Livebirth rate after one frozen embryo transfer in ovulatory women starting with natural, modified natural, or artificial endometrial preparation in Viet Nam: an open-label randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Use of frozen embryo transfer (FET) in in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) has increased. However, the best endometrial preparation protocol for FET cycles is unclear. We compared natural and modified natural cycle strategies with an artificial cycle strategy for endometrial preparation before FET. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label study, we recruited ovulatory women aged 18-45 years at a hospital in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam, who were randomly allocated (1:1:1) to natural, modified natural, or artificial cycle endometrial preparation using a computer-generated random list and block randomisation. The trial was not masked due to the nature of the study interventions. In natural cycles, no oestrogen, progesterone, or human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) was used. In modified natural cycles, hCG was used to trigger ovulation. In artificial cycles, oral oestradiol valerate (8 mg/day from day 2-4 of menstruation) and vaginal progesterone (800 mg/day starting when endometrial thickness was ≥7 mm) were used. Embryos were vitrified, and then one or two day-3 embryos or one day-5 embryo were warmed and transferred under ultrasound guidance. If the first FET cycle was cancelled, subsequent cycles were performed with artificial endometrial preparation. The primary endpoint was livebirth after one FET. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04804020. FINDINGS: Between March 22, 2021, and March 14, 2023, 4779 women were screened and 1428 were randomly assigned (476 to each group). 99 first FET cycles were cancelled in each of the natural and modified cycle groups, versus none in the artificial cycle group. The livebirth rate after one FET was 174 (37%) of 476 in the natural cycle strategy group, 159 (33%) of 476 in the modified natural cycle strategy group, and 162 (34%) of 476 in the artificial cycle strategy group (relative risk 1·07 [95% CI 0·87-1·33] for natural vs artificial cycle strategy, and 0·98 [0·79-1·22] for modified natural vs artificial cycle strategy). Maternal and neonatal outcomes did not differ significantly between groups, as the power to detect small differences was low. INTERPRETATION: Although the livebirth rate was similar after natural, modified natural, and artificial cycle endometrial preparation strategies in ovulatory women undergoing FET IVF, no definitive conclusions can be made regarding the comparative safety of the three approaches. FUNDING: None.

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus conventional in-vitro fertilisation for couples with infertility with non-severe male factor: a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Introduced in 1992, intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) was initially indicated for severe male infertility; however, its use has since been expanded to non-severe male infertility. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of ICSI versus conventional in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) in couples with infertility with non-severe male factor. METHODS: We conducted an investigator-initiated, multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial in ten reproductive medicine centres across China. Couples with infertility with non-severe male factor without a history of poor fertilisation were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo either ICSI or conventional IVF. The primary outcome was live birth after first embryo transfer. We performed the primary analysis in the intention-to-treat population using log-binomial regression models for categorical outcomes or linear regression models for continuous outcomes, adjusting for centre. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT03298633, and is completed. FINDINGS: Between April 4, 2018, and Nov 15, 2021, 3879 couples were screened, of whom 2387 (61·5%) couples were randomly assigned (1184 [49·6%] to the ICSI group and 1203 [50·4%] to the conventional IVF group). After excluding couples who were ineligible, randomised twice, or withdrew consent, 1154 (97·5%) in the ICSI group and 1175 (97·7%) in the conventional IVF group were included in the primary analysis. Live birth after first embryo transfer occurred in 390 (33·8%) couples in the ICSI group and in 430 (36·6%) couples in the conventional IVF group (adjusted risk ratio [RR] 0·92 [95% CI 0·83-1·03]; p=0·16). Two (0·2%) neonatal deaths were reported in the ICSI group and one (0·1%) in the conventional IVF group. INTERPRETATION: In couples with infertility with non-severe male factor, ICSI did not improve live birth rate compared with conventional IVF. Given that ICSI is an invasive procedure associated with additional costs and potential increased risks to offspring health, routine use is not recommended in this population. FUNDING: National Natural Science Foundation of China, National Key Research and Development Program, Beijing Municipal Science & Technology Commission, and Peking University Third Hospital.

