Optimizing intrauterine insemination: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness and safety of clinical treatment add-ons.

INTRODUCTION: Intrauterine insemination (IUI) is one of the most widespread fertility treatments. However, IUI protocols vary significantly amongst fertility clinics. Various add-on interventions have been proposed to boost success rates. These are mostly chosen arbitrarily or empirically. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to assess the effectiveness and safety of add-on interventions to the standard IUI protocol and to provide evidence-based recommendations on techniques used to optimize the clinical outcomes of IUI treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Systematic review and meta-analyses were performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. A computerized literature search was performed from database inception to May 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included reporting on couples/single women undergoing IUI with any protocol for any indication using partner's or donor sperm. A meta-analysis based on random effects was performed for each outcome and add-on. Three authors independently assessed the trials for quality and risk of bias and overall certainty of evidence. Uncertainties were resolved through consensus. Primary outcomes were ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) or live birth rate (LBR) per cycle/per woman randomized. Registration number PROSPERO: CRD42022300857. RESULTS: Sixty-six RCTs were included in the analysis (16 305 participants across 20 countries). Vaginal progesterone as luteal phase support in stimulated cycles was found to significantly increase LBR/OPR (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.09-1.72, I2 = 4.9%) (moderate/low certainty of the evidence). Endometrial scratch prior/during stimulated IUI cycles may increase LBR/OPR (RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.03-2.01, I2 = 1.8%), but evidence is very uncertain. Results from two studies suggest that follicular phase ovarian stimulation increases LBR/OPR (RR 1.39, 95% CI 1.00-1.94, I2 = 0%) (low certainty of evidence). No significant difference was seen for the primary outcome for the other studied interventions. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that vaginal luteal phase progesterone support probably improves LBR/OPR in stimulated IUI treatments. In view of moderate/low certainty of the evidence more research is needed for solid conclusions. Further research is also recommended for the use of endometrial scratch and ovarian stimulation. Future studies should report on results according to subfertility background as it is possible that different add-ons could benefit specific patient groups.

The definition of unexplained infertility: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is no consensus on tests required to either diagnose unexplained infertility or use for research inclusion criteria. This leads to heterogeneity and bias affecting meta-analysis and best practice advice. OBJECTIVES: This systematic review analyses the variability of inclusion criteria applied to couples with unexplained infertility. We propose standardised criteria for use both in future research studies and clinical diagnosis. SEARCH STRATEGY: CINAHL and MEDLINE online databases were searched up to November 2022 for all published studies recruiting couples with unexplained infertility, available in full text in the English language. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were collected in an Excel spreadsheet. Results were analysed per category and methodology or reference range. MAIN RESULTS: Of 375 relevant studies, only 258 defined their inclusion criteria. The most commonly applied inclusion criteria were semen analysis, tubal patency and assessment of ovulation in 220 (85%), 232 (90%), 205 (79.5%) respectively. Only 87/220 (39.5%) studies reporting semen analysis used the World Health Organization (WHO) limits. Tubal patency was accepted if bilateral in 145/232 (62.5%) and if unilateral in 24/232 (10.3%). Ovulation was assessed using mid-luteal serum progesterone in 115/205 (56.1%) and by a history of regular cycles in 87/205 (42.4%). Other criteria, including uterine cavity assessment and hormone profile, were applied in less than 50% of included studies. CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights the heterogeneity among studied populations with unexplained infertility. Development and application of internationally accepted criteria will improve the quality of research and future clinical care.

Endogenous progesterone in unexplained infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To investigate the possibility that altered actions of endogenous progesterone affect receptivity and contribute to unexplained infertility (UI). METHODS: Two authors electronically searched MEDLINE, CINAHL and Embase databases from inception to 6 July 2022 and hand-searched according to Cochrane methodology. We included all published primary research reporting outcomes related to endogenous progesterone in natural cycles in women with UI. Studies were assessed for risk of bias using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Score or NHLBI Score. We pooled results where appropriate using a random-effects model. Findings were reported as odds ratios or mean differences. RESULTS: We included 41 studies (n = 4023). No difference was found between the mid-luteal serum progesterone levels of women with UI compared to fertile controls (MD 0.74, - 0.31-1.79, I2 36%). Women with UI had significantly higher rates of 'out-of-phase' endometrium than controls. Nine out of 10 progesterone-mediated markers of endometrial receptivity were significantly reduced in women with UI compared to fertile controls (the remaining 1 had conflicting results). Resistance in pelvic vessels was increased and perfusion of the endometrium and sub-endometrium reduced in UI compared to fertile controls in all included studies. Progesterone receptor expression and progesterone uptake were also reduced in women with unexplained infertility. CONCLUSIONS: End-organ measures of endogenous progesterone activity are reduced in women with UI compared to fertile controls. This apparently receptor-mediated reduction in response affects endometrial receptivity and is implicated as the cause of the infertility. Further research is required to confirm whether intervention could overcome this issue, offering a new option for treating unexplained infertility. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration: CRD42020141041 06/08/2020.

