Considerations on implementation of the newest treatment for symptomatic uterine fibroids: Oral GnRH antagonists.

Novel gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist treatments have recently been developed in combination with hormonal add-back therapy, as an oral treatment option for women suffering from uterine fibroids. Registration trials assessing the GnRH antagonist combination preparations with relugolix, elagolix and linzagolix have assessed treatment efficacy for fibroid-related heavy menstrual blood loss in comparison to placebo. Marketing authorization has been granted by several agencies including those in Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States. While the registration trials report a robust effect on the reduction of heavy menstrual blood loss and improvement in quality of life scores, reticence is advised before widespread prescription. In this review, we demonstrate limitations in the trial data, namely a lack of generalizability due to the restricted study population, the lack of transparency in the distribution of disease-level characteristics limiting the predictability of treatment success in the real-world diverse population, and the absence of any comparison to current alternative treatment methods. Importantly, no clinically meaningful volume reductions were found with GnRH antagonist combination preparations, and long-term safety data, particularly concerning modest but stable bone mineral density decline, need further addressing. Symptoms related to uterine fibroids adversely affect many women's quality of life and effective medical treatments are lacking. However, despite the urgent need for conservative treatments, it is vitally important that novel drugs, like combination oral GnRH antagonists, undergo sufficiently rigorous evaluation of safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a representative population and are compared with alternative treatment methods before introduction into mainstream clinical practice.

Surgical approach to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there are five major approaches to hysterectomy for benign gynaecological disease: abdominal hysterectomy (AH), vaginal hysterectomy (VH), laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH), robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) and vaginal natural orifice hysterectomy (V-NOTES). Within the LH category we further differentiate the laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) from the total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) and single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SP-LH). OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of different surgical approaches to hysterectomy for women with benign gynaecological conditions. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases (from their inception to December 2022): the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We also searched the trial registries and relevant reference lists, and communicated with experts in the field for any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in which clinical outcomes were compared between one surgical approach to hysterectomy and another. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently selected trials, assessed risk of bias and performed data extraction. Our primary outcomes were return to normal activities, satisfaction and quality of life, intraoperative visceral injury and major long-term complications (i.e. fistula, pelvic-abdominal pain, urinary dysfunction, bowel dysfunction, pelvic floor condition and sexual dysfunction). MAIN RESULTS: We included 63 studies with 6811 women. The evidence for most comparisons was of low or moderate certainty. The main limitations were poor reporting and imprecision. Vaginal hysterectomy (VH) versus abdominal hysterectomy (AH) (12 RCTs, 1046 women) Return to normal activities was probably faster in the VH group (mean difference (MD) -10.91 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -17.95 to -3.87; 4 RCTs, 274 women; I2 = 67%; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the return to normal activities after AH is assumed to be 42 days, then after VH it would be between 24 and 38 days. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. Laparoscopic hysterectomy (LH) versus AH (28 RCTs, 3431 women) Return to normal activities may be sooner in the LH group (MD -13.01 days, 95% CI -16.47 to -9.56; 7 RCTs, 618 women; I2 = 68%, low-certainty evidence), but there may be more urinary tract injuries in the LH group (odds ratio (OR) 2.16, 95% CI 1.19 to 3.93; 18 RCTs, 2594 women; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the return to normal activities after abdominal hysterectomy is assumed to be 37 days, then after laparoscopic hysterectomy it would be between 22 and 25 days. It also suggests that if the rate of ureter injury during abdominal hysterectomy is assumed to be 0.2%, then during laparoscopic hysterectomy it would be between 0.2% and 2%. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for the other primary outcomes. LH versus VH (22 RCTs, 2135 women) We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for any of our primary outcomes. Both short- and long-term complications were rare in both groups. Robotic-assisted hysterectomy (RH) versus LH (three RCTs, 296 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for our other primary outcomes. Single-port laparoscopic hysterectomy (SP-LH) versus LH (seven RCTs, 621 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates, quality of life or major long-term complications. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of intraoperative visceral injury. Total laparoscopic hysterectomy (TLH) versus laparoscopic-assisted vaginal hysterectomy (LAVH) (three RCTs, 233 women) None of the studies reported satisfaction rates or quality of life. We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of intraoperative visceral injury or major long-term complications. Transvaginal natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (V-NOTES) versus LH (two RCTs, 96 women) We are uncertain whether there is a difference between the groups for rates of bladder injury. Our other primary outcomes were not reported. Overall, adverse events were rare in the included studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Among women undergoing hysterectomy for benign disease, VH appears to be superior to AH. When technically feasible, VH should be performed in preference to AH because it is associated with faster return to normal activities, fewer wound/abdominal wall infections and shorter hospital stay. Where VH is not possible, LH has advantages over AH including faster return to normal activities, shorter hospital stay, and decreased risk of wound/abdominal wall infection, febrile episodes or unspecified infection, and transfusion. These advantages must be balanced against the increased risk of ureteric injury and longer operative time. When compared to LH, VH was associated with no difference in time to return to normal activities but shorter operative time and shorter hospital stay. RH and V-NOTES require further evaluation since there is a lack of evidence of any patient benefit over conventional LH. Overall, the evidence in this review has to be interpreted with caution as adverse event rates were low, resulting in low power for these comparisons. The surgical approach to hysterectomy should be discussed with the patient and decided in the light of the relative benefits and hazards. Surgical expertise is difficult to quantify and poorly reported in the available studies and this may influence outcomes in ways that cannot be accounted for in this review. In conclusion, when VH is not feasible, LH has multiple advantages over AH, but at the cost of more ureteric injuries. Evidence is limited for RH and V-NOTES.

Progesterone for women with threatened miscarriage (STOP trial): a placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial.

