Outpatient paracentesis for the management of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: study protocol for the STOP-OHSS randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is the most significant short-term complication of pharmacological ovarian stimulation. Symptoms range from mild abdominal discomfort to rare complications such as renal failure, thromboembolism and respiratory distress syndrome.Currently, clinical practice typically involves monitoring the patient until the condition becomes severe, at which point they are admitted to hospital, where drainage of ascitic fluid (paracentesis) may take place. Preliminary studies have indicated that earlier outpatient paracentesis may reduce the progression of OHSS and prevent hospitalisation in women. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This UK, multicentre, pragmatic, two-arm, parallel-group, adaptive (group sequential with one interim analysis), open-label, superiority, confirmatory, group sequential, individually randomised controlled trial, with internal pilot will assess the clinical and cost-effectiveness and safety of outpatient paracentesis versus conservative management (usual care) for moderate or severe OHSS. 224 women from 20 National Health Service and private fertility units will be randomised (1:1) and followed up for up to 13.5 months. The primary outcome is the rate of OHSS related hospital admission of at least 24 hours within 28 days postrandomisation. The primary analysis will be an intention to treat with difference in hospitalisation rates as measure of treatment effect. Secondary outcomes include time to resolution of symptoms, patient satisfaction, adverse events and cost-effectiveness. A qualitative substudy will facilitate the feasibility of recruitment. Participant recruitment commenced in June 2022. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: London-Southeast Research Ethics Committee approved the protocol (reference: 22/LO/0015). Findings will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and abstracts to relevant national and international conferences, as well as being disseminated to trial participants and patient groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN71978064.

Ultrastructural cilia defects in multi-ciliated uterine glandular epithelial cells from women with reproductive failure.

In brief: The causes of subfertility and recurrent pregnancy loss are often unclear. This study shows that endometrial gland cilia from women with subfertility have ultrastructural defects. Abstract: Endometrial glands secrete products into the endometrium and are necessary for embryo implantation and successful pregnancy. However, structural and functional abnormalities in endometrial gland cilia from women with reproductive failure remain poorly understood. This was a cross-sectional study where endometrial biopsies were collected at days 19-23 of the menstrual cycle from women with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss (n = 15), unexplained subfertility (n = 11) or from egg donor control participants (n = 10). Endometrial gland cilia ultrastructure was imaged by transmission electron microscopy and cilia defects assessed by an electron-microscopist from a national primary ciliary dyskinesia diagnostic centre. Endometrial glands were isolated, and the cilia beat frequency recorded by high speed video. Subfertile women have proportionately lower ultrastructurally normal cilia (P < 0.05); higher frequency of absent dynamin arms (P < 0.01) or inner arm defects (P < 0.01) and lower cilia beat frequency (P < 0.05). The mechanisms underlying these obversions have yet to be determined. Recent studies have identified cilia related gene expression changes associated with reproductive failure and this study adds to the growing body of literature revealing structural and functional changes. The observation that cilia defects occurred at a higher frequency in endometrial glands of subfertile women raises the question of its mechanistic role in implantation.

Decrease in peripheral natural killer cell level during early pregnancy predicts live birth among women with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Previous studies have suggested that trophoblast cells inhibit the proliferation of peripheral natural killer cells and that the level of peripheral natural killer cells decrease in the middle and late pregnancy stage among healthy women. The change in peripheral natural killer cell level during early pregnancy and the relationship between the change in peripheral natural killer cell level and pregnancy outcomes among women with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss have not been sufficiently explored. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize the level of prepregnancy peripheral natural killer cells in comparison with those in early pregnancy among women with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss and to determine if the change in the level of peripheral natural killer cells from prepregnancy to early pregnancy can predict pregnancy outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: In this prospective cohort study, 1758 women with recurrent pregnancy loss were recruited between January 2017 and December 2021 among whom 252 women with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss had prepregnancy and early pregnancy (4-6 weeks gestation) peripheral natural killer cell measurements. These 252 women were divided into 2 groups, namely those with a lower gestational peripheral natural killer cell level (group 1) when compared with prepregnancy levels and those who did not (group 2). The respective outcomes of these groups in terms of live birth and pregnancy loss were comparatively analyzed using chi-square and Student's t tests. Candidate factors that could influence live birth were selected using the Akaike information criterion. The participates were then randomly divided into training and testing groups. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed and a nomogram was created to assess the possibility of live birth. The predictive accuracy was determined by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and validated by plotting the predicted probabilities and the observed probabilities. A Hosmer-Lemeshow test was used to assess the goodness of fit. RESULTS: When early gestational peripheral natural killer cell levels were compared with prepregnancy peripheral natural killer cell levels, 61.5% (154) of women had a comparatively lower early-gestational peripheral natural killer cell level and 38.9% (98) of women had an increase or no change in the peripheral natural killer cell level. The live birth rate in group 1 was 89.0% (137/154), which was significantly higher than the rate of 49.0% (48/98) in group 2 (P<.001). A decrease in the peripheral natural killer cell level (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-1.55; P<.001) and the anti-Muellerian hormone level (odds ratio, 1.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-1.81; P=.003) were important predicting factors for a higher live birth rate. Female body mass index (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.15; P=.763) and parity (odds ratio, 1.61; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-4.12; P=.287) also were predicting factors. Furthermore, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the model to diagnose of live birth was 0.853 with a sensitivity of 81.6% and a specificity of 78.0% using the training data set. And the Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed that the model was a good fit (p=6.068). CONCLUSION: We report a comparative decrease in the peripheral natural killer cell levels in early gestation when compared with prepregnancy cell levels in more than 60% of women with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss at 4 to 6 weeks of gestation. When compared with prepregnancy peripheral natural killer cell levels, a decrease in the peripheral natural killer cell level during early pregnancy might be a useful predictor of the live birth rate among women with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss.