A Randomized Trial of Endometrial Scratching before In Vitro Fertilization.

BACKGROUND: Endometrial scratching (with the use of a pipelle biopsy) is a technique proposed to facilitate embryo implantation and increase the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized, controlled trial. Eligible women were undergoing IVF (fresh-embryo or frozen-embryo transfer), with no recent exposure to disruptive intrauterine instrumentation (e.g., hysteroscopy). Participants were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to either endometrial scratching (by pipelle biopsy between day 3 of the cycle preceding the embryo-transfer cycle and day 3 of the embryo-transfer cycle) or no intervention. The primary outcome was live birth. RESULTS: A total of 1364 women underwent randomization. The frequency of live birth was 180 of 690 women (26.1%) in the endometrial-scratch group and 176 of 674 women (26.1%) in the control group (adjusted odds ratio, 1.00; 95% confidence interval, 0.78 to 1.27). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of ongoing pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, or miscarriage. The median score for pain from endometrial scratching (on a scale of 0 to 10, with higher scores indicating worse pain) was 3.5 (interquartile range, 1.9 to 6.0). CONCLUSIONS: Endometrial scratching did not result in a higher rate of live birth than no intervention among women undergoing IVF. (Funded by the University of Auckland and others; PIP Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12614000626662 .).

Elective freezing of embryos versus fresh embryo transfer in IVF: a multicentre randomized controlled trial in the UK (E-Freeze).

STUDY QUESTION: Does a policy of elective freezing of embryos, followed by frozen embryo transfer result in a higher healthy baby rate, after first embryo transfer, when compared with the current policy of transferring fresh embryos? SUMMARY ANSWER: This study, although limited by sample size, provides no evidence to support the adoption of a routine policy of elective freeze in preference to fresh embryo transfer in order to improve IVF effectiveness in obtaining a healthy baby. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The policy of freezing all embryos followed by frozen embryo transfer is associated with a higher live birth rate for high responders but a similar/lower live birth after first embryo transfer and cumulative live birth rate for normal responders. Frozen embryo transfer is associated with a lower risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), preterm delivery and low birthweight babies but a higher risk of large babies and pre-eclampsia. There is also uncertainty about long-term outcomes, hence shifting to a policy of elective freezing for all remains controversial given the delay in treatment and extra costs involved in freezing all embryos. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A pragmatic two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial (E-Freeze) was conducted across 18 clinics in the UK from 2016 to 2019. A total of 619 couples were randomized (309 to elective freeze/310 to fresh). The primary outcome was a healthy baby after first embryo transfer (term, singleton live birth with appropriate weight for gestation); secondary outcomes included OHSS, live birth, clinical pregnancy, pregnancy complications and cost-effectiveness. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of IVF/ICSI treatment, with at least three good quality embryos on Day 3 where the female partner was ≥18 and <42 years of age were eligible. Those using donor gametes, undergoing preimplantation genetic testing or planning to freeze all their embryos were excluded. IVF/ICSI treatment was carried out according to local protocols. Women were followed up for pregnancy outcome after first embryo transfer following randomization. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 619 couples randomized, 307 and 309 couples in the elective freeze and fresh transfer arms, respectively, were included in the primary analysis. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in outcomes in the elective freeze group compared to the fresh embryo transfer group: healthy baby rate {20.3% (62/307) versus 24.4% (75/309); risk ratio (RR), 95% CI: 0.84, 0.62 to 1.15}; OHSS (3.6% versus 8.1%; RR, 99% CI: 0.44, 0.15 to 1.30); live birth rate (28.3% versus 34.3%; RR, 99% CI 0.83, 0.65 to 1.06); and miscarriage (14.3% versus 12.9%; RR, 99% CI: 1.09, 0.72 to 1.66). Adherence to allocation was poor in the elective freeze group. The elective freeze approach was more costly and was unlikely to be cost-effective in a UK National Health Service context. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We have only reported on first embryo transfer after randomization; data on the cumulative live birth rate requires further follow-up. Planned target sample size was not obtained and the non-adherence to allocation rate was high among couples in the elective freeze arm owing to patient preference for fresh embryo transfer, but an analysis which took non-adherence into account showed similar results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Results from the E-Freeze trial do not lend support to the policy of electively freezing all for everyone, taking both efficacy, safety and costs considerations into account. This method should only be adopted if there is a definite clinical indication. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (13/115/82). This research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (NIHR unique award identifier) using UK aid from the UK Government to support global health research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. J.L.B., C.C., E.J., P.H., J.J.K., L.L. and G.S. report receipt of funding from NIHR, during the conduct of the study. J.L.B., E.J., P.H., K.S. and L.L. report receipt of funding from NIHR, during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. A.M. reports grants from NIHR personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees for lectures from Merck Serono, Ferring and Cooks outside the submitted work; travel/meeting support from Ferring and Pharmasure and participation in a Ferring advisory board. S.B. reports receipt of royalties and licenses from Cambridge University Press, a board membership role for NHS Grampian and other financial or non-financial interests related to his roles as Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and Editor and Contributing Author of Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG, Cambridge University Press. D.B. reports grants from NIHR, during the conduct of the study; grants from European Commission, grants from Diabetes UK, grants from NIHR, grants from ESHRE, grants from MRC, outside the submitted work. Y.C. reports speaker fees from Merck Serono, and advisory board role for Merck Serono and shares in Complete Fertility. P.H. reports membership of the HTA Commissioning Committee. E.J. reports membership of the NHS England and NIHR Partnership Programme, membership of five Data Monitoring Committees (Chair of two), membership of six Trial Steering Committees (Chair of four), membership of the Northern Ireland Clinical Trials Unit Advisory Group and Chair of the board of Oxford Brain Health Clinical Trials Unit. R.M. reports consulting fees from Gedeon Richter, honorarium from Merck, support fees for attendance at educational events and conferences for Merck, Ferring, Bessins and Gedeon Richter, payments for participation on a Merck Safety or Advisory Board, Chair of the British Fertility Society and payments for an advisory role to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. G.S. reports travel and accommodation fees for attendance at a health economic advisory board from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. N.R.-F. reports shares in Nurture Fertility. Other authors' competing interests: none declared. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: 61225414. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 29 December 2015. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 16 February 2016.