Combination of gefitinib and methotrexate to treat tubal ectopic pregnancy (GEM3): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tubal ectopic pregnancies can cause substantial morbidity or even death. Current treatment is with methotrexate or surgery. Methotrexate treatment fails in approximately 30% of women who subsequently require rescue surgery. Gefitinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, might improve the effects of methotrexate. We assessed the efficacy of oral gefitinib with methotrexate, versus methotrexate alone, to treat tubal ectopic pregnancy. METHODS: We performed a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial across 50 UK hospitals. Participants diagnosed with tubal ectopic pregnancy were administered a single dose of intramuscular methotrexate (50 mg/m2) and randomised (1:1 ratio) to 7 days of additional oral gefitinib (250 mg daily) or placebo. The primary outcome, analysed by intention to treat, was surgical intervention to resolve the ectopic pregnancy. Secondary outcomes included time to resolution of ectopic pregnancy and serious adverse events. This trial is registered at the ISRCTN registry, ISCRTN 67795930. FINDINGS: Between Nov 2, 2016, and Oct 6, 2021, 328 participants were allocated to methotrexate and gefitinib (n=165) or methotrexate and placebo (n=163). Three participants in the placebo group withdrew. Surgical intervention occurred in 50 (30%) of 165 participants in the gefitinib group and in 47 (29%) of 160 participants in the placebo group (adjusted risk ratio 1·15, 95% CI 0·85 to 1·58; adjusted risk difference -0·01, 95% CI -0·10 to 0·09; p=0·37). Without surgical intervention, median time to resolution was 28·0 days in the gefitinib group and 28·0 days in the placebo group (subdistribution hazard ratio 1·03, 95% CI 0·75 to 1·40). Serious adverse events occurred in five (3%) of 165 participants in the gefitinib group and in six (4%) of 162 participants in the placebo group. Diarrhoea and rash were more common in the gefitinib group. INTERPRETATION: In women with a tubal ectopic pregnancy, adding oral gefitinib to parenteral methotrexate does not offer clinical benefit over methotrexate and increases minor adverse reactions. FUNDING: National Institute of Health Research.

Applying a simplified economic evaluation approach to evaluate infertility treatments in clinical practice.

IVF is the backbone of infertility treatment, but due to its costs, it is not affordable for everyone. The cost of IVF is further escalated by interventions added to the routine treatment, which are claimed to boost pregnancy rates, so-called add-ons. Consequently, it is critical to offset the increased costs of an intervention against a potentially higher benefit. Here, we propose using a simplified framework considering the cost of a standard IVF procedure to create one live-born baby as a benchmark for the cost-effectiveness of other fertility treatments, add-ons inclusive. This framework is a simplified approach to a formal economic evaluation, enabling a rapid assessment of cost effectiveness in clinical settings. For a 30-year-old woman, assuming a 44.6% cumulative live birth rate and a cost of $12 000 per complete cycle, the cost to create one live-born baby would be ∼$27 000 (i.e. willingness to pay). Under this concept, the decision whether to accept or reject a new treatment depends from an economic perspective on the incremental cost per additional live birth from the new treatment/add-on, with the $27 000 per live-born baby as a reference threshold. This threshold can vary with women's age, and other factors such as the economic perspective and risk of side effects can play a role. If a new add-on or treatment costs >$27 000 per live birth, it might be more rational to invest in a new IVF cycle rather than spending on the add-on. With the increasing number of novel technologies in IVF and the lack of a rapid approach to evaluate their cost-effectiveness, this simplified framework will help with a more objective assessment of the cost-effectiveness of infertility treatments, including add-ons.

