Hormone therapy for uterine and endometrial development in women with premature ovarian insufficiency.

BACKGROUND: Premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) is a clinical syndrome resulting from loss of ovarian function before the age of 40. It is a state of hypergonadotropic hypogonadism, characterised by amenorrhoea or oligomenorrhoea, with low ovarian sex hormones (oestrogen deficiency) and elevated pituitary gonadotrophins. POI with primary amenorrhoea may occur as a result of chromosomal and genetic abnormalities, such as Turner syndrome, Fragile X, or autosomal gene defects; secondary amenorrhoea may be iatrogenic after the surgical removal of the ovaries, radiotherapy, or chemotherapy. Other causes include autoimmune diseases, viral infections, and environmental factors; in most cases, POI is idiopathic. Appropriate replacement of sex hormones in women with POI may facilitate the achievement of near normal uterine development. However, the optimal effective hormone therapy (HT) regimen to maximise the reproductive potential for women with POI remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effectiveness and safety of different hormonal regimens on uterine and endometrial development in women with POI. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and two trials registers in September 2021. We also checked references of included studies, and contacted study authors to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of various hormonal preparations on the uterine development of women diagnosed with POI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was uterine volume; secondary outcomes were endometrial thickness, endometrial histology, uterine perfusion, reproductive outcomes, and any reported adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included three studies (52 participants analysed in total) investigating the role of various hormonal preparations in three different contexts, which deemed meta-analysis unfeasible. We found very low-certainty evidence; the main limitation was very serious imprecision due to small sample size. Conjugated oral oestrogens versus transdermal 17ß-oestradiol We are uncertain of the effect of conjugated oral oestrogens compared to transdermal 17ß-oestradiol (mean difference (MD) -18.2 (mL), 95% confidence interval (CI) -23.18 to -13.22; 1 RCT, N = 12; very low-certainty evidence) on uterine volume, measured after 12 months of treatment. The study reported no other relevant outcomes (including adverse events). Low versus high 17ß-oestradiol dose We are uncertain of the effect of a lower dose of 17ß-oestradiol compared to a higher dose of 17ß-oestradiol on uterine volume after three or five years of treatment, or adverse events (1 RCT, N = 20; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported no other relevant outcomes. Oral versus vaginal administration of oestradiol and dydrogesterone We are uncertain of the effect of an oral or vaginal administration route on uterine volume and endometrial thickness after 14 or 21 days of administration (1 RCT, N = 20; very low-certainty evidence). The study reported no other relevant outcomes (including adverse events). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: No clear conclusions can be drawn in this systematic review, due to the very low-certainty of the evidence. There is a need for pragmatic, well designed, randomised controlled trials, with adequate power to detect differences between various HT regimens on uterine growth, endometrial development, and pregnancy outcomes following the transfer of donated gametes or embryos in women diagnosed with POI.

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.

Growth hormone for in vitro fertilisation (IVF).

