believe this would have influenced the results as objective fertility outcomes were used. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the largest trial that is adequately powered to assess the impact of ES on women undergoing their first cycle of IVF. ES was safe, but did not significantly improve pregnancy outcomes when performed in the mid-luteal phase prior to the first IVF or ICSI cycle. We recommend that ES is not undertaken in this population. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Funded by the National Institute of Health Research. Stephen Walters is an National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator (2018 to present) and was a member of the following during the project: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Clinical Trials and Evaluation Committee (2011-2017), NIHR HTA Commissioning Strategy Group (2012 to 2017); NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research Committee (2020 to present); NIHR Pre doctoral Fellowship Committee (2019 to present). Dr. Martins da Silva reports grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; and is Associate editor of Human Reproduction and Editorial Board member of Reproduction and Fertility. Dr. Bhide reports grants from Bart's Charity and grants and non-financial support from Pharmasure Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN number: ISRCTN23800982. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 31 May 2016. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 04 July 2016.

Does hysteroscopic resection of uterine septum improve reproductive outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Uterine septum in women with subfertility or previous poor reproductive outcomes presents a clinical dilemma. Hysteroscopic septum resection has been previously associated with adverse reproductive outcomes but the evidence remains inconclusive. We aimed to thoroughly and systematically appraise relevant evidence on the impact of hysteroscopically resecting the uterine septum on this cohort of women. METHODS: AMED, BNI, CINAHL, EMBASE, EMCARE, Medline, PsychInfo, PubMed, Cochrane register of controlled trials, Cochrane database of systematic reviews and CINAHL were assessed to April 2020, with no language restriction. Only randomised control trials and comparative studies which evaluated outcomes in women with uterine septum and a history of subfertility and/or poor reproductive outcomes treated by hysteroscopic septum resection against control were included. The primary endpoint was live birth rate, whereas clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, preterm birth and malpresentation rates were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Seven studies involving 407 women with hysteroscopic septum resection and 252 with conservative management were included in the meta-analysis. Hysteroscopic septum resection was associated with a lower rate of miscarriage (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07-0.88) compared with untreated women. No significant effect was seen on live birth, clinical pregnancy rate or preterm delivery. However, there were fewer malpresentations during labour in the treated group (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.73). CONCLUSION: Our review found no significant effect of hysteroscopic resection on live birth. However, given the limited evidence available, high-quality randomised controlled trials are recommended before any conclusive clinical guidance can be drawn.

The impact of endometrioma on in vitro fertilisation/intra-cytoplasmic injection IVF/ICSI reproductive outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) are often used to aid fertility in women with endometrioma; however, the implications of endometrioma on ART are unresolved. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of endometrioma on reproductive outcomes in women undergoing IVF or ICSI. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to identify articles examining women who had endometrioma and had undergone IVF or ICSI. Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, BIOSIS and MEDLINE up to September 2019. The primary outcome was live birth rate (LBR). Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), implantation rate (IR), number of oocytes retrieved, number of metaphase II (MII) oocytes retrieved, number of embryos and top-quality embryos and the duration of gonadotrophin stimulation and dose. RESULTS: Eight studies were included. Where significant heterogeneity between studies was identified, a random-effects model was used. The number of oocytes (weighted means difference; WMD-2.25; 95% CI 3.43 to - 1.06, p = 0.0002) and the number of MII oocytes retrieved (WMD-4.64; 95% CI 5.65 to - 3.63, p < 0.00001) were significantly lower in women with endometrioma versus controls. All other outcomes, including gonadotrophin dose and duration, the total number of embryos, high-quality embryos, CPR, IR and LBR were similar in women with and without endometrioma. CONCLUSION: Even though women with endometriomas had a reduced number of oocytes and MII oocytes retrieved when compared to women without, no other differences in reproductive outcomes were identified. This implies that IVF/ICSI is a beneficial ART approach for women with endometrioma.

A prospective, single-centre, single-arm, open label study of the long term use of a gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist (Triptorelin SR, 11.25 mg) in combination with Tibolone add-back therapy in the management of chronic cyclical pelvic pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic cyclic pelvic pain (CCPP) affects women's quality of life and pituitary downregulation is often used for symptomatic relief. However, prolonged suppression of ovarian function is associated with menopausal side effects and can lead to osteoporosis. Currently, the use of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) for treatment of CCPP is usually restricted to 6-9 months, limiting their efficacy. There is limited information regarding safety and efficacy with longer-term use. The aim of this study is to examine the safety and efficacy of long-term (24 months) pituitary down-regulation with the GnRHa (Triptorelin SR) with add-back therapy (ABT) using Tibolone for symptom relief in women with CCPP. METHODS: A single-arm, prospective clinical trial at a Tertiary University Teaching Hospital of 27 patients receiving Triptorelin SR (11.25 mg) and Tibolone (2.5 mg). Outcomes measures were the safety of treatment assessed by clinical examination, haematological markers, liver and renal function tests and bone mineral density (BMD) at 12, 18 and 24 months as well as at 6 months post-treatment. Pain and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) assessed using the endometriosis health profile (EHP-30) and chronic pain grade (CPG) questionnaires. RESULTS: There was no evidence for any significant harmful effects on any of the measured haematological, renal or liver function tests. Although results regarding the effect on BMD are not conclusive there is an increased risk of development of osteopaenia after 12 months of treatment. Pain and HRQoL assessments showed significant improvement during medication, but with deterioration after treatment cessation. CONCLUSION: Long- term Triptorelin plus Tibolone add-back therapy in women suffering from CCPP does not appear to be associated with significant serious adverse events apart from the possibility of deterioration in the BMD that needs to be monitored. This mode of therapy appears to be effective in pain relief and in improving quality of life over a 24-month period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials database NCT00735852.