Sperm mitochondrial DNA copy numbers in normal and abnormal semen analysis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Normal mature sperm have a considerably reduced number of mitochondria, which provide the energy required for progressive sperm motility. Literature suggests that disorders of sperm motility may be linked to abnormal sperm mitochondrial number and function. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence from literature regarding the association of mitochondrial DNA copy numbers and semen quality with a particular emphasis on the sperm motility. SEARCH STRATEGY: Standard methodology recommended by Cochrane. SELECTION CRITERIA: All published primary research reporting on the association between mitochondrial DNA copy numbers and semen quality. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using standard methodology recommended by Cochrane we pooled results using a random effects model and the findings were reported as a standardised mean difference. MAIN RESULTS: We included ten studies. The primary outcome was sperm mitochondrial DNA copy numbers. A meta-analysis including five studies showed significantly higher mitochondrial DNA copy numbers in abnormal semen analysis compared with normal semen analysis (standardised mean difference 1.08, 95% CI 0.74-1.43). Seven studies included in the meta-analysis showed a significant negative correlation between mitochondrial DNA copy numbers and semen parameters. The quality of evidence was assessed as good to very good in 60% of studies. CONCLUSIONS: Our review demonstrates significantly higher mitochondrial DNA in human sperm cells of men with abnormal semen analysis in comparison to men with normal semen analysis. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: There is significantly higher mitochondrial DNA in sperm cells of men with abnormal semen analysis in comparison to men with normal semen analysis.

Harmonizing research outcomes for polycystic ovary syndrome (HARP), a marathon not a sprint: current challenges and future research need.

Investing in clinical research and evidence-based medicine has helped to improve the care for women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). However, several important questions remain unanswered on the optimal prevention and management strategies for PCOS. Addressing this uncertainty is often hindered by suboptimal research conduct leading to inefficient evidence synthesis and research wastage. PCOS research is often practised by varied specialized teams in silo leading to disharmonious and fragmented efforts neglecting the lifelong impact of PCOS on women's wellbeing. Poor engagement among key stakeholders and lay consumers continues to limit the impact and benefits of research to society. Selective reporting on surrogate outcomes with a 'significant' P-value is a common malpractice in PCOS outputs. Effective adoption of the harmonizing research outcomes for PCOS (HARP) core outcome set is needed to minimize heterogeneity in reporting and promote research excellence. Small single-centre studies offer limited value to assess the varied PCOS phenotypes. Efficient large scale data-sharing is needed to address complex research questions and glean the benefits of big data research. We propose a roadmap to address these challenges and remedy future research need by promoting patient and public involvement in PCOS research to guide research efforts and address real patients' needs; engaging all key stakeholder groups to promote a multi-disciplinary lifelong approach to new research; continuously refining research needs and priorities to revise the knowledge gap and allocate resources judiciously; standardizing outcomes definitions and measurement tools to harmonize reporting and promote excellence in research; and by investing in large data-sharing infrastructure to facilitate big data research and govern ethical data sharing.

