Estimation of couple fecundity in the general population and the association with monthly time-varying ambient particulate matter exposure in low- and middle-income countries: A population-based multi-center epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Declining total fertility rates have been observed in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). However, it remains unclear if this trend is related to a reduction in fecundity of general population. Research evidence on contributing factors to fecundity reduction is also limited. We aimed to first estimate couple fecundity in LMICs and then investigate its association with ambient particulate matter (PM) exposure. METHODS: Using the information from Demographic and Health Surveys between 2003 and 2019, we estimated median time to pregnancy (TTP) and infertility prevalence across 30 LMICs, by employing a current duration approach. Individual PM (PM1, PM2.5, and PM10) exposure during the period of 'at risk' of pregnancy was assessed by months. An accelerated failure model was used to elucidate the association between monthly time-varying PM exposure and TTP. Subsequently, we estimated the prolonged TTP attributable to PM exposures above the World Health Organization (WHO)'s recommended air quality level in 2021. RESULTS: Within the study regions, median TTP ranged from 6.90 (95 % CI 6.02-7.87) months in Latin America & Caribbean to 10.29 (95 % CI 9.28-11.36) months in East Asia & Pacific, with corresponding infertility prevalence varying from 33 % (95 % CI 29 %-36 %) to 44 % (95 % CI 41 %-48 %). Our estimations indicated that TTP was 1.08 (95 % CI: 0.99-1.18), 1.12 (95 % CI 1.06-1.19), and 1.05 (95 % CI 1.03-1.07) times longer for every 10 µg/m3 increment in PM1, PM2.5, and PM10, respectively. The prolonged TTP attributable to PM exposures surpassing the WHO guideline ranged from 0.11 to 2.81 months across the studied regions. DISCUSSION: Ambient particulate matter is identified as a potential contributing factor to impaired fecundity in general population of LMICs. The findings underscore the importance of coordinated efforts to control ambient air pollution to mitigate the risk of fecundity reduction among the general population.

Preimplantation genetic testing for complex chromosomal rearrangements: clinical outcomes and potential risk factors.

Objective: Complex chromosome rearrangements (CCR) are rare structural abnormalities involving at least three breakpoints, categorized into three types based on their structure: type A (three-way rearrangements), type B (double two-way translocations), and type C (exceptional CCR). However, thus far, limited data exists on preimplantation genetic testing for chromosomal structural rearrangements (PGT-SR) in CCR carriers. This study aims to evaluate the clinical outcomes and influencing factors of PGT-SR in couples with CCR. Methods: Fifteen couples with unique CCR recruited from 793 couples following PGT-SR between January 2017 and May 2023. In addition, a total of 54 CCR cases, 39 previously reported as well as 15 newly added, were included in the analysis of factors associate with normal/balanced embryos. Results: A total of 100 blastocysts were biopsied and analyzed in 15 CCR couples after 17 PGT-SR cycles, with 16.0% being euploid, 78.0% aneuploid and 6.0% mosaic. 11 normal/balanced embryos and one mosaic embryo were transferred, resulting in eight live births. Furthermore, based on the combined data from 54 CCR carriers, the proportion of normal/balanced embryos was 10.8%, with a significant decrease observed among female carriers compared to male heterozygotes (6.5% vs. 15.5%, p = 0.002). Type B exhibited the lowest rate of euploid embryos at only 6.7%, followed by type A at 11.6% and type C at 14.0%, although the differences were not significant (p = 0.182). After completing the multivariate generalized estimating equation (GEE) analysis, type B (p = 0.014) and female carrier (p = 0.002) were identified as independent risk factors for fewer euploid embryos. Conclusion: The occurrence of balanced CCR in patients with reproductive abnormalities may be more frequent than we expected. Despite the proportion of normal/balanced embryos being significantly low, which can be influenced by CCR type and carrier's sex, PGT-SR may improve the reproductive outcomes among CCR cases. These findings can optimize the clinical management and genetic counseling of CCR carriers seeking assisted reproductive technology (ART).

Impact of different progesterone timings on live birth rates for blastocyst frozen embryo transfer cycles.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Do different timings of progesterone administration for day 5 and day 6 blastocysts affect the live birth rate (LBR) of artificial frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles? DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study included 1362 patients who underwent artificial FET cycles. The effects of 6 and 7 days of progesterone administration prior to blastocyst transfer on clinical outcomes were compared in day 5 and day 6 blastocysts. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were undertaken. RESULTS: In all patients, LBR was comparable between the two groups (51.8% versus 47.9%, P = 0.165). For day 6 blastocysts, after adjusting for confounders, the 7-day progesterone regimen resulted in a significantly higher LBR (44.8% versus 36.4%, P = 0.039, adjusted OR = 1.494, 95% CI 1.060-2.106) and lower pregnancy loss rate (15.4% versus 25.2%, P = 0.031, adjusted OR = 0.472, 95% CI 0.260-0.856) compared with the 6-day progesterone regimen. For day 5 blastocysts, there were no significant differences in pregnancy outcomes between the two regimens, but the rate of low birthweight was higher with the 7-day progesterone regimen than with the 6-day progesterone regimen (13.9% versus 6.7%, P = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: In all blastocyst analyses, no difference in LBR was found between the 6- and 7-day progesterone regimens in artificial FET cycles. For day 6 blastocysts, LBR was significantly higher with the 7-day progesterone regimen than with the 6-day progesterone regimen, whereas for day 5 blastocysts, pregnancy outcomes were comparable between the two regimens.

Olgotrelvir as a Single-Agent Treatment of Nonhospitalized Patients with Covid-19.

BACKGROUND: Olgotrelvir is an oral antiviral with dual mechanisms of action targeting severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 main protease (i.e., Mpro) and human cathepsin L. It has potential to serve as a single-agent treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (Covid-19). METHODS: We conducted a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of olgotrelvir in 1212 nonhospitalized adult participants with mild to moderate Covid-19, irrespective of risk factors, who were randomly assigned to receive orally either 600 mg of olgotrelvir or placebo twice daily for 5 days. The primary and key secondary end points were time to sustained recovery of a panel of 11 Covid-19-related symptoms and the viral ribonucleic acid (RNA) load. The safety end point was incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events. RESULTS: The baseline characteristics of 1212 participants were similar in the two groups. In the modified intention-to-treat population (567 patients in the placebo group and 558 in the olgotrelvir group), the median time to symptom recovery was 205 hours in the olgotrelvir group versus 264 hours in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13 to 1.46; P<0.001). The least squares mean (95% CI) changes of viral RNA load from baseline were -2.20 (-2.59 to -1.81) log10 copies/ml in olgotrelvir-treated participants and -1.40 (-1.79 to -1.01) in participants receiving placebo at day 4. Skin rash (3.3%) and nausea (1.5%) were more frequent in the olgotrelvir group than in the placebo group; there were no treatment-related serious adverse events, and no deaths were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Olgotrelvir as a single-agent treatment significantly improved symptom recovery. Adverse effects were not dose limiting. (Funded by Sorrento Therapeutics, a parent company of ACEA Therapeutics; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT05716425.).