Surgical treatment of fibroids for subfertility.

BACKGROUND: Fibroids are the most common benign tumours of the female genital tract and are associated with numerous clinical problems including a possible negative impact on fertility. In women requesting preservation of fertility, fibroids can be surgically removed (myomectomy) by laparotomy, laparoscopically or hysteroscopically depending on the size, site and type of fibroid. Myomectomy is however a procedure that is not without risk and can result in serious complications. It is therefore essential to determine whether such a procedure can result in an improvement in fertility and, if so, to then determine the ideal surgical approach. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of myomectomy on fertility outcomes and to compare different surgical approaches. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Epistemonikos database, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), LILACS, conference abstracts on the ISI Web of Knowledge, OpenSigle for grey literature from Europe, and reference list of relevant papers. The final search was in February 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of myomectomy compared to no intervention or where different surgical approaches are compared regarding the effect on fertility outcomes in a group of infertile women suffering from uterine fibroids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data collection and analysis were conducted in accordance with the procedure suggested in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. MAIN RESULTS: This review included four RCTs with 442 participants. The evidence was very low-quality with the main limitations being due to serious imprecision, inconsistency and indirectness. Myomectomy versus no intervention One study examined the effect of myomectomy compared to no intervention on reproductive outcomes. We are uncertain whether myomectomy improves clinical pregnancy rate for intramural (odds ratio (OR) 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 6.14; 45 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), submucous (OR 2.04, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.66; 52 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), intramural/subserous (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.40 to 10.09; 31 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence) or intramural/submucous fibroids (OR 3.24, 95% CI 0.72 to 14.57; 42 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Similarly, we are uncertain whether myomectomy reduces miscarriage rate for intramural fibroids (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.26 to 6.78; 45 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), submucous fibroids (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.27 to 5.97; 52 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), intramural/subserous fibroids (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.10 to 6.54; 31 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence) or intramural/submucous fibroids (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 12.33; 42 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). This study did not report on live birth, preterm delivery, ongoing pregnancy or caesarean section rate. Laparoscopic myomectomy versus myomectomy by laparotomy or mini-laparotomy Two studies compared laparoscopic myomectomy to myomectomy at laparotomy or mini-laparotomy. We are uncertain whether laparoscopic myomectomy compared to laparotomy or mini-laparotomy improves live birth rate (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.50; 177 participants; two studies; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence), preterm delivery rate (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.29; participants = 177; two studies; I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.78; 177 participants; two studies; I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence), ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.26 to 10.04; 115 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), miscarriage rate (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.89; participants = 177; two studies; I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence), or caesarean section rate (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.39; participants = 177; two studies; I2 = 21%, very low-quality evidence). Monopolar resectoscope versus bipolar resectoscope One study evaluated the use of two electrosurgical systems during hysteroscopic myomectomy. We are uncertain whether bipolar resectoscope use compared to monopolar resectoscope use improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.50; 68 participants; one study, very low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.36; 68 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), or miscarriage rate (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.34; participants = 68; one study; very low-quality evidence). This study did not report on preterm delivery or caesarean section rate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence to determine the role of myomectomy for infertility in women with fibroids as only one trial compared myomectomy with no myomectomy. If the decision is made to have a myomectomy, the current evidence does not indicate a superior method (laparoscopy, laparotomy or different electrosurgical systems) to improve rates of live birth, preterm delivery, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, or caesarean section. Furthermore, the existing evidence needs to be viewed with caution due to the small number of events, minimal number of studies and very low-quality evidence.

Fluid and pharmacological agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery.