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.

Harmonising research outcomes for polycystic ovary syndrome: an international multi-stakeholder core outcome set.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the key core outcomes to be reported in studies on polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)? SUMMARY ANSWER: We identified 3 generic and 30 specific core outcomes in 6 specialist domains: metabolic (8), reproductive (7), pregnancy (10), oncological (1), psychological (1) and long-term outcomes (1). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Research reporting PCOS is heterogeneous with high variation in outcome selection, definition and quality. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Evidence synthesis and a modified Delphi method with e-surveys were used as well as a consultation meeting. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Overall, 71 health professionals and 123 lay consumers (women with lived experience of PCOS and members of advocacy and peer support groups) from 17 high-, middle- and low-income countries were involved in this analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The final core outcome set included 3 generic outcomes (BMI, quality of life, treatment satisfaction) that are applicable to all studies on women with PCOS and 30 specific outcomes that were categorised into six specialist domains: 8 metabolic outcomes (waist circumference, type 2 diabetes, insulin resistance, impaired glucose tolerance, hypertension, coronary heart disease, lipid profile, venous thromboembolic disease); 7 reproductive outcomes [viable pregnancy (confirmed by ultrasound including singleton, twins and higher multiples), clinical and biochemical hyperandrogenism, menstrual regularity, reproductive hormonal profile, chronic anovulation, ovulation stimulation success including the number of stimulated follicles ≥ 12 mm, incidence and severity of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome]; 10 pregnancy outcomes (live birth, miscarriage, stillbirth, neonatal mortality, gestational weight gain, gestational diabetes, preterm birth, hypertensive disease in pregnancy, baby birth weight, major congenital abnormalities); 3 psychological outcomes (depression, anxiety, eating disorders); 1 oncological (abnormal endometrial proliferation including atypical endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial cancer); and 1 outcome in the long-term domain (long-term offspring metabolic and developmental outcomes). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We involved lay consumers in all stages of study through e-surveys but not through focus groups, thereby limiting our understanding of their choices. We did not address the variations in the definitions and measurement tools for some of the core outcomes. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Implementing this core outcome set in future studies on women with PCOS will improve the quality of reporting and aid evidence synthesis. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Evidence synthesis was funded through the Australian government, National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre for Research Excellence in PCOS, and H.T. is funded through an NHMRC fellowship. B.H.A. is funded through an NIHR lectureship. All authors have no competing interest to declare.

Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Embryo incubation and assessment is a vital step in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Traditionally, embryo assessment has been achieved by removing embryos from a conventional incubator daily for quality assessment by an embryologist, under a microscope. In recent years time-lapse systems (TLS) have been developed which can take digital images of embryos at frequent time intervals. This allows embryologists, with or without the assistance of embryo selection software, to assess the quality of the embryos without physically removing them from the incubator.The potential advantages of a TLS include the ability to maintain a stable culture environment, therefore limiting the exposure of embryos to changes in gas composition, temperature, and movement. A TLS has the potential advantage of improving embryo selection for ART treatment by utilising additional information gained through continuously monitoring embryo development. Use of a TLS often adds significant extra cost to ART treatment. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of a TLS compared to conventional embryo incubation and assessment on clinical outcomes in couples undergoing ART. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard methodology recommended by Cochrane. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and two trials registers on 7 January 2019 and checked references of appropriate papers. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing TLS, with or without embryo selection software, versus conventional incubation with morphological assessment; and TLS with embryo selection software versus TLS without embryo selection software among couples undergoing ART. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage and stillbirth, and cumulative live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy and cumulative clinical pregnancy. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE methodology. We made the following comparisons.TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessmentTLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessment MAIN RESULTS: We included nine RCTs (N = 2955 infertile couples). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to low. The main limitations were high risk of bias in the included studies, imprecision, indirectness, and inconsistency. There were no data on cumulative live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate or cumulative clinical pregnancy rate.TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessmentIt is unclear whether there is any difference between interventions in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (odds ratio (OR) 0.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.67 to 1.23, 3 RCTs, N = 826, I2 = 33%, low-quality evidence) or in miscarriage rates (OR 1.90, 95% CI 0.99 to 3.61, 3 RCTs, N = 826, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy associated with conventional incubation and assessment is 35%, the rate with the use of TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images would be between 27% and 40%, and if the miscarriage rate with conventional incubation is 4%, the rate associated with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images would be between 4% and 14%. It is unclear whether there is a difference between the interventions in rates of stillbirth (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.49, 1 RCT, N = 76, low-quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy (OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.41, 4 RCTs, N = 875, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence).TLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS imagesAll findings for this comparison were very uncertain due to the very low-quality of the evidence. No data were available on live birth, but one RCT reported ongoing pregnancy. It is unclear whether there is any difference between the interventions in rates of ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.32 to 1.20, 1 RCT, N = 163); miscarriage (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.01, 2 RCTs, N = 463, I2 = 0%); or clinical pregnancy (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42, 2 RCTs, N = 463, I2 = 0%). The evidence suggests that if the rate of ongoing pregnancy associated with TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images is 47%, the rate associated with TLS utilising embryo selection software would be between 22% and 52%, and if the miscarriage rate associated with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images is 5%, the rate associated with TLS utilising embryo selection software would be between 4% and 15%. No studies reported stillbirth.TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessmentThe findings for this comparison were also very uncertain due to the very low quality of the evidence. It is unclear whether there is any difference between the interventions in rates of live birth (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.36, 3 RCTs, N = 1617, I2 = 84%). There was very low-quality evidence that TLS might reduce miscarriage rates (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.89, 3 RCTs, N = 1617, I2 = 0%). It is unclear whether there is any difference between the interventions in rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.16, 3 RCTs, N = 1617, I2 = 89%). The evidence suggests that if the rate of live birth associated with conventional incubation and assessment is 48%, the rate with TLS utilising embryo selection software would be between 46% and 55%, and if the miscarriage rate with conventional incubation and assessment is 11%, the rate associated with TLS would be between 5% and 10%. No stillbirths occurred in the only study reporting this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient good-quality evidence of differences in live birth or ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage and stillbirth, or clinical pregnancy to choose between TLS, with or without embryo selection software, and conventional incubation. As the evidence is of low or very low-quality, our findings should be interpreted with caution.