STUDY QUESTION: In women with threatened miscarriage, does progesterone supplementation until the completion of the first trimester of pregnancy increase the probability of live birth? SUMMARY ANSWER: In women with threatened miscarriage, 400 mg vaginal progesterone nightly, from onset of bleeding until 12 weeks, did not increase live birth rates. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Limited evidence has indicated that vaginal micronized progesterone may make little or no difference to the live birth rate when compared with placebo in women with threatened miscarriage. Subgroup analysis of one recent randomized trial reported that in women with bleeding and at least one previous miscarriage, progesterone might be of benefit. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial between February 2012 and April 2019. Eligible pregnant women under 10 weeks gestation, experiencing a threatened miscarriage as apparent from vaginal bleeding were randomized into two groups in a 1:1 ratio: the intervention group received 400 mg progesterone as vaginal pessaries, the control group received placebo vaginal pessaries, both until 12 weeks gestation. The primary endpoint was live birth. We planned to randomize 386 women (193 per group). The study was stopped at a planned interim analysis for futility after randomization of 278 women. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: This trial was conducted at the Mater Mothers' Hospital, a tertiary centre for maternity care in South Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. We randomized 139 women to the intervention group and 139 women to the placebo group. Primary outcome data were available for 136 women in the intervention group and 133 women in the placebo group. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The live birth rates were 82.4% (112/136) and 84.2% (112/133) in the intervention group and placebo group, respectively (risk ratio (RR) 0.98, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.09; risk difference -0.02, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.07; P = 0.683). Among women with at least one previous miscarriage, live birth rates were 80.6% (54/67) and 84.4% (65/77) (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.82-1.11; P = 0.550). No significant effect was seen from progesterone in women with two (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.96-1.72; P = 0.096) or more (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53-1.19; P = 0.267) previous miscarriages. Preterm birth rates were 12.9% and 9.3%, respectively (RR 1.38; 95% CI 0.69 to 2.78; P = 0.361). Median birth weight was 3310 vs 3300 g (P = 0.992). There were also no other significant differences in obstetric and perinatal outcomes. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our study was single centre and did not reach the planned sample size because it was stopped prematurely at an interim analysis. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We did not find evidence supporting the treatment effect of vaginal progesterone in women with threatened miscarriage. Progesterone in this setting should not be routinely used for threatened miscarriage. The treatment effect in women with threatened miscarriage after previous miscarriages warrants further research. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Mothers' and babies Golden Casket Clinical Fellowship (L.A.M.). Progesterone and placebo pessaries were provided by Perrigo Australia.B.W.J.M. reports grants from NHMRC, personal fees from ObsEva, personal fees from Merck KGaA, personal fees from Guerbet, personal fees from iGenomix, outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ACTRN12611000405910. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 19 April 2011. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 06 February 2012.

Evaluation of marketing authorization and clinical implementation of ulipristal acetate for uterine fibroids.

Ulipristal acetate (UPA) is a medical treatment for uterine fibroids and was authorized for surgical pre-treatment in 2012 after the conduct of the PEARL I and II randomized controlled trials and for intermittent treatment after the observational PEARL III and IV trials. However, UPA came into disrepute due to its temporary suspension in 2017 and 2020 because of an apparent association with liver injury. This clinical opinion paper aims to review the process of marketing authorization and implementation of UPA, in order to provide all involved stakeholders with recommendations for the introduction of future drugs. Before marketing authorization, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) states that Phase III registration trials should evaluate relevant outcomes in a representative population, while comparing to gold-standard treatment. This review shows that the representativeness of the study populations in all PEARL trials was limited, surgical outcomes were not evaluated and intermittent treatment was assessed without comparative groups. Implementation into clinical practice was extensive, with 900 000 prescribed treatment cycles in 5 years in Europe and Canada combined. Extremely high costs are involved in developing and evaluating pre-marketing studies in new drugs, influencing trial design and relevance of chosen outcomes, thereby impeding clinical applicability. It is vitally important that the marketing implementation after authorization is regulated in such way that necessary evidence is generated before widespread prescription of a new drug. All stakeholders, from pharmaceutical companies to authorizing bodies, governmental funding bodies and medical professionals should be aware of their role and take responsibility for their part in this process.

Uterine distension media for outpatient hysteroscopy.

BACKGROUND: Hysteroscopy done in an outpatient setting is the 'gold standard' method for evaluating the uterine cavity. Media used to distend the uterine cavity include gas as carbon dioxide and liquid as saline that can be used at room temperature or warmed to body temperature. Both media offer advantages as well as disadvantages. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to compare the effectiveness, tolerability, and safety of gas (carbon dioxide) and liquid (normal saline) used for uterine distension during outpatient hysteroscopy. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO on 28 April 2021. We checked references of relevant trials and contacted study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. CINAHL records and ongoing trials from the trial registries were included in the CENTRAL search. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing saline with carbon dioxide, as well as RCTs comparing saline at different temperatures, for uterine distension in outpatient hysteroscopy done for any indication. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary review outcomes were patient tolerability and adverse events or complications related to the distending medium. Secondary outcomes were quality of the hysteroscopic view and duration of the procedure. MAIN RESULTS: We included 12 RCTs (1946 women). The quality of evidence ranged from very low to high: the main limitations were risk of bias due to absence of blinding due to the nature of the procedure, imprecision, and inconsistency. Saline versus carbon dioxide Analysis ruled out a clinically relevant difference in pain scores during the procedure between saline and carbon dioxide, but the quality of evidence was low (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.17 to 0.02; 9 RCTs, N = 1705; I² = 86%). This translates to differences of 0.39 cm (lower) and 0.05 cm (higher) on a 10-cm visual analogue scale (VAS). Evidence was insufficient to show differences between groups in the proportion of procedures abandoned due to intense pain (Peto odds ratio (OR) 0.48, 95% CI 0.09 to 2.42; 1 RCT, N = 189; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether saline decreases the need for analgesia compared to carbon dioxide (Peto OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.99; 1 RCT, N = 189; very low-quality evidence). Saline compared to carbon dioxide is probably associated with fewer vasovagal reaction events (Peto OR 0.53, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.86; 6 RCTs, N = 1076; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence) and fewer shoulder-tip pain events (Peto OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.54; 4 RCTs, N = 623; I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). Evidence suggests that if 10% of women undergoing outpatient hysteroscopy experience a vasovagal reaction event with the use of carbon dioxide, this rate would be between 3% and 9% with the use of saline. Similarly, if the rate of shoulder-tip pain with carbon dioxide is 9%, it would be between 1% and 5% with saline. We are uncertain whether saline is similar to carbon dioxide in terms of endometrial bleeding (Peto OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.75; 2 RCTs, N = 349; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Infection was not reported by any study in this comparison. Saline may result in fewer procedures with an unsatisfactory hysteroscopic view than carbon dioxide (Peto OR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.82; 5 RCTs, N = 1082; I² = 67%; low-quality evidence). The duration of the procedure was shorter with saline in three of the four studies that reported this outcome, and duration was similar in both arms in the fourth study. Warm saline versus room temperature saline Use of warm saline for uterine distension during office hysteroscopy may reduce pain scores when compared with room temperature saline (mean difference (MD) -1.14, 95% CI -1.55 to -0.73; 3 RCTs, N = 241; I² = 77%; low-quality evidence). Evidence is insufficient to show differences between groups in either the proportion of procedures abandoned due to intense pain (Peto OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.87; 1 RCT, N = 77; very low-quality evidence) or the need for analgesia (Peto OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 7.32; 1 RCT, N = 100; very low-quality evidence). Analysis ruled out a clinically relevant difference in duration of the procedure between warm and room temperature saline, but the quality of evidence is low (MD 13.17 seconds, 95% CI -12.96 to 39.29; 2 RCTs, N = 141; I² = 21%). No cases of infection were reported in either group (1 RCT, N = 100). No other adverse events and no information on quality of the hysteroscopic view were reported by any study in this comparison. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence was insufficient to show differences between different distension media used for uterine distension in outpatient hysteroscopy in terms of patient tolerability, operator satisfaction, or duration of the procedure. However, saline was superior to carbon dioxide in producing fewer adverse events (shoulder-tip pain and vasovagal reaction).