BACKGROUND: Adhesions are fibrin bands that are a common consequence of gynaecological surgery. They are caused by conditions that include pelvic inflammatory disease and endometriosis. Adhesions are associated with comorbidities, including pelvic pain, subfertility, and small bowel obstruction. Adhesions also increase the likelihood of further surgery, causing distress and unnecessary expenses. Strategies to prevent adhesion formation include the use of fluid (also called hydroflotation) and gel agents, which aim to prevent healing tissues from touching one another, or drugs, aimed to change an aspect of the healing process, to make adhesions less likely to form. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of fluid and pharmacological agents on rates of pain, live births, and adhesion prevention in women undergoing gynaecological surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Epistemonikos to 22 August 2019. We also checked the reference lists of relevant papers and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials investigating the use of fluid (including gel) and pharmacological agents to prevent adhesions after gynaecological surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE methods. Outcomes of interest were pelvic pain; live birth rates; incidence of, mean, and changes in adhesion scores at second look-laparoscopy (SLL); clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and ectopic pregnancy rates; quality of life at SLL; and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 trials (3492 women), and excluded 11. We were unable to include data from nine studies in the statistical analyses, but the findings of these studies were broadly in keeping with the findings of the meta-analyses. Hydroflotation agents versus no hydroflotation agents (10 RCTs) We are uncertain whether hydroflotation agents affected pelvic pain (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 2.09; one study, 226 women; very low-quality evidence). It is unclear whether hydroflotation agents affected live birth rates (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.58; two studies, 208 women; low-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. Hydroflotation agents reduced the incidence of adhesions at SLL when compared with no treatment (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.55, four studies, 566 women; high-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that in women with an 84% chance of having adhesions at SLL with no treatment, using hydroflotation agents would result in 54% to 75% having adhesions. Hydroflotation agents probably made little or no difference to mean adhesion score at SLL (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.09; four studies, 722 women; moderate-quality evidence). It is unclear whether hydroflotation agents affected clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.14; three studies, 310 women; moderate-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. This suggests that in women with a 26% chance of clinical pregnancy with no treatment, using hydroflotation agents would result in a clinical pregnancy rate of 11% to 28%. No studies reported any adverse events attributable to the intervention. Gel agents versus no treatment (12 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain or live birth rate. Gel agents reduced the incidence of adhesions at SLL compared with no treatment (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57; five studies, 147 women; high-quality evidence). This suggests that in women with an 84% chance of having adhesions at SLL with no treatment, the use of gel agents would result in 39% to 75% having adhesions. It is unclear whether gel agents affected mean adhesion scores at SLL (SMD -0.50, 95% CI -1.09 to 0.09; four studies, 159 women; moderate-quality evidence), or clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.02; one study, 30 women; low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention. Gel agents versus hydroflotation agents when used as an instillant (3 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain, live birth rate or clinical pregnancy rate. Gel agents probably reduce the incidence of adhesions at SLL when compared with hydroflotation agents (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.83; three studies, 538 women; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that in women with a 46% chance of having adhesions at SLL with a hydroflotation agent, the use of gel agents would result in 21% to 41% having adhesions. We are uncertain whether gel agents improved mean adhesion scores at SLL when compared with hydroflotation agents (MD -0.79, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.76; one study, 77 women; very low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention. Steroids (any route) versus no steroids (4 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain, incidence of adhesions at SLL or mean adhesion score at SLL. It is unclear whether steroids affected live birth rates compared with no steroids (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.62; two studies, 223 women; low-quality evidence), or clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.55; three studies, 410 women; low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Gels and hydroflotation agents appear to be effective adhesion prevention agents for use during gynaecological surgery, but we found no evidence indicating that they improve fertility outcomes or pelvic pain, and further research is required in this area. It is also worth noting that for some comparisons, wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect meant that clinical harm as a result of interventions could not be excluded. Future studies should measure outcomes in a uniform manner, using the modified American Fertility Society score. Statistical findings should be reported in full. No studies reported any adverse events attributable to intervention.