Biomarkers of ovarian reserve in childhood and adolescence: A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Certain medical disorders as well as their management may affect gonadal function. Recent advances in the management of these conditions accompanied by the availability and success of methods of fertility preservation has highlighted the need for assessment of ovarian reserve in childhood and adolescence. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) and antral follicle count are well established markers of ovarian reserve and serum inhibin has also been used. However, literature on reference ranges for ovarian reserve markers in this age-group is relatively scarce. Thus, our aim was to evaluate published data to estimate reference values of ovarian reserve makers in childhood and adolescence. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a systematic review of the literature reporting ovarian reserve markers in childhood and adolescence. We included only those studies examining markers of ovarian reserve in the normal healthy population between the ages of 0 and 19 years. PROSPERO registration: CRD42018119064. RESULTS: Serum AMH emerged as the most common biomarker assessed. Serum AMH was detectable at birth and, after a transient increase in infancy, increased steadily in childhood. Following a slight decrease at puberty, levels were constant throughout adolescence with a peak in adolescence or early adulthood. The mean serum AMH values during infancy, childhood and adolescence were 10.55, 22.32 and 31.84 pmol/L, respectively. The corresponding median values were 9.85, 24.49 and 26.32 pmol/L. It was not possible to construct age-specific reference intervals because of methodological heterogeneity, variations in the assay used to measure AMH and differing interval width for age used in included studies. Serum inhibin showed an increase from childhood to adolescence, with median serum inhibin values of 53.86 pg/mL in adolescence. Antral follicle count showed a significant positive correlation with serum AMH and a median value of 30.52 in adolescence. CONCLUSIONS: We summarize the trends and levels of biomarkers of ovarian reserve from birth until young adulthood. Peak levels of serum AMH are reported in adolescence or early adulthood. We have reported median/mean values for serum AMH in different age-groups based on data pooled from several studies, which may be used as a reference when evaluating ovarian reserve in childhood and adolescence especially when considering fertility preservation.