The long-term costs and effects of tubal flushing with oil-based versus water-based contrast during hysterosalpingography.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the long-term costs and effects of oil- versus water-based contrast in infertile women undergoing hysterosalpingography (HSG)? DESIGN: This economic evaluation of a long-term follow-up of a multicentre randomized controlled trial involved 1119 infertile women randomized to HSG with oil- (n = 557) or water-based contrast (n = 562) in the Netherlands. RESULTS: In the oil-based contrast group, 39.8% of women needed no other treatment, 34.6% underwent intrauterine insemination (IUI) and 25.6% had IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in the 5 years following HSG. In the water-based contrast group, 35.0% of women had no other treatment, 34.2% had IUI and 30.8% had IVF/ICSI in the 5 years following HSG (P = 0.113). After 5 years of follow-up, HSG using oil-based contrast resulted in equivalent costs (mean cost difference -€144; 95% confidence interval [CI] -€579 to +€290; P = 0.515) for a 5% increase in the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate compared with HSG using water-based contrast (80% compared with 75%, Relative Risk (RR) 1.07; 95% CI 1.00-1.14). Similarly, HSG with oil-based contrast resulted in equivalent costs (mean cost difference -€50; 95% CI -€576 to +€475; P = 0.850) for a 7.5% increase in the cumulative live birth rate compared with HSG with water-based contrast (74.8% compared with 67.3%, RR 1.11; 95% CI 1.03-1.20), making it the dominant strategy. Scenario analyses suggest that the oil-based contrast medium is the dominant strategy up to a price difference of €300. CONCLUSION: Over a 5-year follow-up, HSG with an oil-based contrast was associated with a 5% increase in ongoing pregnancy rate, a 7.5% increase in live birth rate and similar costs to HSG with water-based contrast.

Uterine artery embolization versus surgical treatment in patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids: Protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data.

OBJECTIVE: Uterine fibroids are the most common benign tumours in women of the reproductive age. Symptoms of heavy menstrual bleeding, abdominal discomfort and infertility may seriously affect a woman's quality of life. Uterine artery embolization is a safe and effective alternative treatment to hysterectomy or myomectomy for symptomatic uterine fibroids. Which treatment provides the highest quality of life, least complications, symptom reduction and least chance intervention, has not been established and might depend on strict patient selection. This study aims to identify which specific subgroups benefit most of each treatment by analyzing individual participant data derived from randomized controlled trials of women undergoing embolization or surgical treatment. This study will primarily assess the effectiveness of both treatment groups by evaluating the effect on quality of life of embolization in comparison to surgery on specific patient and fibroid characteristics and the possible need for re-intervention for fibroid-related symptoms. DATA SOURCES: PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase and The Cochrane Library were searched up to August 2020. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We will collect individual participant data from randomized controlled trials that studied clinical and procedural outcomes of premenopausal women with symptomatic uterine fibroids, who were randomized between uterine artery embolization and surgery. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: Individual participant data from all eligible trials will be sought and analysed according to intention-to-treat principle. Risk of Bias will be done by using version 2 of the Cochrane tool for Risk of Bias in randomized trials. Subgroup analyses to explore the effect of e.g. age, fibroid characteristics and fibroid complaints will be performed, if data is available. This individual patient data meta-analysis will be analysed according to a one-stage model.

Multi-professional simulation-based team training in obstetric emergencies for improving patient outcomes and trainees' performance.

BACKGROUND: Simulation-based obstetric team training focuses on building a system that will anticipate errors, improve patient outcomes and the performance of clinical care teams. Simulation-based obstetric team training has been proposed as a tool to improve the overall outcome of obstetric health care. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of simulation-based obstetric team training on patient outcomes, performance of obstetric care teams in practice and educational settings, and trainees' experience. SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) were searched (14 April 2020), together with references checking and hand searching the available proceedings of 2 international conferences. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (including cluster-randomised trials) comparing simulation-based obstetric team training with no, or other type of training. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane, to identify articles, assess methodological quality and extract data. Data from three cluster-randomised trials could be used to perform generic inverse variance meta-analyses. The meta-analyses were based on risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of the evidence. We used Kirkpatrick's model of training evaluation to categorise the outcomes of interest; we chose Level 3 (behavioural change) and Level 4 (patient outcome) to categorise the primary outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included eight RCTs, six of which were cluster-randomised trials, involving more than 1000 training participants and more than 200,000 pregnancies/births. Four studies reported on outcome measures on Kirkpatrick level 4 (patient outcome), three studies on Kirkpatrick level 3 (performance in practice), two studies on Kitkpatrick level 2 (performance in educational settings), and none on Kirkpatrick level 1 (trainees' experience). The included studies were from Mexico, the Netherlands, the UK and the USA, all middle- and high-income countries. Kirkpatrick level 4 (patient outcome) Simulation-based obstetric team training may make little or no difference for composite outcomes of maternal and/or perinatal adverse events compared with no training (3 studies; n = 28,731, low-certainty evidence, data not pooled due to different composite outcome definitions). We are uncertain whether simulation-based obstetric team training affects maternal mortality compared with no training (2 studies; 79,246 women; very low-certainty evidence). However, it may reduce neonatal mortality (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.01; 2 studies, 79,246 pregnancies/births, low-certainty evidence). Simulation-based obstetric team training may have little to no effect on low Apgar score compared with no training (RR 0.99, 95% 0.85 to 1.15; 2 studies; 115,171 infants; low-certainty evidence), but it probably reduces trauma after shoulder dystocia (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.99; 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence) and probably slightly reduces the number of caesarean deliveries (RR 0.79, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.93; 1 study; n = 50,589; moderate-certainty evidence) Kirkpatrick level 3 (performance in practice) We found that simulation-based obstetric team training probably improves the performance of the obstetric teams in practice, compared with no training (3 studies; 2398 obstetric staff members, moderate-certainty evidence, data not pooled due to different outcome definitions). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Simulation-based obstetric team training may help to improve team performance of obstetric teams, and it might contribute to improvement of specific maternal and perinatal outcomes, compared with no training. However, high-certainty evidence is lacking due to serious risk of bias and imprecision, and the effect cannot be generalised for all outcomes. Future studies investigating simulation-based obstetric team training compared to training courses with a different instructional design should carefully consider how and when to measure outcomes. Particular attention should be paid to effect measurement at the level of patient outcome, taking into consideration the low incidence of adverse maternal and perinatal events.