Ovarian surgery for symptom relief in women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common endocrine condition, affecting approximately one in 10 women. PCOS is defined by two of three features: oligo- or anovulation, clinical or biochemical hyperandrogenism or both, or polycystic ovaries.Women with PCOS can have a wide range of health problems, including infrequent and irregular periods, unwanted hair growth and acne, and subnormal fertility. Long-term health concerns include an increased risk of heart disease, diabetes and the development of precancerous disease of the womb. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and harms of ovarian surgery as a treatment for symptomatic relief of hirsutism, acne and menstrual irregularity in PCOS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group specialized register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO (from inception to 17 October 2016). We handsearched citation lists, registers of ongoing trials and conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of women undergoing ovarian drilling in comparison to no treatment, medical treatment, or other forms of surgical treatment for the symptoms of PCOS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary outcome measures were improvement in menstrual regularity and androgenic symptoms of PCOS (hirsutism, acne); the secondary outcome measures included harms, change of body mass index (BMI), waist circumference, androgen levels, metabolic measures and quality of life. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 RCTs (2278 women analyzed) of participants with PCOS and symptoms of acne, hirsutism or irregular menstrual cycles, all of which included laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) as an intervention.Two studies reported their funding source (Farquhar 2002 - supported in part by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation; Sarouri 2015 - the authors thank the Vice Chancellor for Research of Guilan University of Medical Sciences for funding this project).The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate quality. The main limitations were imprecision associated with the low number of studies, inconsistency and risk of bias associated with the inability to blind participants. There were too few studies to assess risk of publication bias. Menstrual RegularityTwo studies compared LOD versus metformin (n=226) but no conclusions could be drawn with regard to menstrual regularity, as their findings were inconsistent and they were unsuitable for pooling. There appeared to be little or no difference in the rate of women reporting improvement in menstrual regularity when LOD was compared with medical treatment including metformin + clomiphene (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.64, 2 studies, 332 women, I2 = 13%, low-quality evidence), letrozole (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.84, 1 study, 260 women, low-quality evidence), or metformin + letrozole (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.81, 1 study, 146 women, low-quality evidence). However, one study reported that LOD was superior to gonadotrophin (OR 19.2, 95% CI 3.17 to 116.45, 1 study, 35 women, very low-quality evidence).There appeared to be little or no difference in the rate of women reporting improvement in menstrual regularity when bilateral unipolar LOD was compared to unilateral LOD (OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.62 to 3.71, 2 studies, 104 women, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence), transvaginal ultrasound-guided LOD (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.37, 1 study, 147 women, low-quality evidence), LOD using adjusted thermal dose in accordance with the ovarian volume (OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.14, 1 study, 115 women, low-quality evidence) or bipolar LOD (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.05 to 18.57, 1 study, 18 women, low-quality evidence).Four to five punctures per ovary may improve the rate of women reporting menstrual regularity compared with two or fewer (OR 16.04, 95% CI 4.19 to 61.34, 2 studies, 73 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). Androgenic SymptomsThere was probably little or no difference in improvement in androgenic symptoms when LOD was compared to metformin (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.37, 1 study, 126 women, moderate-quality evidence) or gonadotrophins; acne (OR 3.20, 95% CI 0.33 to 30.94, 1 study, 25 women, low-quality evidence), hirsutism (OR 2.31, 95% CI 0.22 to 23.89, 1 study, 25 women, low-quality evidence).There appeared to be little or no difference in improvement of androgenic symptoms when LOD was compared to transvaginal ultrasound-guided LOD, with respect to hirsutism (OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.30 to 3.91, 1 study, 39 women, low-quality evidence) or acne (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.20 to 3.50, 1 study, 31 women, low-quality evidence). HarmsLOD was associated with fewer gastrointestinal side effects than metformin plus clomiphene (OR 0.05, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.36, 2 studies, 332 women, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). One study suggested little or no difference in rates of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome between LOD and gonadotrophins (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.61, 1 study, 33 women, low-quality evidence).There were fewer adhesions with transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy compared to LOD (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.18, 1 study, 246 women, moderate-quality evidence). There appeared to be little or no difference in adhesions when variable energy LOD was compared with standard LOD (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.32 to 2.88, 1 study, 64 women, low-quality evidence). Another study (44 women) reported that none of the women who returned for surgery following either traditional or unilateral LOD were found to have adhesions. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There was no clear evidence that LOD improves menstrual regularity or the androgenic symptoms of PCOS, compared to most of the medical treatments used in the included studies. LOD was associated with fewer gastrointestinal side effects compared to metformin and clomiphene.There was also no clear evidence of different effectiveness between types of LOD, except that LOD with four to five punctures per ovary may be more effective than two or fewer punctures. There was little evidence comparing LOD with different types of surgery, although one study concluded that transvaginal hydrolaparoscopy had a lower risk of adhesions than LOD.There was evidence from one small study of benefit from LOD compared to gonadotrophins for menstrual regulation. However, gonadotrophins are seldom used for this indication.

Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles.

BACKGROUND: Progesterone prepares the endometrium for pregnancy by stimulating proliferation in response to human chorionic gonadotropin(hCG) produced by the corpus luteum. This occurs in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle. In assisted reproduction techniques(ART), progesterone and/or hCG levels are low, so the luteal phase is supported with progesterone, hCG or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists to improve implantation and pregnancy rates. OBJECTIVES: To determine the relative effectiveness and safety of methods of luteal phase support provided to subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction. SEARCH METHODS: We searched databases including the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and trial registers. We conducted searches in November 2014, and further searches on 4 August 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of luteal phase support using progesterone, hCG or GnRH agonist supplementation in ART cycles. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently selected trials, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) and 95%confidence intervals (CIs) for each comparison and combined data when appropriate using a fixed-effect model. Our primary out come was live birth or ongoing pregnancy. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: Ninety-four women RCTs (26,198 women) were included. Most studies had unclear or high risk of bias in most domains. The main limitations in the evidence were poor reporting of study methods and imprecision due to small sample sizes.1. hCG vs placebo/no treatment (five RCTs, 746 women)There was no evidence of differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.67, 95% CI 0.90 to 3.12, three RCTs,527 women, I2 = 24%, very low-quality evidence, but I2 of 61% was found for the subgroup of ongoing pregnancy) with a random effects model. hCG increased the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (1 RCT, OR 4.28, 95% CI 1.91 to 9.6, low quality evidence).2. Progesterone vs placebo/no treatment (eight RCTs, 875 women)Evidence suggests a higher rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy in the progesterone group (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.86, five RCTs, 642 women, I2 = 35%, very low-quality evidence). OHSS was not reported.3. Progesterone vs hCG regimens (16 RCTs, 2162 women)hCG regimens included comparisons of progesterone versus hCG and progesterone versus progesterone + hCG. No evidence showed differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.38, five RCTs, 833 women, I2 = 0%, low quality evidence) or in the risk of OHSS (four RCTs, 615 women, progesterone vs hCG OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.22 to 1.34; four RCTs,678 women; progesterone vs progesterone plus hCG, OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.26, low-quality evidence).4. Progesterone vs progesterone with oestrogen (16 RCTs, 2577 women)No evidence was found of differences between groups in live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.38, nine RCTs,1651 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) or OHSS (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.2 to 1.63, two RCTs, 461 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence).5. Progesterone vs progesterone + GnRH agonist (seven RCTs, 1708 women)Live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates were lower in the progesterone-only group and increased in women who received progester one and one or more GnRH agonist doses (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.81, nine RCTs, 2861 women, I2 = 55%, random effects, low quality evidence). Statistical heterogeneity for this comparison was high because of unexplained variation in the effect size, but the direction of effect was consistent across studies. OHSS was reported in one study only (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.33 to 3.01, 1 RCT, 300 women, very low quality evidence).6. Progesterone regimens (45 RCTs, 13,814 women)The included studies reported nine different comparisons between progesterone regimens. Findings for live birth or ongoing pregnancy were as follows: intramuscular (IM) versus oral: OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.14 to 3.66 (one RCT, 40 women, very low-quality evidence);IM versus vaginal/rectal: OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.5 (seven RCTs, 2309 women, I2 = 71%, very low-quality evidence); vaginal/rectal versus oral: OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.69 (four RCTs, 857 women, I2 = 32%, low-quality evidence); low-dose versus high-dose vaginal: OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.11 (five RCTs, 3720 women, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence); short versus long protocol:OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.36 (five RCTs, 1205 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); micronised versus synthetic: OR 0.9, 95%CI 0.53 to 1.55 (two RCTs, 470 women, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); vaginal ring versus gel: OR 1.09, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.36 (oneRCT, 1271 women, low-quality evidence); subcutaneous versus vaginal gel: OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.14 (two RCTs, 1465 women,I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence); and vaginal versus rectal: OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.64 to 2.54 (one RCT, 147 women, very low-quality evidence). OHSS rates were reported for only two of these comparisons: IM versus oral, and low versus high-dose vaginal. No evidence showed a difference between groups.7. Progesterone and oestrogen regimens (two RCTs, 1195 women)The included studies compared two different oestrogen protocols. No evidence was found to suggest differences in live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates between a short and a long protocol (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.43, one RCT, 910 women, low-quality evidence) or between a low dose and a high dose of oestrogen (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.13, one RCT, 285 women, very low-quality evidence).Neither study reported OHSS. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Both progesterone and hCG during the luteal phase are associated with higher rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy than placebo.The addition of GnRHa to progesterone is associated with an improvement in pregnancy outcomes. OHSS rates are increased with hCG compared to placebo (only study only). The addition of oestrogen does not seem to improve outcomes. The route of progester one administration is not associated with an improvement in outcomes.