The effect of myo-inositol/di-chiro-inositol on markers of ovarian reserve in women with PCOS undergoing IVF/ICSI: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: High levels of anti-Mullerian hormone and a high antral follicle count in women with polycystic ovary syndrome, reflecting increased ovarian antral follicles, predisposes them to have a high number of retrieved oocytes with in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and an increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Inositols, which act as insulin sensitizers, have the potential to alter folliculogenesis and the functional ovarian reserve, with subsequent benefits to reproductive outcomes following IVF/ICSI treatment. Published literature is, however, unable to provide definitive evidence of its efficacy. The objective of our review was to evaluate the effect of inositols on anti-Mullerian hormone, antral follicle count and reproductive outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome undergoing IVF/ICSI. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a literature search using standard methodology recommended by Cochrane. Randomized controlled trials and non-randomized studies comparing inositols with no treatment, placebo or other treatment were included in the review. Using standard methodology recommended by Cochrane we pooled results using the random effects model; our findings were reported as relative risk or mean differences. PROSPERO registration: CRD42017082275. RESULTS: We included 18 trials. The primary outcome was a change in anti-Mullerian hormone and antral follicle count before and after treatment, for which data were unsuitable for meta-analysis. A narrative review showed no consistent direction or size of effect. A meta-analysis for the secondary outcomes showed no evidence of a significant difference between inositol and control groups for any outcome: number of oocytes (mean difference -0.39, 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.11 to 0.33), number of metaphase II oocytes (mean difference 0.29, 95% CI -0.83 to 1.40), number of top grade embryos (risk ratio [RR] 1.02, 95% CI 0.93-1.12), clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.87-1.53), and risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.39-1.37). The quality of evidence was assessed as very low. CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence for an effect of inositols on ovarian reserve markers and to support their use as pretreatment before IVF/ICSI in women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

Time-lapse systems for embryo incubation and assessment in assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Embryo incubation and assessment is a vital step in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Traditionally, embryo assessment has been achieved by removing embryos from a conventional incubator daily for quality assessment by an embryologist, under a light microscope. Over recent years time-lapse systems have been developed which can take digital images of embryos at frequent time intervals. This allows embryologists, with or without the assistance of embryo selection software, to assess the quality of the embryos without physically removing them from the incubator.The potential advantages of a time-lapse system (TLS) include the ability to maintain a stable culture environment, therefore limiting the exposure of embryos to changes in gas composition, temperature and movement. A TLS has the potential advantage of improving embryo selection for ART treatment by utilising additional information gained through continuously monitoring embryo development. Use of a TLS often adds significant extra cost onto an in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycle. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effect of a TLS compared to conventional embryo incubation and assessment on clinical outcomes in couples undergoing ART. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard methodology recommended by Cochrane. We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and two trials registers on 2 August 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in the following comparisons: comparing a TLS, with or without embryo selection software, versus conventional incubation with morphological assessment; and TLS with embryo selection software versus TLS without embryo selection software among couples undergoing ART. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live birth, miscarriage and stillbirth. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy and cumulative clinical pregnancy. We reported quality of the evidence for important outcomes using GRADE methodology. We made the following comparisons.TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessmentTLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessment MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs (N = 2303 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were imprecision and risk of bias associated with lack of blinding of participants and researchers, and indirectness secondary to significant heterogeneity between interventions in some studies. There were no data on cumulative clinical pregnancy.TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images versus conventional incubation and assessmentThere is no evidence of a difference between the interventions in terms of live birth rates (odds ratio (OR) 0.73, 95% CI 0.47 to 1.13, 2 RCTs, N = 440, I2 = 11% , moderate-quality evidence) and may also be no evidence of difference in miscarriage rates (OR 2.25, 95% CI 0.84 to 6.02, 2 RCTs, N = 440, I2 = 44%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the live birth rate associated with conventional incubation and assessment is 33%, the rate with use of TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images is between 19% and 36%; and that if the miscarriage rate with conventional incubation is 3%, the rate associated with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS images would be between 3% and 18%. There is no evidence of a difference between the interventions in the stillbirth rate (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.13 to 7.49, 1 RCT, N = 76, low-quality evidence). There is no evidence of a difference between the interventions in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.33, 3 RCTs, N = 489, I2 = 0%, moderate-quality evidence).TLS utilising embryo selection software versus TLS with conventional morphological assessment of still TLS imagesNo data were available on live birth or stillbirth. We are uncertain whether TLS utilising embryo selection software influences miscarriage rates (OR 1.39, 95% CI 0.64 to 3.01, 2 RCTs, N = 463, I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence) and there may be no difference in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.42, 2 RCTs, N = 463, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the miscarriage rate associated with assessment of still TLS images is 5%, the rate with embryo selection software would be between 3% and 14%.TLS utilising embryo selection software versus conventional incubation and assessmentThere is no evidence of a difference between TLS utilising embryo selection software and conventional incubation improving live birth rates (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.54, 2 RCTs, N = 1017, I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether TLS influences miscarriage rates (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.08, 3 RCTs, N = 1351, I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the live birth rate associated with no TLS is 38%, the rate with use of conventional incubation would be between 36% and 58%, and that if miscarriage rate with conventional incubation is 9%, the rate associated with TLS would be between 4% and 10%. No data on stillbirths were available. It was uncertain whether the intervention influenced clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.45, 3 RCTs, N = 1351, I2 = 42%, very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence of differences in live birth, miscarriage, stillbirth or clinical pregnancy to choose between TLS, with or without embryo selection software, and conventional incubation. The studies were at high risk of bias for randomisation and allocation concealment, the result should be interpreted with extreme caution.