Effect of small follicles on clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy rates in intrauterine insemination: a cohort study.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the effect of small follicles on clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy rates in women undergoing IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS)? SUMMARY ANSWER: The presence of ≥2 small follicles with a diameter of 10-12 or 12-14 mm was associated with an increased chance of clinical pregnancy and the presence of any 12-14 mm or larger follicles, but not smaller follicles, was statistically significantly associated with an increased risk for multiple pregnancy. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IUI-OS is widely used as the first-line treatment for unexplained or mild male factor infertility. However, IUI is associated with the risk of multiple pregnancy. While the positive association between the number of follicles ≥14 mm and the chance of pregnancy and the risk of multiple pregnancy is known, the impact of smaller follicles is uncertain. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This was a retrospective cohort study that included women undergoing IUI cycles from January 2007 to May 2021 in one assisted reproduction center. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied the impact of the number and size of follicles on trigger day on clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy rates. Generalized estimation equation regression models were used to compute unadjusted and adjusted odds ratios and 95% CI in all women and only women who achieved clinical pregnancy separately. The chance of clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy for different numbers of small follicles in cycles with one >18-mm follicle was calculated using marginal effects estimate. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: This cohort included 12 933 IUI cycles in 7504 women. The overall clinical pregnancy rate was 16.1% (2081/12 933), with a multiple pregnancy rate of 10.5% (218/2081). In the adjusted analysis, the chance of clinical pregnancy increased significantly with the increase in the number of follicles with the diameter of 14-16, 16-18, and 18-20 mm. As for 10-12 mm [adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.22, 95% CI 1.02-1.46] and 12-14 mm (aOR 1.29, 95% CI 1.07-1.56) follicles, only groups with ≥2 follicles of those sizes showed significantly increased chance of clinical pregnancy. In cycles that led to pregnancy, follicles with the diameter of 12-14 mm were associated with an increased risk of multiple pregnancy (aOR 1.73, 95% CI 1.19-2.53 for one such follicle; aOR 2.27, 95% CI 1.44-3.56 for ≥2 such follicles), while 10- to 12-mm follicles were not significantly associated with multiple pregnancy (aOR 1.18, 95% CI 0.72-1.95 for ≥2 such follicles). The associations of multiple pregnancy were similar when including all cycles. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This was a retrospective observational study from a single center. The records of follicle diameter in our center were of a 2-mm interval which limited our ability to analyze the size of follicle as a continuous variable. Also, the number of cycles with a high number of small follicles was still limited which impeded more detailed analysis on the ≥2 follicles subgroup. Similarly, the value of some parts of the marginal probability estimation for multiple pregnancy versus pregnancy according to size and number of follicles was also limited by the low sample size of certain combinations. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Follicles larger than 10 mm, especially those ≥12 mm, may need to be clearly recorded during transvaginal ultrasound surveillance and their potential effects on both pregnancy and multiple pregnancy can be discussed with couples undergoing IUI. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant numbers 82201912, 82371651, and 82071615) and Shanghai Sailing Program (21YF1423200). B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva and Merck and travel support from Merck. B.W.M. has received research funding from Ferring and Merck. The authors declare no other competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Neurodevelopmental outcomes of school-age children conceived after hysterosalpingography with oil-based or water-based iodinated contrast: long-term follow-up of a nationwide randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does preconceptional exposure to oil-based iodinated contrast media during hysterosalpingography (HSG) impact children's neurodevelopment compared with exposure to water-based alternatives? SUMMARY ANSWER: Our study found no large-sized effects for neurodevelopment in children with preconceptional exposure to oil-based iodinated contrast media during HSG compared with water-based alternatives. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: HSG is widely used as a diagnostic tool in the female fertility work-up. Tubal flushing with oil-based iodinated contrast has been shown to enhance fertility outcomes in couples with unexplained infertility, increasing the chances of pregnancy and live birth compared with water-based alternatives. However, oil-based contrast contains higher doses of iodine and has a longer half-life, and concerns exist that iodinated contrast media can affect women's iodine status and cause temporary (sub)clinical hypothyroidism in mothers and/or foetuses. Considering that thyroid hormones are vital to embryonal and foetal brain development, oil-based contrast media use could increase the risk of impaired neurodevelopment in children conceived shortly after HSG. Here we examine neurodevelopmental outcomes in school-aged children conceived after HSG. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a long-term follow-up of the H2Oil trial in which oil-based or water-based contrast was used during HSG (Netherlands; 2012-2014; NTR3270). Of 369 children born <6 months after HSG in the study, we contacted the mothers of 140 children who gave consent to be contacted for follow-up. The follow-up study took place from January to July 2022 (NCT05168228). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS: The study included 69 children aged 6-9 years who were conceived after HSG with oil-based (n = 42) or water-based contrast (n = 27). The assessments targeted intelligence (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children), neurocognitive outcomes (computerized neurocognitive tests), behavioural functioning (parent and teacher questionnaires), and academic performance. Linear regression models, adjusted for age, sex, and parental educational attainment were employed to compare groups. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: School-aged children born to mothers after oil-based contrast HSG did not significantly differ from children born to mothers after water-based contrast HSG, in regards to intelligence, neurocognitive functioning, behavioural functioning, or academic performance, with the exception of better performance for visuomotor integration functions in children exposed to oil-based contrast preconception. After exploratory correction for multiple comparisons, none of the group differences was statistically significant. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The small sample size of this follow-up study limited statistical power. This study provides evidence for the absence of large-sized differences between preconceptional exposure to the two contrast media types but does not rule out more subtle effects on neurodevelopment compared to naturally conceived children without preconceptional exposure to HSG. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study contributes to our knowledge about the long-term effects of different types of iodinated contrast media used in fertility work-up, indicating that choosing oil-based over water-based iodinated contrast media is unlikely to have major effect on the long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes of children conceived shortly after HSG. However, further research should focus on the overall safety of iodine exposure during HSG, comparing children conceived after HSG to those conceived naturally as both types of contrast contain high amounts of iodine. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The original H2Oil randomized controlled trial was an investigator-initiated study that was funded by the two academic hospitals now merged into the Amsterdam University Medical Centre. The current follow-up study (Neuro-H2Oil) is funded through a research grant awarded to the authors by the Amsterdam Reproduction & Development (AR&D) research institute. S.K. is funded by a AMC MD/PhD Scholarship from the Amsterdam UMC. S.K. reports holding voluntary roles in the civil society organizations Universities Allied for Essential Medicines and People's Health Movement. V.M. reports receiving travel and speaker fees as well as research grants from Guerbet, Merck and Ferring. K.D. reports receiving travel and speaker fees as well as research grants from Guerbet. BWM is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437) and reports consultancy, travel support and research funding from Merck, consultancy for Organon and Norgine, and holding stock from ObsEva. The other authors report no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05168228.