How long does the fertility-enhancing effect of hysterosalpingography with oil-based contrast last?

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the fertility-enhancing effect of tubal flushing during hysterosalpingography (HSG) with oil-based contrast change over time? DESIGN: This was a secondary analysis of the H2Oil (long-term follow-up) study, a multicentre randomized controlled trial evaluating the effectiveness of oil-based and water-based contrast during HSG. The main outcome was ongoing pregnancy. Cox proportional hazards models for time to ongoing pregnancy were fitted over 3 years of follow-up. RESULTS: Data on 1107 couples were available; 550 couples had oil-based contrast and 557 water-based contrast at HSG. Ongoing pregnancy rates after 3 years were 77% and 71%, respectively. Median follow-up was 9-10 months (5th-95th percentile: <1 to 36). The hazard ratio for ongoing pregnancy for oil versus water over 3 years of follow-up was 1.26 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.10-1.45). The scaled Schoenfeld residual plots showed a decrease in hazard ratio that was linear with log-transformed time. After including an interaction with log-transformed time, the hazard ratio immediately after HSG was 1.71 (95% CI 1.27-2.31) and reduced to no effect (hazard ratio of 1) at approximately 2 years. There was no evidence for a change in hazard ratio over time in a subgroup of women who experienced pain during HSG. CONCLUSIONS: The hazard ratio for ongoing pregnancy of oil-based versus water-based contrast was 1.71 immediately after HSG, gradually decreasing and plateauing towards a hazard ratio of 1 (indicating no effect) after approximately 2 years. This supports the hypothesis that oil-based contrast might dislodge debris or mucus plugs from the Fallopian tubes, but this has yet to be definitively proved.

Surgical treatment for tubal disease in women due to undergo in vitro fertilisation.

BACKGROUND: Tubal disease accounts for 20% of infertility cases. Hydrosalpinx, caused by distal tubal occlusion leading to fluid accumulation in the tube(s), is a particularly severe form of tubal disease negatively affecting the outcomes of assisted reproductive technology (ART). It is thought that tubal surgery may improve the outcome of ART in women with hydrosalpinges. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of tubal surgery in women with hydrosalpinges prior to undergoing conventional in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, DARE, and two trial registers on 8 January 2020, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing surgical treatment versus no surgical treatment, or comparing surgical interventions head-to-head, in women with tubal disease prior to undergoing IVF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures. The primary outcomes were live birth rate (LBR) and surgical complication rate per woman randomised. Secondary outcomes included clinical, multiple and ectopic pregnancy rates, miscarriage rates and mean numbers of oocytes retrieved and of embryos obtained. MAIN RESULTS: We included 11 parallel-design RCTs, involving a total of 1386 participants. The included trials compared different types of tubal surgery (salpingectomy, tubal occlusion or transvaginal aspiration of hydrosalpingeal fluid) to no tubal surgery, or individual interventions to one another. We assessed no studies as being at low risk of bias across all domains, with the main limitations being lack of blinding, wide confidence intervals and low event and sample sizes. We used GRADE methodology to rate the quality of the evidence. Apart from one moderate-quality result in one review comparison, the evidence provided by these 11 trials ranged between very low- to low-quality. Salpingectomy versus no tubal surgery No included study reported on LBR for this comparison. We are uncertain of the effect of salpingectomy on surgical complications such as the rate of conversion to laparotomy (Peto odds ratio (OR) 5.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.11 to 303.69; one RCT; n = 204; very low-quality evidence) and pelvic infection (Peto OR 5.80, 95% CI 0.11 to 303.69; one RCT; n = 204; very low-quality evidence). Salpingectomy probably increases clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) versus no surgery (risk ratio (RR) 2.02, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.82; four RCTs; n = 455; I2 = 42.5%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that in women with a CPR of approximately 19% without tubal surgery, the rate with salpingectomy lies between 27% and 52%. Proximal tubal occlusion versus no surgery No study reported on LBR and surgical complication rate for this comparison. Tubal occlusion may increase CPR compared to no tubal surgery (RR 3.21, 95% CI 1.72 to 5.99; two RCTs; n = 209; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that with a CPR of approximately 12% without tubal surgery, the rate with tubal occlusion lies between 21% and 74%. Transvaginal aspiration of hydrosalpingeal fluid versus no surgery No study reported on LBR for this comparison, and there was insufficient evidence to identify a difference in surgical complication rate between groups (Peto OR not estimable; one RCT; n = 176). We are uncertain whether transvaginal aspiration of hydrosalpingeal fluid increases CPR compared to no tubal surgery (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.10 to 2.55; three RCTs; n = 311; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion versus laparoscopic salpingectomy We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic proximal tubal occlusion versus laparoscopic salpingectomy on LBR (RR 1.21, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.95; one RCT; n = 165; very low-quality evidence) and CPR (RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.07; three RCTs; n = 347; I2 = 77%; very low-quality evidence). No study reported on surgical complication rate for this comparison. Transvaginal aspiration of hydrosalpingeal fluid versus laparoscopic salpingectomy No study reported on LBR for this comparison, and there was insufficient evidence to identify a difference in surgical complication rate between groups (Peto OR not estimable; one RCT; n = 160). We are uncertain of the effect of transvaginal aspiration of hydrosalpingeal fluid versus laparoscopic salpingectomy on CPR (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.07; one RCT; n = 160; very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found moderate-quality evidence that salpingectomy prior to ART probably increases the CPR compared to no surgery in women with hydrosalpinges. When comparing tubal occlusion to no intervention, we found that tubal occlusion may increase CPR, although the evidence was of low quality. We found insufficient evidence of any effect on procedure- or pregnancy-related adverse events when comparing tubal surgery to no intervention. Importantly, none of the studies reported on long term fertility outcomes. Further high-quality trials are required to definitely determine the impact of tubal surgery on IVF and pregnancy outcomes of women with hydrosalpinges, particularly for LBR and surgical complications; and to investigate the relative efficacy and safety of the different surgical modalities in the treatment of hydrosalpinges prior to ART.