Routine serum thyroid-stimulating hormone testing-optimizing pre-conception health or generating toxic knowledge?

Monitoring subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) in women is believed to be important in terms of preventing overt hypothyroidism and optimizing the health and cognitive development of their children. Current systematic reviews have suggested an association between maternal SCH and adverse obstetric and neonatal outcomes. However, initiating the administration of thyroxine during pregnancy has failed to demonstrate appreciable health benefits. Hence there are calls by professional endocrine societies for optimizing serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels pre-conception. The strategy of ensuring that serum TSH levels are below 2.5 mIU/l during the pre-conception period has generated considerable uncertainty partly because the recommended level of <2.5 mIU/l is lower than those previously used to define the condition and partly due to uncertainty about the best screening programme clinicians can use in this context. Recalibrating the expected normal peri-conceptional range of serum TSH (<2.5 mIU/l), will have a significant impact on clinical services due to an inevitable increase in numbers of women diagnosed with SCH who will need to be investigated, treated and monitored. Serum TSH fulfils the criteria for a screening test and oral thyroxine is an inexpensive drug. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that screening cannot be undertaken in all women planning to conceive. Yet this approach will miss women whose pregnancies are unplanned and generate anxiety, further tests and many more prescriptions for thyroxine, coupled with the need for lifelong monitoring in affected women. A number of existing and ongoing randomized trials have evaluated the use of thyroxine in women with infertility or miscarriage with detectable thyroid auto-antibodies. These are unlikely to answer the question whether routine pre-conception testing for SCH in asymptomatic women is beneficial. Routine screening of women at risk of pregnancy and optimization of their thyroid status could result in significant health benefits for their offspring. Alternatively this approach could prove to be an expensive way of generating toxic knowledge resulting in anxiety, increased drug use and potential harm. Only large, appropriately designed studies can reveal the answer.

Phenotypic variation in anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) production per follicle in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and isolated polycystic ovarian morphology (PCOM): an observational cross-sectional study.

This observational study compares the ratio of serum anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) to the total antral follicle count (AFC) (as a marker of AMH production per follicle) in the various phenotypes of women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and isolated polycystic ovarian morphology (PCOM). Two hundred and sixty-two women were recruited. Women with PCOS were divided into four phenotypes based on the diagnostic inclusion criteria of oligo-anovulation (OA), hyperandrogenism (HA) and polycystic ovarian morphology (PCOM). These included Group A (OA + HA + PCOM), Group B (OA + HA), Group C (HA + PCOM) and Group D (OA + PCOM). A ratio of serum AMH to total AFC was calculated and expressed as the AMH/AFC ratio which was compared in the phenotypes of PCOS and isolated PCOM. The median AMH/AFC ratios in PCOS-A, PCOS-D, PCOS-C and PCOM were 1.5, 1.6, 1.2 and 1.1, respectively. There were significant differences in the groups compared [F(3, 238) = 6.14, p = 0.000)]. The ratios were significantly higher in the oligo-anovulatory phenotypes PCOS-A and PCOS-D than the PCOM (p = 0.004 and 0.002, respectively). There was no significant difference in the ratio between ovulatory phenotype PCOS-C and PCOM (p = 0.59). The role of androgens and LH in per-follicle AMH production remains limited. The findings support the hypothesis of a key role for AMH in the mechanism of anovulation in PCOS.

Ovarian reserve in women with a previous history of severe pre-eclampsia.

PURPOSE: Severe pre-eclampsia affects maternal health with long-term consequences. It is postulated that during the process of implantation and cell differentiation, embryos resulting from the fertilization of ageing oocytes produce malfunctioning trophoectoderm leading to placental dysfunction. Therefore, severe pre-eclampsia may be associated with a decreased ovarian reserve. The objective of this study was to compare serum markers of ovarian reserve and function between women who had severe pre-eclampsia and those who had normal pregnancies. METHODS: Twenty women who had severe pre-eclampsia (PE) and 20 who had uncomplicated pregnancies (controls) matched for age and body mass index were included in the study. Fasting blood samples were taken during the follicular phase (day 5) of the menstrual cycle 6 months to 5 years after the delivery. Serum was separated and frozen at -70 °C until analyzed for anti-Mϋllerian hormone (AMH), total and free testosterone (TT), free-androgen index (FAI), luteinizing hormone (LH), and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) hormone to evaluate ovarian reserve and function, and the results were compared between two groups. RESULTS: The median AMH was 0.91 ng/mL in PE group compared to 0.72 ng/mL in controls (p = 0.995). No significant differences were found between the two groups in the levels of LH (5.65 vs. 5.4 IU/L, respectively, p = 0.897) and FSH (4.95 vs. 5.1 IU/L, respectively, p = 0.523). However, total and free-TT levels as well as FAI were significantly lower in the PE group compared to controls (p = 0.017, p = 0.006, and p = 0.011, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian reserve and function are not altered significantly in women with a previous history of pre-eclampsia compared with women who had an uncomplicated pregnancy.