Does growth hormone supplementation of in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection improve cumulative live birth rates in women with poor embryonic development in the previous cycle?

BACKGROUND: Growth hormone (GH) has been proposed as an adjunct in in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles, especially in women with poor ovarian response. However, it is unclear whether GH supplementation is effective in women with poor embryonic development in the previous IVF cycle. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of GH supplementation in IVF/ICSI cycles in women with poor embryonic development in the previous cycle. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study from a public fertility center in China, in which we performed propensity score-matching (PSM) for female age and AFC in a ratio of 1:1. We compared the cumulative live birth rate per started cycle, as well as a series of secondary outcomes. We included 3,043 women with poor embryonic development in the previous IVF/ICSI cycle, of which 1,326 had GH as adjuvant therapy and 1,717 had not. After PSM, there were 694 women in each group. RESULTS: After PSM, multivariate analyses showed the cumulative live birth rate to be significantly higher in the GH group than the control group [N = 694, 34.7% vs. N = 694, 27.5%, risk ratio (RR): 1.4 (95%CI: 1.1-1.8)]. Endometrial thickness, number of oocytes retrieved, number of embryos available, and number of good-quality embryos were significantly higher in the GH group compared to controls. Pregnancy outcomes in terms of birth weight, gestational age, fetal sex, preterm birth rate, and type of delivery were comparable. When we evaluated the impact of GH on different categories of female age, the observed benefit in the GH group did not appear to be significant. When we assessed the effect of GH in different AFC categories, the effect of GH was strongest in women with an AFC5-6 (32.2% versus 19.5%; RR 2.0; 95% CI 1.2-3.3). CONCLUSIONS: Women with poor embryonic quality in the previous IVF/ICSI cycles have higher rates of cumulative live birth with GH supplementation.

Are you aware of your citations? A cross-sectional survey on improper citations of retracted articles in assisted reproduction.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Are authors aware when they have cited a retracted paper in their manuscripts in the medically assisted reproduction (MAR) field? DESIGN: A cross-sectional study based on an online survey was conducted to acquire information on the citation pattern from corresponding authors who had cited a retracted article. A dataset of retracted articles in the MAR field was collected from PubMed and Retraction Watch. A complete list of published articles that cited each retracted article was retrieved. The survey was distributed via e-mail to corresponding authors who had cited a retracted paper in their study. RESULTS: The survey revealed a significant lack of awareness among authors, with 78.7% unaware that they had cited retracted articles. This lack of awareness was attributed to insufficient notification mechanisms within research databases and journals, alongside a reliance on previously stored copies of manuscripts. A notable finding was that reference checks were typically performed by a single author, with no instances of retraction concerns raised during the peer-review process. Only a small fraction (17.8%) of respondents reported verifying retraction notices on both journal websites and scientific databases. CONCLUSIONS: Correcting publications that contain references which are subsequently retracted is significant for systematic reviews, meta-analyses and guidelines. Citations of retracted articles perpetuate erroneous scientific data, but assessing the accuracy of citations requires considerable effort. Proper notification of retraction status and cross-checking of citations can help to prevent errors.

Placental, maternal, fetal, and technical origins of false-positive cell-free DNA screening results.

The introduction of noninvasive prenatal testing has resulted in substantial reductions to previously accepted false-positive rates of prenatal screening. Despite this, the possibility of false-positive results remains a challenging consideration in clinical practice, particularly considering the increasing uptake of genome-wide noninvasive prenatal testing, and the subsequent increased proportion of high-risk results attributable to various biological events besides fetal aneuploidy. Confined placental mosaicism, whereby chromosome anomalies exclusively affect the placenta, is perhaps the most widely accepted cause of false-positive noninvasive prenatal testing. There remains, however, a substantial degree of ambiguity in the literature pertaining to the clinical ramifications of confined placental mosaicism and its potential association with placental insufficiency, and consequentially adverse pregnancy outcomes including fetal growth restriction. Other causes of false-positive noninvasive prenatal testing include vanishing twin syndrome, in which the cell-free DNA from a demised aneuploidy-affected twin triggers a high-risk result, technical failures, and maternal origins of abnormal cell-free DNA such as uterine fibroids or unrecognized mosaicisms. Most concerningly, maternal malignancies are also a documented cause of false-positive screening results. In this review, we compile what is currently known about the various causes of false-positive noninvasive prenatal testing.