A proteomic analysis of the endometrium in obese and overweight women with recurrent miscarriage: preliminary evidence for an endometrial defect.

BACKGROUND: Overweight and obese women have been shown to have an increased risk of recurrent miscarriage as well as other adverse reproductive outcomes, but it is yet unclear whether this is due to an effect on the endometrium, embryo or both. The current study employs proteomic analysis to examine for a potential endometrial defect in obese and overweight women with recurrent miscarriage. METHODS: Proteomic tissue analysis of 21 endometrial samples obtained In the midluteal phase from 16 women with recurrent miscarriage (obese, n=12 and lean, n=4) and 5 fertile volunteers (Obese, n=2 and Lean, n=3). Proteins were separated using 2-D gel electrophoresis and principle component analysis was used to quantitatively compare protein expression between groups. Protein spots showing significantly altered expression were identified using mass spectrometry. RESULTS: Obese and overweight recurrent miscarriage patients had a significantly increased endometrial expression of haptoglobin compared to their lean counterparts (p=0.01). These patients also displayed a significant increase in endometrial expression of transthyretin (p=0.04) and beta- globulin (p=0.04). Principle Component Analysis (PCA) of the studied groups also demonstrated that endometrial samples could be grouped based on differences in the BMI, suggesting that obesity is an independent factor influencing endometrial protein expression. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide preliminary evidence for an alteration in the endometrial protein profile in overweight/obese women with recurrent miscarriage mainly in the form of increased haptoglobin, an inflammatory marker associated with obesity.

Fluid and pharmacological agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery.