BACKGROUND: In an effort to improve outcomes of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles, the use of growth hormone (GH) has been considered as adjuvant treatment in ovarian stimulation. Improving the outcomes of IVF is especially important for women with infertility who are considered 'poor responders'. We have compared the outcomes of IVF with adjuvant GH versus no adjuvant treatment in routine use, and specifically in poor responders. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of growth hormone as an adjunct to IVF compared to standard IVF for women with infertility SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases (to November 2020): Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Epistemonikos database and trial registers together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adjuvant GH treatment in IVF compared with no adjuvant treatment for women with infertility. We excluded trials where additional adjuvant treatments were used with GH. We also excluded trials comparing different IVF protocols. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors independently performed assessment of trial risk of bias and extraction of relevant data. The primary review outcome was live birth rate. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate, oocytes retrieved, embryo transfer, units of gonadotropin used and adverse events, i.e. ectopic pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), congenital anomalies, oedema. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 RCTs (1352 women). Two RCTs (80 women) studied GH in routine use, and 14 RCTs (1272 women) studied GH in poor responders. The evidence was low to very low certainty, the main limitations being risk of bias, imprecision and heterogeneity. Adjuvant growth hormone compared to no adjuvant: routine use for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on live birth rate per woman randomised for routine use in IVF (odds ratio (OR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 4.43; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). If the chance of live birth without adjuvant GH is assumed to be 15%, the chance of live birth with GH would be between 6% and 43%. There was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion regarding clinical pregnancy rates per woman randomised, number of women with at least one oocyte retrieved per woman randomised and embryo transfer achieved per woman randomised; reported data were unsuitable for analysis. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on mean number of oocytes retrieved in normal responders (mean difference (MD) -0.02, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.74; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on mean units of gonadotropin used in normal responders (MD 13.57, 95% CI -112.88 to 140.01; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of GH on adverse events in normal responders. Adjuvant growth hormone compared to no adjuvant: use in poor responders for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on live birth rate per woman randomised for poor responders (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.70; I2 = 0%; 8 trials, 737 participants; very low-certainty evidence). If the chance of live birth without adjuvant GH is assumed to be 11%, the chance of live birth with GH would be between 13% and 25%. Adjuvant GH results in a slight increase in pregnancy rates in poor responders (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.53; I2 = 15%; 11 trials, 1033 participants; low-certainty evidence). The results suggest, if the pregnancy rate without adjuvant GH is assumed to be 15%, with GH the pregnancy rate in poor responders would be between 19% and 31%. The evidence suggests that GH results in little to no difference in number of women with at least one oocyte retrieved (OR 5.67, 95% CI 1.54 to 20.83; I2 = 0%; 2 trials, 148 participants; low-certainty evidence). If the chance of retrieving at least one oocyte in poor responders was 81%, with GH the chance is between 87% and 99%. There is a slight increase in mean number of oocytes retrieved with the use of GH for poor responders (MD 1.40, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.64; I2 = 87%; 12 trials, 1153 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on embryo transfer achieved (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.96; I2 = 25%; 4 trials, 214 participants; very low-certainty evidence). If the chance of achieving embryo transfer is assumed to be 77%, the chance with GH will be 78% to 94%. Use of GH results in reduction of mean units of gonadotropins used for stimulation in poor responders (MD -1088.19, 95% CI -1203.20 to -973.18; I2 = 91%; 8 trials, 685 participants; low-certainty evidence). High heterogeneity in the analyses for mean number of oocytes retrieved and units of GH used suggests quite different effects according to differences including in trial protocols (populations, GH dose and schedule), so these results should be interpreted with caution. We are uncertain of the effect of GH on adverse events in poor responders as six of the 14 included trials failed to report this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The use of adjuvant GH in IVF treatment protocols has uncertain effect on live birth rates and mean number of oocytes retrieved in normal responders. However, it slightly increases the number of oocytes retrieved and pregnancy rates in poor responders, while there is an uncertain effect on live birth rates in this group. The results however, need to be interpreted with caution, as the included trials were small and few in number, with significant bias and imprecision. Also, the dose and regimen of GH used in trials was variable. Therefore, further research is necessary to fully define the role of GH as adjuvant therapy in IVF.

Tubal flushing for subfertility.