Cervical pessary versus vaginal progesterone in individuals with a singleton pregnancy and a short cervix: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: For asymptomatic individuals with a singleton pregnancy and a short cervix, vaginal progesterone significantly decreases the risk of PTB and improves perinatal outcomes. Cervical pessary is another option that has been evaluated with inconclusive results. There is; however, a lack of head-to-head comparisons between pessary and vaginal progesterone in this high risk population. OBJECTIVE: This randomized controlled trial (RCT) aims to compare the effectiveness of pessary and vaginal progesterone for the prevention of PTB in individuals with a singleton pregnancy and a CL ≤25 mm. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted an open-label, multi-center, RCT (NCT04300322) at three hospitals in Vietnam. Asymptomatic individuals with a singleton pregnancy and a CL ≤25mm (at 16 to 22 weeks) were randomized (1:1 ratio) to receive either an Arabin® cervical pessary or 200-mg vaginal progesterone daily. Primary outcome was PTB <37 weeks of any cause. Secondary outcomes were maternal and neonatal complications. We planned to recruit 804 women to assess a 10% absolute risk reduction in PTB <37 weeks (alpha-error 0.05, power 80%, 5% lost to follow-up). In view of the potential harm of pessary on perinatal mortality and PTB <28 weeks reported recently in two recent trials, our study was halted on June 2023. Analysis was by intention-to-treat. RESULTS: Between May 2020 and May 2023, we randomized 301 participants to pessary (N=150) or vaginal progesterone (N=151). Seven participants withdrew consent and 13 were lost to follow-up, resulting in 281 participants available for analysis (pessary group N=139; vaginal progesterone group N=142). The primary outcome, any PTB <37 weeks rate, occurred in 15.1% in the pessary group versus 14.1% in the vaginal progesterone group (RR 1.07; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.9). PTB <28 weeks and perinatal death rates were higher in the pessary group, although these differences did not reach statistical significance (7.9% versus 4.2%, RR 1.87; 95% CI, 0.71 to 4.9 and 4.3% versus 2.8%, RR 1.5; 95% CI, 0.34 to 9.2; respectively). Vaginal discharge was significantly more frequent in the pessary group. CONCLUSION: In this prematurely halted RCT involving individuals with a singleton pregnancy and a CL ≤25 mm, neither cervical pessary nor vaginal progesterone was found to be superior in the prevention of PTB <37 weeks. However, vaginal progesterone was associated with non-significantly lower rates of PTB <34, <28 weeks and perinatal death.

Vaginal micronised progesterone for the prevention of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Treatment with vaginal progesterone reduces the risk of miscarriage and preterm birth in selected high-risk women. The hypothesis that vaginal progesterone can reduce the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) is unexplored. OBJECTIVES: To summarise the evidence on the effectiveness of vaginal progesterone to reduce the risk of HDP. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched Embase (OVID), MEDLINE (OVID), PubMed, CENTRAL and clinicaltrials.gov from inception until 20 June 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included placebo-controlled randomised trials (RCTs) of vaginal progesterone for the prevention or treatment of any pregnancy complications. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted absolute event numbers for HDP and pre-eclampsia in women receiving vaginal progesterone or placebo, and meta-analysed the data with a random effects model. We appraised the certainty of the evidence using GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS: The quantitative synthesis included 11 RCTs, of which three initiated vaginal progesterone in the first trimester, and eight in the second or third trimesters. Vaginal progesterone started in the first trimester of pregnancy lowered the risk of any HDP (risk ratio [RR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.53-0.93, 2 RCTs, n = 4431 women, I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) and pre-eclampsia (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41-0.92, 3 RCTs, n = 5267 women, I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence) when compared with placebo. Vaginal progesterone started in the second or third trimesters was not associated with a reduction in HDP (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.67-2.12, 3 RCTs, n = 1602 women, I2 = 9%; low-certainty evidence) or pre-eclampsia (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.71-1.31, 5 RCTs, n = 4274 women, I2 = 0%; low-certainty evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Our systematic review found first-trimester initiated vaginal micronised progesterone may reduce the risk of HDP and pre-eclampsia.