Laparoscopic ovarian drilling for ovulation induction in women with anovulatory polycystic ovary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common condition affecting 8% to 13% of reproductive-aged women. In the past clomiphene citrate (CC) used to be the first-line treatment in women with PCOS. Ovulation induction with letrozole should be the first-line treatment according to new guidelines, but the use of letrozole is off-label. Consequently, CC is still commonly used. Approximately 20% of women on CC do not ovulate. Women who are CC-resistant can be treated with gonadotrophins or other medical ovulation-induction agents. These medications are not always successful, can be time-consuming and can cause adverse events like multiple pregnancies and cycle cancellation due to an excessive response. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) is a surgical alternative to medical treatment. There are risks associated with surgery, such as complications from anaesthesia, infection, and adhesions. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of LOD with or without medical ovulation induction compared with medical ovulation induction alone for women with anovulatory polycystic PCOS and CC-resistance. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two trials registers up to 8 October 2019, together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of women with anovulatory PCOS and CC resistance who underwent LOD with or without medical ovulation induction versus medical ovulation induction alone, LOD with assisted reproductive technologies (ART) versus ART, LOD with second-look laparoscopy versus expectant management, or different techniques of LOD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risks of bias, extracted data and evaluated the quality of the evidence using the GRADE method. The primary effectiveness outcome was live birth and the primary safety outcome was multiple pregnancy. Pregnancy, miscarriage, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), ovulation, costs, and quality of life were secondary outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: This updated review includes 38 trials (3326 women). The evidence was very low- to moderate-quality; the main limitations were due to poor reporting of study methods, with downgrading for risks of bias (randomisation and allocation concealment) and lack of blinding. Laparoscopic ovarian drilling with or without medical ovulation induction versus medical ovulation induction alone Pooled results suggest LOD may decrease live birth slightly when compared with medical ovulation induction alone (odds ratio (OR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.54 to 0.92; 9 studies, 1015 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). The evidence suggest that if the chance of live birth following medical ovulation induction alone is 42%, the chance following LOD would be between 28% and 40%. The sensitivity analysis restricted to only RCTs with low risk of selection bias suggested there is uncertainty whether there is a difference between the treatments (OR 0.90, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.36; 4 studies, 415 women; I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). LOD probably reduces multiple pregnancy rates (Peto OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.66; 14 studies, 1161 women; I2 = 2%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that if we assume the risk of multiple pregnancy following medical ovulation induction is 5.0%, the risk following LOD would be between 0.9% and 3.4%. Restricting to RCTs that followed women for six months after LOD and six cycles of ovulation induction only, the results for live birth were consistent with the main analysis. There may be little or no difference between the treatments for the likelihood of a clinical pregnancy (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.03; 21 studies, 2016 women; I2 = 19%; low-quality evidence). There is uncertainty about the effect of LOD compared with ovulation induction alone on miscarriage (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.59; 19 studies, 1909 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). OHSS was a very rare event. LOD may reduce OHSS (Peto OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.91; 8 studies, 722 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). Unilateral LOD versus bilateral LOD Due to the small sample size, the quality of evidence is insufficient to justify a conclusion on live birth (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.78; 1 study, 44 women; very low-quality evidence). There were no data available on multiple pregnancy. The likelihood of a clinical pregnancy is uncertain between the treatments, due to the quality of the evidence and the large heterogeneity between the studies (OR 0.57, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.84; 7 studies, 470 women; I2 = 60%, very low-quality evidence). Due to the small sample size, the quality of evidence is not sufficient to justify a conclusion on miscarriage (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.31 to 3.33; 2 studies, 131 women; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Other comparisons Due to lack of evidence and very low-quality data there is uncertainty whether there is a difference for any of the following comparisons: LOD with IVF versus IVF, LOD with second-look laparoscopy versus expectant management, monopolar versus bipolar LOD, and adjusted thermal dose versus fixed thermal dose. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopic ovarian drilling with and without medical ovulation induction may decrease the live birth rate in women with anovulatory PCOS and CC resistance compared with medical ovulation induction alone. But the sensitivity analysis restricted to only RCTs at low risk of selection bias suggests there is uncertainty whether there is a difference between the treatments, due to uncertainty around the estimate. Moderate-quality evidence shows that LOD probably reduces the number of multiple pregnancy. Low-quality evidence suggests that there may be little or no difference between the treatments for the likelihood of a clinical pregnancy, and there is uncertainty about the effect of LOD compared with ovulation induction alone on miscarriage. LOD may result in less OHSS. The quality of evidence is insufficient to justify a conclusion on live birth, clinical pregnancy or miscarriage rate for the analysis of unilateral LOD versus bilateral LOD. There were no data available on multiple pregnancy.

Association between serum progesterone concentration in early pregnancy and duration of pregnancy: a cohort study.

Objective: To examine the association between progesterone concentration in early pregnancy and duration of pregnancy and risk of preterm delivery.Methods: Women enrolled in the Born in Guangzhou Cohort Study from 2013-2014, with a singleton pregnancy, who had serum progesterone measured at least one time between 4 and 10 weeks of gestation were included. The association between progesterone concentration both continuous and as categorical variable (quartile) and the risk of preterm delivery was assessed with Cox proportional hazards regression. Differences of length of gestation in four progesterone concentration quartiles were assessed using the Log-rank test.Results: We studied 1860 mother-newborn pairs. The mean overall progesterone concentration was 65.7 ± 21.3 nmol/L, with mean progesterone concentrations in the four quartiles of 42.4 ± 6.2 nmol/L (n = 463), 56.2 ± 3.3 nmol/L (n = 462), 68.9 ± 4.5 nmol/L (n = 470), and 95.1 ± 15.3 nmol/L (n = 465). There was no significantly difference in duration of gestation in four progesterone concentration groups (p=.511). There was no relation between progesterone level and preterm delivery (adjusted hazard ratio (HR) per 10 nmol/l progesterone level 1.00 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.90, 1.11)). After adjusting for potential confounders, the HR of any preterm delivery for quartiles 1, 2 and 3 versus the highest quartile of progesterone level (> 77.3 nmol/L) was 1.04 (95% CI 0.52, 2.07), 1.17 (95% CI 0.60, 2.28), and 1.46 (95% CI 0.76, 2.78), respectively. When analysis was done for spontaneous preterm delivery only, also no association with first trimester progesterone was found.Conclusion: Lower first trimester serum progesterone concentration is not associated with reduction of length of gestation or increased risk of preterm delivery.