BACKGROUND: Establishing the subgroup analysis of the fallopian tubes (tubes) is a commonly undertaken diagnostic investigation for women with subfertility. This is usually achieved by flushing contrast medium through the tubes and visualising patency on radiographs, ultrasonography or laparoscopy. Many women were noted to conceive in the first three to six months after tubal flushing, raising the possibility that tubal flushing could also be a treatment for infertility. There has been debate about which contrast medium should be used (water-soluble or oil-soluble media) as this may influence pregnancy rates. An important adverse event during tubal flushing is intravasation (backflow of contrast medium into the blood or lymphatic vessels),which could lead to embolism although it is asymptomatic in most cases. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of tubal flushing with oil-soluble contrast media (OSCM) and water-soluble contrast media (WSCM) on subsequent fertility outcomes in women with subfertility. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, reference lists of identified articles and trial registries. The most recent search was conducted in April 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tubal flushing with OSCM, WSCM with each other or with no treatment, in women with subfertility. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected the trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: Fifteen trials involving 3864 women were included in this systematic review. Overall, the quality of evidence varied from very low to moderate: the main limitations were risk of bias, heterogeneity and imprecision. OSCM versus no treatment Four studies (506 women) were included in this comparison. Tubal flushing with OSCM may increase the odds of live birth (odds ratio (OR) 3.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.57 to 6.85, 3 RCTs, 204 women, I2 = 0, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following no treatment is assumed to be 11%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 16% and 46%. Tubal flushing with OSCM may increase in the odds of clinical pregnancy (OR 3.54, 95% CI 2.08 to 6.02, 4 RCTs, 506 women, I2 = 18%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following no treatment is assumed to be 9%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 17% and 37%. No study measured intravasation or other adverse events such as infection, haemorrhage and congenital abnormalities. WSCM versus no treatment Only one study (334 women) was included in this comparison. We are uncertain whether tubal flushing with WSCM increase live birth compared to no treatment (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.91, 1 RCT, 334 women, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following no treatment is assumed to be 21%, the chance following tubal flushing with WSCM would be between 15% and 33%. We are uncertain whether tubal flushing with WSCM increases clinical pregnancy compared to no treatment (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.84, 1 RCT, 334 women, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following no treatment is assumed to be 27%, the chance following tubal flushing with WSCM would be between 29% and 40%. One case with pelvic infection was reported in the WSCM group and no case with infection in the no treatment group in a one study (334 women). Meta-analysis was not performed due to the rare events. No study measured intravasation or other adverse events such as infection, haemorrhage and congenital abnormalities. OSCM versus WSCM Six studies (2598 women) were included in this comparison. Three studies reported live birth, including two with higher live birth in the OSCM group (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.27 to 2.11, 1119 women; OR 3.45, 95% CI 1.97 to 6.03, 398 women); and one with insufficient evidence of a difference between groups (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.60 to 1.40, 533 women). Given the substantial heterogeneity observed (I2 = 86%), meta-analysis was not performed. Tubal flushing with OSCM probably increased in the odds of intravasation (asymptomatic) compared to tubal flushing with WSCM (OR 5.00, 95% CI 2.25 to 11.12, 4 RCTs, 1912 women, I2 = 0, moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of intravasation following tubal flushing with WSCM is assumed to be 1%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 2% and 9%. Tubal flushing with OSCM may increase the odds of clinical pregnancy (OR 1.42, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.85, 6 RCTs, 2598 women, I2 = 41%, low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy following tubal flushing with WSCM is assumed to be 26%, the chance following tubal flushing with OSCM would be between 28% and 39%. We are uncertain whether tubal flushing with OSCM decreases the odds of infection (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.22, 2 RCTs, 662 women, I2 = 0, very low-quality evidence) or haemorrhage (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.06, 2 RCTs, 662 women, I2 = 0, very low-quality evidence). Three neonates with congenital abnormalities were reported in the OSCM group while no congenital abnormality was reported in the WSCM group in one study (1119 women). No meta-analysis was performed due to the rare events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that compared to no treatment, tubal flushing with OSCM may increase the chance of live birth and clinical pregnancy, while it is uncertain whether tubal flushing with WSCM improves those outcomes. Compared to tubal flushing with WSCM, OSCM may improve clinical pregnancy while meta-analysis was impossible for live birth due to heterogeneity. Evidence also suggests that OSCM is associated with an increased risk of asymptomatic intravasation. Overall, adverse events, especially long-term adverse events, are poorly reported across studies.

Association of a promoter polymorphism in FSHR with ovarian reserve and response to ovarian stimulation in women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment.

Previous studies have suggested an association between a variant in the promoter region of the FSHR gene and diminished response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in women undergoing assisted reproduction. FSHR -29G>A was genotyped in 559 women undergoing their first cycle of COH for IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) using TaqMan allelic discrimination assay. Correlation and regression analysis was performed to assess the relationship between FSHR promoter genotypes and markers of ovarian reserve and measures of response to COH, including the number of oocytes retrieved, gonadotrophin dose used and the live-birth rate. There were no statistically significant differences between the genotype frequencies and the markers of ovarian reserve or the early measures of response to COH. However, the live-birth rate was higher for women carrying the variant A allele (odds ratio [OR] 1.37; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.02-1.84 per allele). This relationship did not reach statistical significance after adjustment for the number of embryos transferred (OR 1.33; 95% CI 0.98-1.83 per allele). Results from this study do not provide evidence that the FSHR -29G>A variant can be used in the individualization of the treatment protocol for women undergoing IVF/ICSI.

AMH type II receptor and AMH gene polymorphisms are not associated with ovarian reserve, response, or outcomes in ovarian stimulation.