Attitudes, knowledge and practice regarding the anti-müllerian hormone test among general practitioners and reproductive specialists: A cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe clinicians' attitudes, knowledge and practice relating to the anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) test. DESIGN: Cross-sectional nationwide survey. SETTING: Australia. POPULATION OR SAMPLE: A total of 362 general practitioners (GPs), gynaecologists and reproductive specialists. METHODS: Clinicians were recruited through relevant professional organisations, with data collected from May 2021 to April 2022. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Clinicians' attitudes, knowledge and practice relating to the AMH test, measured using multiple choice, Likert scales and open-ended items. RESULTS: Fifteen percent of GPs (n = 27) and 40% of gynaecologists and other specialists (n = 73) order at least one AMH test per month. Specialists reported raising the idea of testing most of the time, whereas GPs reported that patient request was more common. Half of clinicians lacked confidence interpreting (n = 182, 51%) and explaining (n = 173, 48%) an AMH result to their patients. Five percent (n = 19) believed the test was moderately/very useful in predicting natural conception/birth and 22% (n = 82) believed the same for predicting premature menopause, despite evidence that the test cannot reliably predict either. Forty percent (n = 144) had previously ordered the test to help with reproductive planning and 21% (n = 75) to provide reassurance about fertility. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians reported use of AMH testing in clinical circumstances not supported by the evidence. With the proliferation of direct-to-consumer testing, efforts to support clinicians in the judicious use of testing and effectively navigating patient requests are needed.

Vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone for cervical ripening and induction of labour: An individual participant data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Induction of labour (IOL) is common practice and different methods carry different effectiveness and safety profiles. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness, and maternal and perinatal safety outcomes of IOL with vaginal misoprostol versus vaginal dinoprostone using individual participant data from randomised clinical trials. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following databases were searched from inception to March 2023: CINAHL Plus, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trial Register, Ovid Embase, Ovid Emcare, Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus and the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with viable singleton gestation, no language restrictions, and all published and unpublished data. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: An individual participant data meta-analysis was carried out. MAIN RESULTS: Ten of 52 eligible trials provided individual participant data, of which two were excluded after checking data integrity. The remaining eight trials compared low-dose vaginal misoprostol versus dinoprostone, including 4180 women undergoing IOL, which represents 32.8% of all participants in the published RCTs. Of these, 2077 were assigned to low-dose vaginal misoprostol and 2103 were assigned to vaginal dinoprostone. Compared with vaginal dinoprostone, low-dose vaginal misoprostol had a comparable rate of vaginal birth. Composite adverse perinatal outcomes did not differ between the groups. Compared with vaginal dinoprostone, composite adverse maternal outcomes were significantly lower with low-dose vaginal misoprostol (aOR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.98, P = 0.03, I2 = 0%). CONCLUSIONS: Low-dose vaginal misoprostol and vaginal dinoprostone for IOL are comparable in terms of effectiveness and perinatal safety. However, low-dose vaginal misoprostol is likely to lead to a lower rate of composite adverse maternal outcomes than vaginal dinoprostone.

Recommendations from the 2024 Australian evidence-based guideline for unexplained infertility: ADAPTE process from the ESHRE evidence-based guideline on unexplained infertility.

INTRODUCTION: The 2024 Australian evidence-based guideline for unexplained infertility provides clinicians with evidence-based recommendations for the optimal diagnostic workup for infertile couples to establish the diagnosis of unexplained infertility and optimal therapeutic approach to treat couples diagnosed with unexplained infertility in the Australian health care setting. The guideline recommendations were adapted for the Australian context from the rigorous, comprehensive European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) 2023 Evidence-based guideline: unexplained infertility, using the ADAPTE process and have been approved by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: The guideline includes 40 evidence-based recommendations, 21 practice points and three research recommendations addressing: definition - defining infertility and frequency of intercourse, infertility and age, female and male factor infertility; diagnosis - ovulation, ovarian reserve, tubal factor, uterine factor, laparoscopy, cervical/vaginal factor, male factor, additional testing for systemic conditions; and treatment - expectant management, active treatment, mechanical-surgical procedures, alternative therapeutic approaches, quality of life. CHANGES IN ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT RESULTING FROM THE GUIDELINE: This guideline refines the definition of unexplained infertility and addresses basic diagnostic procedures for infertility assessment not considered in previous guidelines on unexplained infertility. For therapeutic approaches, consideration of evidence quality, efficacy, safety and, in the Australian setting, feasibility, acceptability, cost, implementation and ultimately recommendation strength were integrated across multidisciplinary expertise and consumer perspectives in adapting recommendations to the Australian context by using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework, which had not been used in past guidelines on unexplained infertility to formulate recommendations. The Australian process also included an established data integrity check to ensure evidence could be trusted to guide practice. Practice points were added and expanded to consider the Australian setting. No evidence-based recommendations were underpinned by high quality evidence, with most having low or very low quality evidence. In this context, research recommendations were made including those for the Australian context. The full guideline and technical report are publicly available online and can be accessed at https://www.monash.edu/medicine/mchri/infertility and are supported by extensive translation resources, including the free patient ASKFertility mobile application (https://www.askfertility.org/).

A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of melatonin as an adjuvant agent for induction of labor: The MILO trial.