Endocrine characteristics, body mass index and metabolic syndrome in women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

RESEARCH QUESTION: The study aimed to evaluate the associations of endocrine and ultrasound characteristics with metabolic syndrome in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and whether these associations were modified by body mass index (BMI). DESIGN: The study was a secondary analysis of baseline data from a randomized controlled trial of induction of ovulation in women with PCOS. RESULTS: Among 947 Chinese women with PCOS, 153 (16.2%) were diagnosed with metabolic syndrome. The prevalence of metabolic syndrome in women with normal (<24 kg/m2) and high (≥24 kg/m2) BMI was 3.6% and 30.5%, respectively. In all women, a high free androgen index (FAI ≥5%) was positively associated with metabolic syndrome (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.06, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11-3.82). High FAI was positively associated with metabolic syndrome among women with high BMI (adjusted OR 3.37, 95% CI 1.78-6.37), but the association was not significant in women with normal BMI (adjusted OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.34-4.70). The presence of polycystic ovary morphology was negatively associated with metabolic syndrome (adjusted OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.26-1.03) in all women (normal BMI adjusted OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.11-1.67; high BMI adjusted OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.23-1.28). LH, sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) were negatively associated with metabolic syndrome. The associations of FAI, SHBG and AMH in relation to metabolic syndrome were significantly modified by BMI. CONCLUSION(S): The associations of endocrine characteristic with metabolic syndrome were modified by BMI in women with PCOS. Women with PCOS and normal BMI did not have an increased risk of metabolic syndrome.

Childhood adversity and women's cardiometabolic health in adulthood: associations with health behaviors, psychological distress, mood symptoms, and personality.

BACKGROUND: We tested whether childhood adversity is associated with poor cardiometabolic health in adulthood among a sample of overweight or obese Dutch women of reproductive age. Health behaviors, psychological distress, mood symptoms, or personality traits were included as potential mediators. METHODS: Data came from a follow-up visit (N = 115), carried out in 2016/2017, of a randomized controlled lifestyle intervention trial in 577 obese infertile women. The associations between total adversity exposure score and cardiometabolic health were tested with regression models. Sleep, smoking and eating behavior, symptoms of depression, anxiety and stress, and personality traits were potential mediators. RESULTS: Childhood adversity scores were not associated with cardiometabolic outcomes but were associated with poorer sleep quality score (M = 7.2 (SD = 3.5) for those with ≥2 types of events versus 4.8 (2.9) for those with no events; p = 0.022), higher external eating score (26.4 (8.7) versus 21.8 (10.3); p = 0.038), higher perceived stress score (17.1 (6.8) versus 12.3 (4.5); p = 0.016), post-traumatic stress score (1.9 (1.5) versus 0.6 (1.1); p < 0.001), and lower agreeableness score (28.2 (4.2) versus 30.3 (3.1); p = 0.035). CONCLUSION: Childhood adversity was associated with poorer health behaviors including sleep and eating behavior, and more stress-related symptoms, but not with women's cardiometabolic health.

Screening hysteroscopy in subfertile women and women undergoing assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Screening hysteroscopy in infertile women with unexplained infertility, or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI) or in vitro fertilisation (IVF) may reveal intrauterine pathology that may not be detected by routine transvaginal ultrasound. Hysteroscopy, whether purely diagnostic or operative may improve reproductive outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of screening hysteroscopy in subfertile women undergoing evaluation for infertility, and subfertile women undergoing IUI or IVF. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL CRSO, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (September 2018). We searched reference lists of relevant articles and handsearched relevant conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing screening hysteroscopy versus no intervention in subfertile women wishing to conceive spontaneously, or before undergoing IUI or IVF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcomes were live birth rate and complications following hysteroscopy. We analysed data using risk ratio (RR) and a fixed-effect model. We assessed the quality of the evidence by using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We retrieved 11 studies. We included one trial that evaluated screening hysteroscopy versus no hysteroscopy, in women with unexplained subfertility, who were trying to conceive spontaneously. We are uncertain whether ongoing pregnancy rate improves following a screening hysteroscopy in women with at least two years of unexplained subfertility (RR 4.30, 95% CI 2.29 to 8.07; 1 RCT; participants = 200; very low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with a 10% ongoing pregnancy rate without hysteroscopy, performing a screening hysteroscopy would be expected to result in ongoing pregnancy rates between 23% and 81%. The included study reported no adverse events in either treatment arm. We are uncertain whether clinical pregnancy rate is improved (RR 3.80, 95% CI 2.31 to 6.24; 1 RCT; participants = 200; very low-quality evidence), or miscarriage rate increases (RR 2.80, 95% CI 1.05 to 7.48; 1 RCT; participants = 200; very low-quality evidence), following screening hysteroscopy in women with at least two years of unexplained subfertility.We included ten trials that included 1836 women who had a screening hysteroscopy and 1914 women who had no hysteroscopy prior to IVF. Main limitations in the quality of evidence were inadequate reporting of study methods and higher statistical heterogeneity. Eight of the ten trials had unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment.Performing a screening hysteroscopy before IVF may increase live birth rate (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.43; 6 RCTs; participants = 2745; I² = 69 %; low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with a 22% live birth rate, performing a screening hysteroscopy would be expected to result in live birth rates between 25% and 32%. However, sensitivity analysis done by pooling results from trials at low risk of bias showed no increase in live birth rate following a screening hysteroscopy (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18; 2 RCTs; participants = 1452; I² = 0%).Only four trials reported complications following hysteroscopy; of these, three trials recorded no events in either group. We are uncertain whether a screening hysteroscopy is associated with higher adverse events (Peto odds ratio 7.47, 95% CI 0.15 to 376.42; 4 RCTs; participants = 1872; I² = not applicable; very low-quality evidence).Performing a screening hysteroscopy before IVF may increase clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.45; 10 RCTs; participants = 3750; I² = 49%; low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with a 28% clinical pregnancy rate, performing a screening hysteroscopy would be expected to result in clinical pregnancy rates between 33% and 40%.There may be little or no difference in miscarriage rate following screening hysteroscopy (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.50; 3 RCTs; participants = 1669; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We found no trials that compared a screening hysteroscopy versus no hysteroscopy before IUI. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, there is no high-quality evidence to support the routine use of hysteroscopy as a screening tool in the general population of subfertile women with a normal ultrasound or hysterosalpingogram in the basic fertility work-up for improving reproductive success rates.In women undergoing IVF, low-quality evidence, including all of the studies reporting these outcomes, suggests that performing a screening hysteroscopy before IVF may increase live birth and clinical pregnancy rates. However, pooled results from the only two trials with a low risk of bias did not show a benefit of screening hysteroscopy before IVF.Since the studies showing an effect are those with unclear allocation concealment, we are uncertain whether a routine screening hysteroscopy increases live birth and clinical pregnancy, be it for all women, or those with two or more failed IVF attempts. There is insufficient data to draw conclusions about the safety of screening hysteroscopy.