PURPOSE: Genetic variation may influence women's response to ovarian stimulation therapy. The purpose of this study was to investigate any effects of genetic variants in the anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) and AMH type II receptor genes on ovarian response/treatment outcomes and on current markers of ovarian reserve in individuals undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment. METHODS: In this prospective observational study, we genotyped the AMH c.146G>T, p.(Ile49Ser) and AMHR2 -482A>G variants in 603 unrelated women undergoing their first cycle of controlled ovarian stimulation for IVF and ICSI (intracytoplasmic sperm injection) using gonadotrophins at a tertiary referral centre for reproductive medicine. Pelvic ultrasound and blood hormone levels were taken on days 2-3 of the cycle. Genotypes were determined using TaqMan allelic discrimination assay. Regression analysis was performed to assess the relationship between the genotypes and the ovarian reserve markers (FSH, AMH, antral follicle count) and the early outcomes of response (number of oocytes retrieved and gonadotropin dose) as well as the treatment outcome (live birth). RESULTS: There were no significant associations between the variants AMH c.146G>T and AMHR2 -482A>G with ovarian response in terms of number of oocytes retrieved (p = 0.08 and p = 0.64, respectively), live births (p = 0.28 and p = 0.52) and/or markers of ovarian reserve. CONCLUSIONS: Genotyping of the AMH c.146G>T and AMHR2 -482A>G polymorphisms does not provide additional useful information as a predictor of ovarian reserve or ovarian response and treatment outcomes.

Tubal flushing for subfertility.

BACKGROUND: Establishing the patency of the fallopian tubes is a commonly undertaken diagnostic investigation for women with subfertility. This is usually achieved by flushing contrast medium through the tubes and taking radiographs. However, it has been noted that many women conceive in the first three to six months after the tubal flushing, which has raised the possibility that tubal flushing could also be a treatment for infertility. There has been debate about which contrast medium should be used (water-soluble or oil-soluble media) as this may influence pregnancy rates. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of flushing fallopian tubes with oil- or water-soluble contrast media on live birth and pregnancy rates in women with subfertility. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Biological Abstracts, trial registers and reference lists of identified articles. The most recent search was conducted in June 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing tubal flushing with oil-soluble or water-soluble contrast media, or with no treatment, in women with subfertility. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected the trials, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: Thirteen trials involving 2914 women were included, of whom 2494 were included in the analysis. Oil-soluble contrast media (OSCM) versus no interventionThe OSCM group had a higher rate of live birth (odds ratio (OR) 3.09, 95% CI 1.39 to 6.91, 1 RCT, 158 women, low quality evidence) and ongoing pregnancy (OR 3.59, 95% CI 2.06 to 6.26, 3 RCTs, 382 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence) than women who had no intervention. Our findings suggest that among subfertile women with a 17% chance of an ongoing pregnancy if they have no intervention, the rate will increase to between 29% and 55% if they have tubal flushing with OSCM. Water-soluble contrast media (WSCM) versus no interventionThere was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of live birth (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.91, 1 RCT, 334 women, very low quality evidence) or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.84, 1 RCT, 334 women, very low quality evidence). OSCM versus WSCMTwo RCTs reported live birth: one found a higher live birth rate in the oil-soluble group and the other found no evidence of a difference between the groups. These studies were not pooled due to very high heterogeneity (I(2) = 93%). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of ongoing pregnancy, however there was high heterogeneity (OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.84 to 2.47, 5 RCTs, 1454 women, I(2) = 76%, random-effects model, very low quality evidence). OSCM plus WSCM versus WSCM aloneThere was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of live birth (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.77, 1 RCT, 393 women, very low quality evidence) or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.23, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.72, 4 RCTs, 633 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence).There was no evidence of a difference between any of the interventions in rates of adverse events, but such events were poorly reported in most studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that tubal flushing with oil-soluble contrast media may increase the chance of pregnancy and live birth compared to no intervention. Findings for other comparisons were inconclusive due to inconsistency and lack of statistical power. There was insufficient evidence on adverse events to reach firm conclusions. Further robust randomised controlled trials are needed.

A single nucleotide polymorphism of bone morphogenic protein-15 is not associated with ovarian reserve or response to ovarian stimulation.