Analysing adherence to guidelines for time-lapse imaging information on UK fertility clinic websites.

This study aims to systematically analyze the provision of information on Time-lapse Imaging (TLI) by UK fertility clinic websites. We conducted an analysis of 106 clinic websites that offer fertility treatment to self-funded patients. The analysis aimed to examine whether these clinics offer TLI, the associated cost for patients, and the clarity and quality of the provided information. Out of the 106 websites analysed, 71 (67%) claimed to offer TLI. Among these websites, 25 (35.2%) mentioned charging patients between £300 and £850, 25 (35.8%) claimed not to charge patients, and 21 (29.6%) did not provide any cost information for TLI. Furthermore, 64 (90.1%) websites made claims or implied that TLI leads to improved clinical outcomes by enhancing embryo selection. Notably, 34 (47.9%) websites did not mention or provide any links to the HFEA rating system. It is crucial to provide patients with clear and accurate information to enable them to make fully informed decisions about TLI, particularly when they are responsible for the associated costs. The findings of this study raise concerns about the reliability and accuracy of the information available on fertility clinic websites, which are typically the primary source of information for patients.

Maternal and perinatal outcomes in twin pregnancies following assisted reproduction: a systematic review and meta-analysis involving 802 462 pregnancies.

BACKGROUND: ART is associated with higher rates of twin pregnancies than singleton pregnancies. Whether twin pregnancies conceived following ART have additional maternal and neonatal complications compared with non-ART twin pregnancies is not known. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: The objective was to quantify the risk of adverse maternal and perinatal outcomes among twin pregnancies conceived following ART compared with non-ART and natural conception. Existing reviews vary in the reported outcomes, with many studies including triplet pregnancies in the study population. Therefore, we aimed to perform an up-to-date review with an in-depth analysis of maternal and perinatal outcomes limited to twin pregnancies. SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 1990 to May 2023 without language restrictions. All cohort studies reporting maternal and perinatal outcomes following ART compared with non-ART twin pregnancies and natural conception were included. Case-control studies, case reports, case series, animal studies, and in vitro studies were excluded. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was used to assess the methodological quality of the studies. Using random-effects meta-analysis, the estimates were pooled and the findings were reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% CI. OUTCOMES: We included 111 studies (802 462 pregnancies). Twin pregnancies conceived following ART were at higher risk of preterm birth at <34 weeks (OR 1.33, 95% CI 1.14-1.56, 29 studies, I2 = 73%), <37 weeks (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.19-1.33, 70 studies, I2 = 76%), hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.14-1.46, 59 studies, I2 = 87%), gestational diabetes mellitus (OR 1.61, 95% CI 1.48-1.75, 51 studies, I2 = 65%), and caesarean delivery (OR 1.80, 95% CI 1.65-1.97, 70 studies, I2 = 89%) compared with non-ART twins. The risks for the above maternal outcomes were also increased in the ART group compared with natural conception. Of the perinatal outcomes, ART twins were at significantly increased risk of congenital malformations (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.05-1.30, 39 studies, I2 = 59%), birthweight discordance (>25% (OR 1.31, 95% CI 1.05-1.63, 7 studies, I2 = 0%)), respiratory distress syndrome (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09-1.60, 16 studies, I2 = 61%), and neonatal intensive care unit admission (OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.14-1.35, 32 studies, I2 = 87%) compared with non-ART twins. When comparing ART with natural conception, the risk of respiratory distress syndrome, intensive care admissions, and birthweight discordance >25% was higher among the ART group. Perinatal complications, such as stillbirth (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.70-0.99, 33 studies, I2 = 49%), small for gestational age <10th centile (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.85-0.95, 26 studies, I2 = 36%), and twin-twin transfusion syndrome (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.25-0.82, 9 studies, I2 = 25%), were reduced in twin pregnancies conceived with ART versus those without ART. The above perinatal complications were also fewer amongst the ART group than natural conception. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: ART twin pregnancies are associated with higher maternal complications than non-ART pregnancies and natural conception, with varied perinatal outcomes. Women seeking ART should be counselled about the increased risks of ART twin pregnancies and should be closely monitored in pregnancy for complications. We recommend exercising caution when interpreting the study findings owing to the study's limitations.