Laparoscopy for diagnosing resectability of disease in women with advanced ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane Review that was originally published in 2014, Issue 2.The presence of residual disease after primary debulking surgery is a highly significant prognostic factor in women with advanced ovarian cancer. In up to 60% of women, residual tumour of > 1 cm is left behind after primary debulking surgery (defined as suboptimal debulking). These women might have benefited from neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) prior to interval debulking surgery instead of primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy. It is therefore important to select accurately those women who would best be treated with primary debulking surgery followed by chemotherapy from those who would benefit from NACT prior to surgery. OBJECTIVES: To determine if performing a laparoscopy, in addition to conventional diagnostic work-up, in women suspected of advanced ovarian cancer is accurate in predicting the resectability of disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2018, Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase via Ovid, MEDION and Science Citation Index and Conference Proceedings Citation Index (ISI Web of Science) to July 2018. We also checked references of identified primary studies and review articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of laparoscopy to determine the resectability of disease in women who are suspected of advanced ovarian cancer and planned to receive primary debulking surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Pairs of review authors independently assessed the quality of included studies using QUADAS-2 and extracted data on study and participant characteristics, index test, target condition and reference standard. We extracted data for two-by-two tables and summarised these graphically. We calculated sensitivity and specificity and negative predictive values. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 studies, reporting on 14 cohorts of women (including 1563 participants), of which one was a randomised controlled trial (RCT). Laparoscopic assessment suggested that disease was suitable for optimal debulking surgery (no macroscopic residual disease or residual disease < 1 cm (negative predictive values)) in 54% to 96% of women who had macroscopic complete debulking surgery (no visible disease at end of laparotomy) and in 69% to 100% of women who had optimal debulking surgery (residual tumour < 1 cm at end of laparotomy).Only two studies avoided partial verification bias by operating on all women independent of laparoscopic findings, and provided data to calculate sensitivity and specificity. These two studies had no false positive laparoscopies (i.e. no women had a laparoscopy indicating unresectable disease and then went on to have optimal debulking surgery (no disease > 1 cm remaining)).Due to the large heterogeneity pooling of the data was not possible for meta-analysis. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Laparoscopy may be a useful tool to identify those women who have unresectable disease, as no women were inappropriately unexplored. However, some women had suboptimal primary debulking surgery, despite laparoscopy predicting optimal debulking and data are at high risk of verification bias as only two studies performed the reference standard (debulking laparotomy) in test (laparoscopy)-positive women. Using a prediction model does not increase the sensitivity and will result in more unnecessarily explored women, due to a lower specificity.

Gonadotrophins for ovulation induction in women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Ovulation induction with follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) is a second-line treatment in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who do not ovulate or conceive on clomiphene citrate. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of gonadotrophins as a second-line treatment for ovulation induction in women with clomiphene citrate-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and women who do not ovulate or conceive after clomiphene citrate. SEARCH METHODS: In January 2018, we searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the World Health Organisation clinical trials register, Clinicaltrials.gov, LILACs, and PubMed databases, and Google Scholar. We checked references of in all obtained studies. We had no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: All randomised controlled trials reporting data on clinical outcomes in women with PCOS who did not ovulate or conceive on clomiphene citrate, and undergoing ovulation induction with urinary-derived gonadotrophins, including urofollitropin (uFSH) in purified FSH (FSH-P) or highly purified FSH (FSH-HP) form, human menopausal gonadotropin (HMG) and highly purified human menopausal gonadotrophin (HP-HMG), or recombinant FSH (rFSH), or continuing clomiphene citrate. We included trials reporting on ovulation induction followed by intercourse or intrauterine insemination. We excluded studies that described co-treatment with clomiphene citrate, metformin, luteinizing hormone, or letrozole. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors (NW, EK, and MvW) independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted study data. Primary outcomes were live birth rate per woman and multiple pregnancy per woman. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per woman, total gonadotrophin dose, and total duration of stimulation per woman. We combined data using a fixed-effect model to calculate the risk ratio (RR). We summarised the overall quality of evidence for the main outcomes using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: The review included 15 trials with 2387 women. Ten trials compared rFSH with urinary-derived gonadotrophins (three compared rFSH with human menopausal gonadotrophin, and seven compared rFSH with FSH-HP), four trials compared FSH-P with HMG. We found no trials that compared FSH-HP with FSH-P. One trial compared FSH with continued clomiphene citrate.Recombinant FSH (rFSH) versus urinary-derived gonadotrophinsThere may be little or no difference in the birth rate between rFSH and urinary-derived gonadotrophins (RR 1.21, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 1.78; five trials, N = 505; I² = 9%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that for the observed average live birth per woman who used urinary-derived FSH of 16%, the chance of live birth with rFSH is between 13% and 28%. There may also be little or no difference between groups in incidence of multiple pregnancy (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.61; eight trials, N = 1368; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.27; eight trials, N = 1330; I² = 0; low-quality evidence), or miscarriage rate (RR 1.20, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.04; seven trials, N = 970; I² = 0; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether rFSH reduces the incidence of OHSS (RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.65, ten trials, n=1565, I² = 0%, very low-quality evidence).Human menopausal gonadotrophin (HMG) or HP-HMG versus uFSHWhen compared to uFSH, we are uncertain whether HMG or HP-HMG improves live birth rate (RR 1.28, 95% CI 0.65 to 2.52; three trials, N = 138; I² = 0%; very low quality evidence), or reduces multiple pregnancy rate (RR 2.13, 95% CI 0.51 to 8.91; four trials, N = 161; I² = 0%; very low quality evidence). We are also uncertain whether HMG or HP-HMG improves clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.31, 95% CI 0.66 to 2.59; three trials, N = 102; I² = 0; very low quality evidence), reduces miscarriage rate (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.06 to 1.97; two trials, N = 98; I² = 0%; very low quality evidence), or reduces the incidence of OHSS (RR 7.07, 95% CI 0.42 to 117.81; two trials, N = 53; very low quality evidence) when compared to uFSH.Gonadotrophins versus continued clomiphene citrateGonadotrophins resulted in more live births than continued clomiphene citrate (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.46; one trial, N = 661; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a live birth rate of 41% with continued clomiphene citrate, the live birth rate with FSH was between 43% and 60%. There is probably little or no difference in the incidence of multiple pregnancy between treatments (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.44; one trial, N = 661; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). Gonadotrophins resulted in more clinical pregnancies than continued clomiphene citrate (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.52; one trial, N = 661; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence), and more miscarriages (RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 4.47; one trial, N = 661; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). None of the women developed OHSS. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There may be little or no difference in live birth, incidence of multiple pregnancy, clinical pregnancy rate, or miscarriage rate between urinary-derived gonadotrophins and recombinant follicle stimulating hormone in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. For human menopausal gonadotropin or highly purified human menopausal gonadotrophin versus urinary follicle stimulating hormone we are uncertain whether one or the other improves or lowers live birth, incidence of multiple pregnancy, clinical pregnancy rate, or miscarriage rate. We are uncertain whether any of the interventions reduce the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. We suggest weighing costs and convenience in the decision to use one or the other gonadotrophin. In women with clomiphene citrate failure, gonadotrophins resulted in more live births than continued clomiphene citrate without increasing multiple pregnancies.