STUDY QUESTION: Is there any effect of the -9C>G variant in the bone morphogenic protein-15 (BMP15) gene on ovarian response and/or current markers of ovarian reserve in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER: No significant associations of BMP15 genotypes with ovarian response (number of oocytes retrieved) and/or markers of ovarian reserve were detected in our cohort of women undergoing IVF treatment. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: There is evidence that genetic variation influences patients' response to ovarian stimulation therapy. BMP15 plays a role in the recruitment of primordial follicles. Therefore, variation in BMP15 could predict ovarian reserve and response to ovarian stimulation. Two previous studies have determined a significant correlation between the BMP15 -9C>G variant and over-response to ovarian stimulation. No studies to date have correlated this variant with ovarian reserve markers. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In this prospective observational study, we genotyped the BMP15 -9C>G single nucleotide polymorphism in 239 unrelated women undergoing their first cycle of controlled ovarian stimulation for IVF and ICSI (intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection) using gonadotrophins at a tertiary referral centre for reproductive medicine between March 2009 and August 2010. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS: Baseline pelvic ultrasound and blood tests were taken on Days 2-3 of the cycle for assessment of baseline hormones and for DNA extraction. Genotypes were determined using TaqMan allelic discrimination assay. Regression analysis was performed to assess the effect of the BMP15 genotype on the ovarian reserve markers, serum anti-Müllerian hormone (s-AMH), follicle stimulating hormone (s-FSH) and antral follicle count (AFC), with adjustment for age and body mass index (BMI), and on the primary outcomes of response (number of oocytes retrieved and gonadotrophin dose) with adjustment for age, BMI and treatment received. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There was no evidence of any statistically significant (P < 0.05) difference in basal s-FSH, s-AMH and AFC between individuals with different BMP15 genotypes. The number of oocytes retrieved and gonadotrophin dose used were also comparable between the individuals with different genotypes. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: A larger sample size would be required in order to determine if the BMP15 genotype has a small effect on ovarian reserve or response. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: When considering the development of integrative clinical algorithms for individual FSH doses, our analysis suggests that the genotyping of BMP15 -9C>G does not provide additional useful information as a predictor of ovarian reserve or response to ovarian stimulation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study was funded by the Manchester Biomedical Research Centre. The authors have no competing interests to declare.

FSH receptor genotype does not predict metaphase-II oocyte output or fertilization rates in ICSI patients.

The objective of this study was to assess the role of the variant p.Asn680Ser in the FSH receptor gene (FSHR) in determining oocyte maturity. It also assessed the relationship between this FSHR variant with metaphase-II oocyte output rate (MOR) and the fertilization rate. This was a prospective observational study based at a tertiary referral centre for reproductive medicine. Women (n=212) undergoing their first cycle of ovarian stimulation for IVF with intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) were included in the study. Baseline pelvic ultrasound and blood tests were taken on day 2 or 3 of the cycle for assessment of baseline hormones and for DNA extraction. Genotypes for FSHR p.Asn680Ser was determined using TaqMan allelic discrimination assay. The outcome measures were the total dose of exogenous gonadotrophins used, antral follicle count (AFC), number of mature (metaphase-II) oocytes retrieved, MOR and fertilization rate. No statistically significant differences were found between the number of mature oocytes retrieved, MOR or fertilization rates among the patients with different p.Asn680Ser FSHR genotypes. No significant difference was noted in the clinical pregnancy rates per transfer. There is no evidence that the p.Asn680Ser FSHR genotype predicts oocyte maturity.

The metabolomic profile of endometrial receptivity in recurrent miscarriage.

BACKGROUND: Endometrial receptivity has been the focus of continuous research for over eight decades; however, current clinical practice lacks an accurate test of endometrial receptivity to allow the prediction of successful pregnancy. We aimed to characterize the endometrial metabolomic profiles of women who suffered recurrent miscarriage using discovery metabolomics and to set the foundation for the development of an endometrial receptivity test. METHODS: This was a prospective multicenter cohort study led by the Tommy's National Centre for Miscarriage Research in Birmingham. Endometrial biopsies were obtained during the window of implantation from 24 women aged 18-35 years, who were not pregnant and regularly menstruating, diagnosed with unexplained recurrent miscarriage. The metabolite composition and relative concentrations of samples were analyzed applying ultra-high performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry to investigate water-soluble and lipid metabolites. RESULTS: Various metabolic perturbations are associated with observation of increased numbers of miscarriages. They relate to fatty acid metabolism including increased lipolysis and decreased medium chain fatty acid beta-oxidation, poorer mitochondrial health, and redox-active co-factors which are present at higher oxidative levels. Other metabolic perturbations are associated with observation of live birth following miscarriages. They relate to perturbed cholesterol-cholesterol sulphate metabolism, fatty acid metabolism including increased diacylglyceride lipolysis and decreased medium chain fatty acid beta-oxidation, and improved mitochondrial health. CONCLUSIONS: The present endometrial metabolomics discovery studies have implicated a small number of metabolic pathways and biological functions which are biologically important in miscarriage mechanisms.