BACKGROUND: Adhesions are fibrin bands that are a common consequence of gynaecological surgery. They are caused by various conditions including pelvic inflammatory disease and endometriosis. Adhesions are associated with considerable co-morbidity, including pelvic pain, subfertility and small bowel obstruction. Patients may require further surgery-a fact that has financial implications. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the role of fluid and pharmacological agents used as adjuvants in preventing formation of adhesions after gynaecological surgery. SEARCH METHODS: The following databases were searched up to April 2014: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) and PsycINFO. Studies involving hydroflotation, gel and such pharmacological agents as steroids, noxytioline, heparin, promethazine, N,O-carboxymethyl chitosan and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists were evaluated. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials investigating the use of fluid and pharmacological agents to prevent adhesions after gynaecological surgery. Gels were defined as fluid agents. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. Results were expressed as odds ratios (ORs), mean differences (MDs) or standard mean differences (SMDs) as appropriate, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-nine trials were included (3227 participants), and nine were excluded. One study examined pelvic pain and found no evidence of a difference between use of hydroflotation agents and no treatment. We found no evidence that any of the antiadhesion agents significantly affected the live birth rate. When gels were compared with no treatment or with hydroflotation agents at second-look laparoscopy (SLL), fewer participants who received a gel showed a worsening adhesion score when compared with those who received no treatment (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.57, P value 0.005, two studies, 58 women, I(2) = 0%, moderate-quality evidence) and with those given hydroflotation agents (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.66, P value 0.003, two studies, 342 women, I(2) = 0%, high-quality evidence). Participants who received steroids were less likely to have a worsening adhesion score (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.58, P value 0.0008, two studies, 182 women, I(2) = 0%, low-quality evidence). Participants were less likely to have adhesions at SLL if they received a hydroflotation agent or gel than if they received no treatment (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.55, P value < 0.00001, four studies, 566 participants, I(2) = 0%, high-quality evidence; OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.56, P value 0.0006, four studies, 134 women, I(2) = 0%, high-quality evidence, respectively). When gels were compared with hydroflotation agents, participants who received a gel were less likely to have adhesions at SLL than those who received a hydroflotation agent (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.67, P value 0.001, two studies, 342 women, I(2) = 0%, high-quality evidence). No studies evaluated quality of life. In all studies apart from one, investigators stated that they were going to assess serious adverse outcomes associated with treatment agents, and no adverse effects were reported.Results suggest that for a woman with a 77% risk of developing adhesions without treatment, the risk of developing adhesions after use of a gel would be between 26% and 65%. For a woman with an 83% risk of worsening of adhesions after no treatment at initial surgery, the chance when a gel is used would be between 16% and 73%. Similarly, for hydroflotation fluids for a woman with an 84% chance of developing adhesions with no treatment, the risk of developing adhesions when hydroflotation fluid is used would be between 53% and 73%.Several of the included studies could not be included in a meta-analysis: The findings of these studies broadly agreed with the findings of the meta-analyses.The quality of the evidence, which was assessed using the GRADE approach, ranged from low to high. The main reasons for downgrading of evidence included imprecision (small sample sizes and wide confidence intervals) and poor reporting of study methods. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Gels and hydroflotation agents appear to be effective adhesion prevention agents for use during gynaecological surgery, but no evidence indicates that they improve fertility outcomes or pelvic pain, and further research is required in this area. Future studies should measure outcomes in a uniform manner, using the modified American Fertility Society (mAFS) score. Statistical findings should be reported in full.

Outpatient paracentesis for the management of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: study protocol for the STOP-OHSS randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is the most significant short-term complication of pharmacological ovarian stimulation. Symptoms range from mild abdominal discomfort to rare complications such as renal failure, thromboembolism and respiratory distress syndrome.Currently, clinical practice typically involves monitoring the patient until the condition becomes severe, at which point they are admitted to hospital, where drainage of ascitic fluid (paracentesis) may take place. Preliminary studies have indicated that earlier outpatient paracentesis may reduce the progression of OHSS and prevent hospitalisation in women. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This UK, multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, adaptive (group sequential with one interim analysis), open-label, superiority, confirmatory, group sequential, individually randomised controlled trial, with internal pilot will assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness and safety of outpatient paracentesis versus conservative management (usual care) for moderate or severe OHSS. 224 women from 20 National Health Service and private fertility units will be randomised (1:1) and followed up for up to 13.5 months. The primary outcome is the rate of OHSS related hospital admission of at least 24 hours within 28 days postrandomisation. The primary analysis will be an intention to treat with difference in hospitalisation rates as measure of treatment effect. Secondary outcomes include time to resolution of symptoms, patient satisfaction, adverse events and cost-effectiveness. A qualitative substudy will facilitate the feasibility of recruitment. Participant recruitment commenced in June 2022. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: London-Southeast Research Ethics Committee approved the protocol (reference: 22/LO/0015). Findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and abstracts to relevant national and international conferences, as well as being disseminated to trial participants and patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN71978064.

Clinical research nurse and midwife as an integral member of the Trial Management Group (TMG): much more than a resource to manage and recruit patients.

BACKGROUND: The clinical research nurse/midwife (CRN/M) makes a unique contribution to research delivery in the National Health Service, resulting from a close therapeutic relationship with research participants. Investment in research infrastructure has led to nurses and midwives undertaking extended roles to deliver clinical research and evidence demonstrates the important contributions they make to the clinical research process, quality of research outcomes and most importantly the safe expert care of research participants. The value of the CRN/M's contribution to the broader research team and acknowledgement of the importance of their input, however, remains unspecified and tacit in nature. AIM: To demonstrate the value a CRN/M has on overall trial design and performance when funded as a co-applicant and member of the Trial Management Group (TMG). METHOD: This briefing paper outlines the development and implementation of the CRN/M role and will describe its impact to promote the benefits of such a role as much more than a resource to recruit and manage participants. RESULTS: Recognising CRN/Ms expertise, knowledge and contribution within this context is a positive step for the research agenda, individual career development and opportunity to introduce innovative ways of working to benefit the research landscape, ultimately contributing to the growth of the body of evidence available to influence patient care. CONCLUSION: When a CRN/M is funded as a co-applicant and member of the TMG, the role has a positive demonstrable impact on overall trial success.