Long-term effects of a preconception lifestyle intervention on cardiometabolic health of overweight and obese women.

BACKGROUND: The global prevalence of obesity in women keeps increasing. The preconception period may be a window of opportunity to improve lifestyle, reduce obesity and improve cardiometabolic health. This study assessed the effect of a preconception lifestyle intervention on long-term cardiometabolic health in two randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: Participants of the LIFEstyle and RADIEL preconception lifestyle intervention studies with a baseline body mass index (BMI) ≥29 kg/m2 were eligible for this follow-up study. Both studies randomized between a lifestyle intervention targeting physical activity, diet and behaviour modification or usual care. We assessed cardiometabolic health 6 years after randomization. RESULTS: In the LIFEstyle study (n = 111) and RADIEL study (n = 39), no statistically significant differences between the intervention and control groups were found for body composition, blood pressure, arterial stiffness, fasting glucose, homeostasis model assessment of insulin resistance, HbA1c, lipids and high sensitive C-reactive protein levels 6 years after randomization. Participants of the LIFEstyle study who successfully lost ≥5% bodyweight or reached a BMI <29 kg/m2 during the intervention (n = 22, [44%]) had lower weight (-8.1 kg; 99% CI [-16.6 to -0.9]), BMI (-3.3 kg/m2; [-6.5 to -0.8]), waist circumference (-8.2 cm; [-15.3 to -1.3]), fasting glucose (-0.5 mmol/L; [-1.1 to -0.0]), HbA1c (-4.1 mmol/mol; [-9.1 to -0.8]), and higher HDL-C (0.3 mmol/L; [0.1-0.5]) compared with controls. CONCLUSION: We found no evidence of improved cardiometabolic health 6 years after a preconception lifestyle intervention among overweight and obese women in two RCTs. Women who successfully lost weight during the intervention had better cardiometabolic health 6 years later, emphasizing the potential of successful preconception lifestyle improvement.

Hysteroscopy for treating subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.

BACKGROUND: Observational studies suggest higher pregnancy rates after the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions, which are present in 10% to 15% of women seeking treatment for subfertility. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps, submucous fibroids, uterine septum or intrauterine adhesions suspected on ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, diagnostic hysteroscopy or any combination of these methods in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from their inception to 16 April 2018; The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Studies Online, ; MEDLINE, Embase , CINAHL , and other electronic sources of trials including trial registers, sources of unpublished literature, and reference lists. We handsearched the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) conference abstracts and proceedings (from 1 January 2014 to 12 May 2018) and we contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for unexplained subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities prior to medically assisted reproduction.Primary outcomes were live birth and hysteroscopy complications. Secondary outcomes were pregnancy and miscarriage. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and risk of bias, and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: Two studies met the inclusion criteria.1. Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for unexplained subfertility associated with suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities.In women with otherwise unexplained subfertility and submucous fibroids, we were uncertain whether hysteroscopic myomectomy improved the clinical pregnancy rate compared to expectant management (odds ratio (OR) 2.44, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 6.17; P = 0.06, 94 women; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether hysteroscopic myomectomy improves the miscarriage rate compared to expectant management (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.00; P = 0.47, 94 women; very low-quality evidence). We found no data on live birth or hysteroscopy complication rates. We found no studies in women with endometrial polyps, intrauterine adhesions or uterine septum for this randomised comparison.2. Randomised comparison between operative hysteroscopy versus control for suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities prior to medically assisted reproduction.The hysteroscopic removal of polyps prior to IUI may have improved the clinical pregnancy rate compared to diagnostic hysteroscopy only: if 28% of women achieved a clinical pregnancy without polyp removal, the evidence suggested that 63% of women (95% CI 45% to 89%) achieved a clinical pregnancy after the hysteroscopic removal of the endometrial polyps (OR 4.41, 95% CI 2.45 to 7.96; P < 0.00001, 204 women; low-quality evidence). We found no data on live birth, hysteroscopy complication or miscarriage rates in women with endometrial polyps prior to IUI. We found no studies in women with submucous fibroids, intrauterine adhesions or uterine septum prior to IUI or in women with all types of suspected uterine cavity abnormalities prior to IVF/ICSI. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Uncertainty remains concerning an important benefit with the hysteroscopic removal of submucous fibroids for improving the clinical pregnancy rates in women with otherwise unexplained subfertility. The available low-quality evidence suggests that the hysteroscopic removal of endometrial polyps suspected on ultrasound in women prior to IUI may improve the clinical pregnancy rate compared to simple diagnostic hysteroscopy. More research is needed to measure the effectiveness of the hysteroscopic treatment of suspected major uterine cavity abnormalities in women with unexplained subfertility or prior to IUI, IVF or ICSI.

Ovulation induction and intrauterine insemination in infertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome: A comparison of drugs.

OBJECTIVE: To study the effectiveness of different ovulation induction protocols in infertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. PATIENTS: Infertile women with PCOS undergoing IUI had ovulation induced with clomiphene citrate (CC), letrozole, or gonadotropins. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Live birth and multiple pregnancy rates. RESULTS: We performed 1068 IUI cycles in 765 couples. Live birth rates were comparable in CC-stimulated cycles (13.9%), letrozole-stimulated cycles (13.5%, OR 0.96 [95% CI, 0.63, 1.47]), and gonadotropins-stimulated cycles (13.2%, OR 0.94[95% CI, 0.62, 1.43]). Multiple pregnancy rates were 8.3%, 4.1% (OR 0.47 [95% CI, 0.09, 2.42]), and 3.3% (OR 0.34 [95% CI, 0.07, 1.95]) in CC, letrozole and gonadotropins stimulated cycles, respectively. Compared to CC, letrozole generated more often mono-follicular growth (75.9% versus 67.0%; OR 1.55 [95% CI, 1.11, 2.15]) but not more often after gonadotropins (72.9%, OR 1.17 [95% CI, 0.82, 1.66]. Cycles with multi-follicular growth did not result in statistically higher live birth rates than cycles with mono-follicular growth (15.8% vs. 12.7%, OR 1.29 [95% CI 0.89, 1.89]), but more often in multiple pregnancies (15.5% versus 0.8%, OR 22.4 [95% CI, 2.8, 181.6]). CONCLUSION: In women with PCOS undergoing stimulated IUI, CC, letrozole and gonadotropins were equally effective and safe. Since multi-follicular growth increased the multiple pregnancy rates without increasing the overall live birth rate, ovulation induction would strictly aim for mono-follicular growth. Since letrozole had the highest mono-follicular growth rate, we recommend this drug as the treatment of first choice in infertile women undergoing ovulation induction and IUI.