PCOS and peripheral AMH levels in relation to FSH receptor gene single nucleotide polymorphisms.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if an association exists between the follicle-stimulating hormone receptor (FSHR) gene p.Asn680Ser polymorphism and polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) or with high anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) levels without PCOS. PATIENTS: Fifty-eight women with PCOS, 24 women with high AMH (>44.5 pmol/L) without PCOS and 80 healthy ethnically matched female controls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of the FSHR p.Asn680Ser polymorphism, baseline serum AMH levels and response to ovulation induction with clomiphene citrate. RESULTS: The frequency of FSHR p.Asn680Ser genotypes were not significantly different between PCOS patients, patients with high AMH without PCOS and controls (p = 0.88). Of the women with PCOS, 34/58 were on clomiphene citrate treatment and 12/34 were resistant. There was no association between sensitivity or resistance to clomiphene and p.Asn680Ser genotypes (p = 0.38). CONCLUSIONS: There is no evidence that FSHR p.Asn680Ser genotypes are associated with PCOS, high AMH levels or response to clomiphene citrate.

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.

Growth hormone for in vitro fertilization.

BACKGROUND: In an effort to improve outcomes of in-vitro fertilisation cycles the use of growth hormone has been considered. Improving the outcomes of in-vitro fertilisation is especially important for subfertile women who are considered 'poor responders'. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Groups trials register (June 2009), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2009), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2009), EMBASE (1988 to June 2009) and Biological Abstracts (1969 to June 2009). SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials were included if they addressed the research question and provided outcome data for intervention and control participants. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Assessment of trial risk of bias and extraction of relevant data was performed independently by two reviewers. MAIN RESULTS: Ten studies (440 subfertile couples) were included. Results of the meta-analysis demonstrated no difference in outcome measures and adverse events in the routine use of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols. However, meta-analysis demonstrated a statistically significant difference in both live birth rates and pregnancy rates favouring the use of adjuvant growth hormone in in-vitro fertilisation protocols in women who are considered poor responders without increasing adverse events, OR 5.39, 95% CI 1.89 to 15.35 and OR 3.28, 95% CI 1.74 to 6.20 respectively. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although the use of growth hormone in poor responders has been found to show a significant improvement in live birth rates, we were unable to identify which sub-group of poor responders would benefit the most from adjuvant growth hormone. The result needs to be interpreted with caution, the included trials were few in number and small sample size. Therefore, before recommending growth hormone adjuvant in in-vitro fertilisation further research is necessary to fully define its role.

Induced endometrial trauma (endometrial scratch) in the mid-luteal menstrual cycle phase preceding first cycle IVF/ICSI versus usual IVF/ICSI therapy: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Endometrial trauma commonly known as endometrial scratch (ES) has been shown to improve pregnancy rates in women with a history of repeated implantation failure undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF), with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). However, the procedure has not yet been fully explored in women having IVF/ICSI for the first time. This study aims to examine the effect of performing an ES in the mid-luteal phase prior to a first-time IVF/ICSI cycle on the chances of achieving a clinical pregnancy and live birth. If ES can influence this success rate, there would be a significant cost saving to the National Health Service through decreasing the number of IVF/ICSI cycles necessary to achieve a pregnancy, increase the practice of single embryo transfer and consequently have a large impact on risks and costs associated with multiple pregnancies. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This 30-month, UK, multicentre, parallel group, randomised controlled trial includes a 9-month internal pilot and health economic analysis recruiting 1044 women from 16 fertility units. It will follow up participants to identify if IVF/ICSI has been successful and live birth has occurred up to 6 weeks post partum. Primary analysis will be on an intention-to-treat basis. A substudy of endometrial samples obtained during the ES will assess the role of immune factors in embryo implantation. Main trial recruitment commenced on January 2017 and is ongoing.Participants randomised to the intervention group will receive the ES procedure in the mid-luteal phase of the preceding cycle prior to first-time IVF/ICSI treatment versus usual IVF/ICSI treatment in the control group, with 1:1 randomisation. The primary outcome is live birth rate after completed 24 weeks gestation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: South Central-Berkshire Research Ethics Committee approved the protocol. Findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and abstracts to relevant national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN23800982; Pre-results.