Impact of incontinence surgery on sexual function: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Urinary incontinence has an adverse impact on sexual function. The reports on sexual function following the treatment of urinary incontinence are confusing. AIM: To investigate the impact of surgery for stress incontinence on coital incontinence and overall sexual function. METHODS: Cochrane Incontinence Group Specialized Register of Controlled Trials, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, and EMBASE were searched for trials of incontinence surgery assessing sexual function and coital incontinence before and after surgery. Observational studies and randomized controlled trials investigating the impact of surgical correction of stress urinary incontinence on sexual function were included. Surgical interventions included tension-free vaginal tape (TVT), Tension Free Vaginal Tape-Obturator (TVT-O), transobturator tape (TOT), Burch, and autologous fascial sling (AFS). Studies that included patients undergoing concurrent prolapse surgery were excluded from the analysis. Data extraction and analysis was performed independently by two authors. Coital incontinence was analyzed separately and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI ) calculated. The data were analyzed in Review Manager 5 software. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Changes in sexual function and coital incontinence following surgery for urinary incontinence. RESULTS: Twenty-one articles were identified, which assessed sexual function and/or coital incontinence following continence surgery in the absence of prolapse. Results suggest evidence for a significant reduction in coital incontinence post surgery (OR 0.11; 95% CI 0.07, 0.17). CONCLUSIONS: Coital incontinence is significantly reduced following continence surgery. There were several methodological problems with the quality of the primary research particularly related to heterogeneity of studies, use of different outcome measures, and the absence of well-designed randomized controlled trials.

Surgical treatment of fibroids for subfertility.

BACKGROUND: Fibroids are the most common benign tumours of the female genital tract and are associated with numerous clinical problems including a possible negative impact on fertility. In women requesting preservation of fertility, fibroids can be surgically removed (myomectomy) by laparotomy, laparoscopically or hysteroscopically depending on the size, site and type of fibroid. Myomectomy is however a procedure that is not without risk and can result in serious complications. It is therefore essential to determine whether such a procedure can result in an improvement in fertility and, if so, to then determine the ideal surgical approach. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of myomectomy on fertility outcomes and to compare different surgical approaches. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), LILACS, conference abstracts on the ISI Web of Knowledge, OpenSigle for grey literature from Europe, and ongoing clinical trials registered online. The final search was in June 2012. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials examining the effect of myomectomy compared to no intervention or where different surgical approaches are compared regarding the effect on fertility outcomes in a group of infertile women suffering from uterine fibroids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data collection and analysis were conducted in accordance with the procedure suggested in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. MAIN RESULTS: One study examined the effect of myomectomy on reproductive outcomes and showed no evidence for a significant effect on the clinical pregnancy rate for intramural (OR 1.88, 95% CI 0.57 to 6.14), submucous (OR 2.04, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.66), combined intramural and subserous (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.40 to 10.09) and combined intramural submucous fibroids (OR 3.24, 95% CI 0.72 to 14.57). Similarly, there was no evidence for a significant effect of myomectomy for any of the described types of fibroids on the miscarriage rate (intramural fibroids OR 0.89 (95% CI 0.14 to 5.48), submucous fibroids OR 0.63 (95% CI 0.09 to 4.40), combined intramural and subserous fibroids OR 0.25 (95% CI 0.01 to 4.73) and combined intramural submucous fibroids OR 0.50 (95% CI 0.03 to 7.99).Two studies compared open versus laparoscopic myomectomy and found no evidence for a significant effect on the live birth rate (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.50), clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.78), ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.26 to 10.04), miscarriage rate (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.40 to 4.27), preterm labour rate (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.43) and caesarean section rate (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.72). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence from randomised controlled trials to evaluate the role of myomectomy to improve fertility. Regarding the surgical approach to myomectomy, current evidence from two randomised controlled trials suggests there is no significant difference between the laparoscopic and open approach regarding fertility performance. This evidence needs to be viewed with caution due to the small number of studies. Finally, there is currently no evidence from randomised controlled trials regarding the effect of hysteroscopic myomectomy on fertility outcomes.

Supervised Aerobic Exercise Training and Increased Lifestyle Physical Activity to Reduce Cardiovascular Disease Risk for Women With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial.

BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a complex, heterogeneous endocrinopathy. Women with PCOS often present with cardiovascular disease risk factors. Physical activity (PA) interventions reduce cardiovascular disease risk factors in women with PCOS. However, sedentary behaviors have a distinct deleterious effect on cardiometabolic health. Increasing PA and reducing sedentary behaviors may be a worthwhile therapeutic target to improve cardiovascular health in this population. This study investigated the feasibility of 2 PA interventions to decrease cardiovascular disease risk in women with PCOS. METHODS: This was a feasibility randomized controlled trial of 2 PA interventions in 36 women with PCOS. Participants were randomized to a supervised exercise intervention (n = 12), a lifestyle physical activity group intervention aimed at reducing sedentary behaviors (n = 12), or a control group (n = 12), for 12 weeks. Primary outcomes included the feasibility and acceptability of the interventions and procedures. RESULTS: Recruitment rate was 56%. Adherence rate was 53% and 100% to the exercise intervention and lifestyle PA intervention, respectively. Secondary outcome data indicate a reduction in oxidized low-density lipoprotein concentrations in the exercise group, and weight loss in both intervention groups. CONCLUSIONS: The procedures for recruitment, allocation, and outcome measurements were acceptable. However, before progression to a full-scale trial, adherence to the exercise program should be addressed.