INTRODUCTION: Melatonin has been suggested to have a biological role in the onset and progress of labor. We tested the hypothesis that the addition of melatonin during an induction of labor will reduce the need for a cesarean birth. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This trial underwent protocol amendments that are detailed in the main text of the article. This trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12616000311459). At a multi-center health service including secondary and tertiary obstetric hospitals, we performed a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in women with a singleton cephalic pregnancy, free of significant maternal or perinatal complications who were undergoing induction of labor (with or without cervical ripening). Women were randomized to 10 mg melatonin vs placebo, with cervical ripening as required, and then 6-h during their induction of labor to a maximum of four doses or until birth. The primary outcome was cesarean birth. Secondary outcomes included labor, maternal, and neonatal outcomes. Data were analyzed using intention to treat. Sub-group analyses based on mode of ripening and parity were also performed. RESULTS: Between 2019 and 2021 we randomized 189 women (103 to melatonin and 86 to placebo). The study was prematurely terminated due to logistical complications resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Cesarean rates were 28/103 (27.2%) in the melatonin group versus 20/84 (23.3%) in the placebo group (RR 1.17 95% CI 0.71-1.92). There were no significant differences in rate of cesarean birth between the melatonin and placebo groups for failure to progress (13.4% and 9.3%, respectively, RR 1.46; 95% CI 0.64-3.32) or suspected fetal distress (10.7% and 10.5%, respectively, RR 1.02; 95% CI 0.44-2.34). The melatonin group had significantly lower rates of spontaneous vaginal birth within 24 h (35.0% vs. 50.0%; RR 0.70 95% CI 0.50-0.98). The rates of secondary outcomes such as total length of labor, rate of postpartum hemorrhage, and instrumental birth were comparable. Babies born in the melatonin group were more likely to need admission to the special care nursery, namely for hypoglycemic monitoring (18.5% vs. 8.1% RR 2.26; 95% CI 1.00-5.10). CONCLUSIONS: In women undergoing induction of labor, melatonin does not reduce the cesarean section rate. Melatonin use intrapartum may also be associated with neonatal hypoglycemia.

Trends in maternal body mass index, macrosomia and caesarean section in first-time mothers during the pandemic: a multicentre retrospective cohort study of 12 Melbourne public hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: To compare specific perinatal outcomes in nulliparas with a singleton infant in cephalic presentation at term, with and without exposure to the COVID-19 pandemic during pregnancy. We hypothesised that the pandemic conditions in Melbourne may have been an independent contributor to trends in maternal Body Mass Index ≥ 25 kg/m2, macrosomia and caesarean section. DESIGN: Multi-centre retrospective cohort study and interrupted time-series analysis. SETTING: Metropolitan Melbourne, Victoria. POPULATION: Singleton infants ≥ 20 weeks gestational age born between 1 January 2019 and 31 March 2022. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of maternal Body Mass Index ≥ 25 kg/m2, macrosomia (birthweight ≥ 4000 g) and caesarean section. RESULTS: 25 897 individuals gave birth for the first time to a singleton infant in cephalic presentation at term in the pre-pandemic cohort, and 25 298 in the pandemic-exposed cohort. Interrupted time-series analysis demonstrated no significant additional effect of the pandemic on pre-existing upward trends in maternal Body Mass Index ≥ 25 kg/m2, caesarean section or macrosomia. The rate of maternal Body Mass Index ≥ 25 kg/m2 was higher in the pandemic-exposed cohort compared with the pre-pandemic cohort, (45.82% vs. 44.58% respectively, p = 0.041) as was the overall rate of caesarean section (33.09% vs. 30.80%, p < 0.001). However, this increase in caesarean section was confined to individuals who had either an induction of labour or no labour. There was also a nonsignificant trend to higher rates of macrosomia in the pandemic-exposed cohort compared with the pre-pandemic cohort (8.55% vs. 7.99% respectively, p = 0.124). CONCLUSIONS: While rates of Body Mass Index ≥ 25 kg/m2, pre-labour caesarean section, and caesarean section following induction of labour were higher among pandemic-exposed nulliparas, these findings represented a continuation of pre-existing upward trends, with no significant independent contribution from the pandemic. These trends are forecast to continue, with long term implications for population health.

"Hypertension in Pregnancy Intervention Trial At Term" and "Disproportionate Intrauterine Growth Intervention Trial At Term" Studies.

In 2003, in the context of a national research funding program in which obstetric research was prioritized, several perinatal centers took the initiative to jointly submit a number of applications to the subsidy programs of Effectiveness Research and Prevention of ZonMw. This has led to the funding of the Obstetric Consortium with several projects, including the "Hypertension in Pregnancy Intervention Trial At Term" and the "Disproportionate Intrauterine Growth Intervention Trial At Term" studies. The studies showed that induction of labor for hypertension and growth restriction at term was the appropriate management. Subsequent implementation improved maternal and perinatal outcomes.

Modelling and comparing the use of IVF and ICSI in Australia.