A common Asn680Ser polymorphism in the follicle-stimulating hormone receptor gene is not associated with ovarian response to gonadotropin stimulation in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the role of the variant p.Asn680Ser in the follicle-stimulating hormone receptor (FSHR) gene in determining ovarian response in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center for reproductive medicine. PATIENT(S): Women (n = 421) undergoing their first cycle of controlled ovarian stimulation for IVF and 83 healthy, ethnically matched controls. INTERVENTION(S): Baseline pelvic ultrasound and blood tests taken on days 2 to 3 of the cycle for assessment of baseline hormones and for DNA extraction. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Genotypes for FSHR p.Asn680Ser determined using TaqMan allelic discrimination assay, and ovarian response to gonadotropin treatment classified as normal, poor, or overresponse based on the number of oocytes retrieved. RESULT(S): The FSHR p.Asn680Ser genotype frequencies were similar in IVF patients and controls. The number of oocytes retrieved was comparable between patients with different FSHR receptor genotypes. The total amount of gonadotropin used was also similar in all the genotype groups. A logistic regression analysis showed nonstatistically significant twofold difference in the distribution of genotypes between the groups with poor and normal ovarian response. CONCLUSION(S): The variant FSHR p.Asn680Ser was not shown to be predictive of ovarian response, but clinically relevant differences cannot be ruled out.

Follicle-stimulating hormone receptor gene polymorphisms are not associated with ovarian reserve markers.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between variants in the FSHR receptor (FSHR) gene and current markers of ovarian reserve (antimüllerian hormone, antral follicle count, FSH). DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: Tertiary referral center for reproductive medicine. PATIENT(S): Women (n = 421) undergoing their first cycle of controlled ovarian stimulation for IVF. INTERVENTION(S): Baseline pelvic ultrasound and blood tests were taken on day 2-3 of the cycle for assessment of baseline hormones and for DNA extraction. Genotypes for FSHR p.Asn680Ser and p.Thr307Ala variants were determined using TaqMan allelic discrimination assays. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Association of FSHR single nucleotide polymorphisms with markers of ovarian reserve. RESULT(S): There was no evidence of any difference in basal FSH, antimüllerian hormone, or antral follicle count between the patients with different genotypes, with or without an adjustment for age or body mass index. CONCLUSION(S): No associations of FSHR genotypes with markers of ovarian reserve were detected in our cohort.

Single-nucleotide polymorphisms in the FSH receptor gene and ovarian performance: future role in IVF.

The ovarian response to follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) stimulation in assisted conception cycles is variable. Although it would be beneficial to predict accurately the response of patients to FSH, to date no absolute predictors of ovarian performance have been identified. Recently, there have been a number of studies on the effect of single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the FSH receptor gene and its predictability in ovarian response to FSH stimulation. Several reports have shown that two very common SNPs at positions 307 and 680 in exon 10 of the FSH receptor gene are associated with ovarian response in IVF. The SNPs in exon 10 result in four discrete allelic variants characterised by the amino acid combinations Thr(307)-Asn(680), Ala(307)-Ser(680), Ala(307)-Asn(680) and Thr(307)-Ser(680). Because Thr(307) is almost always in linkage disequilibrium with Asn(680), and Ala(307) almost always with Ser(680), most studies are focussed solely on position 680. Some authors have shown predictability of ovarian response to FSH stimulation in patients with different alleles, while others have refuted this finding. In vitro models have not shown any difference in response among various alleles. Most of the available studies are retrospective, observational. Until now, there is no clear clinical benefit in the screening for SNP before IVF treatment. However, there is the prospect of devising mathematical models using a group of polymorphisms to provide an important tool for improving ovulation induction, especially in poor responders.

Transvaginal biopsy in the diagnosis of ovarian cancer.

Laparotomy and debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy have been the treatment of choice in late stage ovarian carcinoma. Developments in the chemotherapeutic management of ovarian cancer have resulted in a change in opinion as to the optimal management of this disease. Many patients are now receiving initial chemotherapy and trials are in place to compare up front and adjuvant surgery. Tissue diagnosis is required prior to commencing chemotherapy. This article describes one method for accurately obtaining a tumour biopsy. A retrospective case note review of 14 women with a provisional diagnosis of ovarian carcinoma who underwent transvaginal biopsy of their pelvic disease is described. Only 7/12 cases with a positive biopsy had a definite diagnosis of ovarian cancer. The procedure was found to be safe and well tolerated.