Endometrial scratch to increase live birth rates in women undergoing first-time in vitro fertilisation: RCT and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In vitro fertilisation is a widely used reproductive technique that can be undertaken with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The endometrial scratch procedure is an in vitro fertilisation 'add-on' that is sometimes provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle, but there is a lack of evidence to support its use. OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of endometrial scratch compared with treatment as usual in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle (the 'Endometrial Scratch Trial') and (2) to undertake a systematic review to combine the results of the Endometrial Scratch Trial with those of previous trials in which endometrial scratch was provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, open-label, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomised (1 : 1) via a web-based system to receive endometrial scratch or treatment as usual using stratified block randomisation. The systematic review involved searching electronic databases (undertaken in January 2020) and clinicaltrials.gov (undertaken in September 2020) for relevant trials. SETTING: Sixteen UK fertility units. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 18-37 years, inclusive, undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle. The exclusion criteria included severe endometriosis, body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m2 and previous trauma to the endometrium. INTERVENTIONS: Endometrial scratch was undertaken in the mid-luteal phase of the menstrual cycle prior to in vitro fertilisation, and involved inserting a pipelle into the cavity of the uterus and rotating and withdrawing it three or four times. The endometrial scratch group then received usual in vitro fertilisation treatment. The treatment-as-usual group received usual in vitro fertilisation only. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was live birth after completion of 24 weeks' gestation within 10.5 months of egg collection. Secondary outcomes included implantation, pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, pain and tolerability of the procedure, adverse events and treatment costs. RESULTS: One thousand and forty-eight (30.3%) women were randomised to treatment as usual (n = 525) or endometrial scratch (n = 523) and were followed up between July 2016 and October 2019 and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the endometrial scratch group, 453 (86.6%) women received the endometrial scratch procedure. A total of 494 (94.1%) women in the treatment-as-usual group and 497 (95.0%) women in the endometrial scratch group underwent in vitro fertilisation. The live birth rate was 37.1% (195/525) in the treatment-as-usual group and 38.6% (202/523) in the endometrial scratch group: an unadjusted absolute difference of 1.5% (95% confidence interval -4.4% to 7.4%; p = 0.621). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes. Safety events were comparable across groups. No neonatal deaths were recorded. The cost per successful live birth was £11.90 per woman (95% confidence interval -£134 to £127). The pooled results of this trial and of eight similar trials found no evidence of a significant effect of endometrial scratch in increasing live birth rate (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.22). LIMITATIONS: A sham endometrial scratch procedure was not undertaken, but it is unlikely that doing so would have influenced the results, as objective fertility outcomes were used. A total of 9.2% of women randomised to receive endometrial scratch did not undergo the procedure, which may have slightly diluted the treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to support the theory that performing endometrial scratch in the mid-luteal phase in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle significantly improves live birth rate, although the procedure was well tolerated and safe. We recommend that endometrial scratch is not undertaken in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN23800982. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The endometrial scratch is a simple procedure that involves 'scratching' the lining of the womb (the endometrium). Several small studies have shown that undertaking this before the first in vitro fertilisation cycle may improve live birth rates; however, other studies have contradicted this. This large study was carried out to confirm whether or not having an endometrial scratch before the first in vitro fertilisation cycle would increase the number of women having a live birth compared with those having 'usual' in vitro fertilisation treatment (known as the 'control' group). We collected information about pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, pain during the procedure and costs of treatment to find out if there were any meaningful differences. A total of 1048 women aged between 18 and 37 years were randomly allocated to the two groups, so participants had a 50% chance of having the endometrial scratch. Women were followed up throughout their pregnancy to ascertain the outcome of their in vitro fertilisation cycle. Although the live birth rate was 1.5% higher in the endometrial scratch group (38.6%) than in the control group (37.1%), the difference was not large enough to show any benefit of having the procedure. Other outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, the procedure was safe and tolerable. We found that the cost of treatment was, on average, £316 per participant higher in the group that received endometrial scratch than in the control group; the difference was not large enough to show that receiving endometrial scratch was more cost-effective. We combined the results of this trial with those of previous trials that looked to answer a similar question, and found that, overall, the endometrial scratch procedure does not enhance the chances of achieving a live birth. We conclude that endometrial scratch before first-time in vitro fertilisation does not improve the outcome of treatment, and we recommend that this procedure is not undertaken prior to a first cycle of in vitro fertilisation.

Is another meta-analysis on the effects of intramural fibroids on reproductive outcomes needed?

Intramural fibroids when encountered in women undergoing fertility treatment present a clinical dilemma. Despite recent studies that have suggested a negative outcome for intramural fibroids on fertility outcomes, the evidence remains far from conclusive. The current study presents a systematic review and meta-analysis of the currently available evidence. Relevant articles were identified in MEDLINE and EMBASE. Ten studies reported the effects of intramural fibroids on assisted conception treatment including one study reporting the effect of myomectomy for these fibroids. Combined analysis of the included studies, after taking into account possible confounding factors, showed no evidence of a significant effect for intramural fibroids on clinical pregnancy rate (odds ratio (OR) 0.74, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.50-1.09), live birth rate (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.62-2.22) or miscarriage rate (OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.61-4.20). There was also no evidence for a significant effect for myomectomy on the clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.88, 95% CI 0.57-6.14) or the miscarriage rate (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.14-5.48). These findings highlight the current deficiency in the literature and suggest that evidence is insufficient to draw any conclusions regarding the effect of intramural fibroids on reproductive outcomes.