PURPOSE: This study estimates the need of IVF/ICSI in Australia as compared to its actual uptake. METHODS: We created a model estimating for the annual demand for IVF/ICSI in a hypothetical infertile population, using demographic data from medical literature and Australian government databases. For each category of infertility (tubal, severe male, endometriosis, anovulation and unexplained), our estimated need for IVF/ICSI was compared to the actual IVF/ICSI uptake (ANZARD 2019). The model consisted of three categories depending on couples' cause of infertility, i.e. couples with absolute indications for IVF/ICSI (couples with severe male factor infertility and tubal obstruction); couples with anovulatory infertility (couples with ovulation disorders) and couples with ovulatory infertility (couples suffering from unexplained infertility and endometriosis). The model was applied to each of these categories to determine the number of couples that would require IVF/ICSI treatment after failing to conceive naturally or after following alternative treatment plans. The main outcomes of this study were the estimate of IVF/ICSI cycles and the difference between the estimate and the reported number of IVF/ICSI cycles (2019 ANZARD report). RESULTS: We estimated that approximately 35,300 couples required IVF/ICSI treatment in Australia in 2019, while in 2019 according to ANZARD, 46,000 couples underwent IVF/ICSI. A higher uptake of IVF/ICSI cycles than expected was specifically reported in couples with unexplained infertility, ovulation disorders and endometriosis, while for tubal and severe male infertility uptake seemed adequate. CONCLUSION: In Australia, there seems to be overservicing of IVF/ICSI, specifically for unexplained, ovulatory and endometriosis-related infertility.

Can serum progesterone concentration direct a fresh or freeze-all transfer strategy in the first in vitro fertilisation cycle?

PURPOSE: To examine the interaction between serum progesterone concentration on the trigger day and choice of freeze-all and fresh transfer strategies on live birth in an unselected population as well as in patients over 35 years old. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of 26,661 patients commencing their first IVF cycle in a large fertility centre between 2015 and 2019, including 4687 patients over 35 years old. We performed a multivariable fractional polynomial interaction analysis within a logistic regression model to investigate the interaction between serum progesterone concentration and the choice of freeze-all or fresh transfer strategy following the first transfer. RESULTS: 15,539 patients underwent a fresh embryo transfer and 11,122 underwent a freeze-all strategy in their first IVF cycle. The freeze-all group had a higher live birth rate compared to the fresh group (43.9% vs 40.3%). After adjusting for confounding factors, there was a positive interaction between serum progesterone concentrations and the choice of a freeze-all versus fresh embryo transfer on live birth (p for interaction 0.0001), with a larger magnitude of effect when progesterone concentration was higher. Such an interaction was also observed in patients over 35 years old (p for interaction 0.01), but the treatment effect curve over progesterone concentrations was almost flat. CONCLUSIONS: In an unselected population, frozen transfer is associated with greater chances of live birth, especially in patients with higher serum progesterone concentration. In patients over 35 years old, the benefit of a freeze-all policy appears small across all serum progesterone concentrations.

Characteristics of preterm births during COVID-19 mitigation measures.

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, mitigation measures were associated with a reduction in preterm birth rates; while not clearly proven, this observation has sparked significant interest. AIM: To understand the cause of this reduction by exploring the characteristics of preterm birth cohorts. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study where we compared women who delivered preterm in three Melbourne maternity hospitals and conceived between November 2019 and February 2020 (mitigation measures-exposed cohort) to women who delivered preterm and conceived between November 2018 and February 2019 (non-exposed cohort). We compared maternal characteristics, pregnancy complications, antenatal interventions, intrapartum care, and indications for delivery. RESULTS: In the exposed cohort, 252/3129 women delivered preterm (8.1%), vs 298/3154 (9.4%) in the non-exposed cohort (odds ratio (OR) 0.84, 95% CI 0.70-1.00, P = 0.051). The baseline characteristic of two cohorts were comparable. Rates of spontaneous preterm labour (sPTL) without preterm pre-labour rupture of membranes (PPROM) were lower in the exposed cohort (13.1% vs 24.2%, OR 0.47, P = 0.001) while PPROM occurred more often (48.0% vs 35.6%, OR 1.67, P = 0.003). With a non-statistically significant prolongation of pregnancy in the cohort exposed to mitigation measures for both sPTL without PPROM (35.4 vs 34.9 weeks, P = 0.703) and PPROM (35.6 vs 34.9 weeks, P = 0.184). The rate of spontaneous labour after PPROM was higher in the exposed cohort compared to the non-exposed cohort (40.1% vs 24.1%, OR 2.09, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The reduction in preterm delivery during mitigation measures may have been driven by a reduction in spontaneous labour without PPROM, which seemed to result in more PPROM later in pregnancy.