Effectiveness of laparoscopic removal of isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis for the management of chronic pelvic pain in women (ESPriT2): protocol for a multi-centre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis affects 190 million women and those assigned female at birth worldwide. For some, it is associated with debilitating chronic pelvic pain. Diagnosis of endometriosis is often achieved through diagnostic laparoscopy. However, when isolated superficial peritoneal endometriosis (SPE), the most common endometriosis subtype, is identified during laparoscopy, limited evidence exists to support the common decision to surgically remove it via excision or ablation. Improved understanding of the impact of surgical removal of isolated SPE for the management of chronic pelvic pain in women is required. Here, we describe our protocol for a multi-centre trial to determine the effectiveness of surgical removal of isolated SPE for the management of endometriosis-associated pain. METHODS: We plan to undertake a multi-centre participant-blind parallel-group randomised controlled clinical and cost-effectiveness trial with internal pilot. We plan to randomise 400 participants from up to 70 National Health Service Hospitals in the UK. Participants with chronic pelvic pain awaiting diagnostic laparoscopy for suspected endometriosis will be consented by the clinical research team. If isolated SPE is identified at laparoscopy, and deep or ovarian endometriosis is not seen, participants will be randomised intraoperatively (1:1) to surgical removal (by excision or ablation or both, according to surgeons' preference) versus diagnostic laparoscopy alone. Randomisation with block-stratification will be used. Participants will be given a diagnosis but will not be informed of the procedure they received until 12 months post-randomisation, unless required. Post-operative medical treatment will be according to participants' preference. Participants will be asked to complete validated pain and quality of life questionnaires at 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. Our primary outcome is the pain domain of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30 (EHP-30), via a between randomised group comparison of adjusted means at 12 months. Assuming a standard deviation of 22 points around the pain score, 90% power, 5% significance and 20% missing data, 400 participants are required to be randomised to detect an 8-point pain score difference. DISCUSSION: This trial aims to provide high quality evidence of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of surgical removal of isolated SPE. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry ISRCTN27244948. Registered 6 April 2021.

The impact of primary ciliary dyskinesia on female and male fertility: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Primary ciliary dyskinesia (PCD) is a genetic condition affecting the structure and function of sperm flagellum and motile cilia including those in the male and female reproductive tracts. Infertility is a commonly reported feature of PCD, but there is uncertainty as to how best to counsel patients on their fertility prognosis. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: This review aimed to summarize the prevalence of subfertility, possible underlying mechanisms, and the success of ART in men and women with PCD. The efficacy of ART in this patient group is relatively unknown and, hence, the management of infertility in PCD patients remains a challenge. There are no previous published or registered systematic reviews of fertility outcomes in PCD. SEARCH METHODS: Systematic literature searches were performed in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and PubMed electronic databases to identify publications between 1964 and 2022 reporting fertility outcomes in men and women with PCD. Publications were excluded if they reported only animal studies, where gender was not specified or where subjects had a medical co-morbidity also known to impact fertility. Quality of evidence was assessed by critical appraisal and application of an appraisal tool for cross-sectional studies. The primary outcomes were natural conception in men and women with PCD, and conception following ART in men and women with PCD. OUTCOMES: A total of 1565 publications were identified, and 108 publications were included after screening by two independent researchers. The quality of available evidence was low. The exact prevalence of subfertility in PCD is unclear but appears to be higher in men (up to 83% affected) compared to women (up to 61% affected). Variation in the prevalence of subfertility was observed between geographic populations which may be explained by differences in underlying genotype and cilia function. Limited evidence suggests subfertility in affected individuals is likely caused by abnormal cilia motion in the fallopian tubes, endometrium and efferent ductules, and dysmotile sperm. Some men and women with PCD benefited from ART, which suggests its use should be considered in the management of subfertility in this patient group. Further epidemiological and controlled studies are needed to determine the predictors of fertility and optimal management in this patient group. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: It is important that patients with PCD receive evidence-based counselling about the potential impact of their condition on their fertility prognosis and what management options may be available to them if affected. Understanding the pathophysiology and optimal management of subfertility in PCD will increase our understanding of the role of cilia and the impact of wider secondary ciliopathies on reproduction.

The role of parity in the relationship between endometriosis and pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract: Endometriosis is a chronic and debilitating condition which can affect the entire reproductive life course of women with a potentially detrimental effect on pregnancy. Pregnancy (and increasing parity) can affect endometriosis by modulating disease severity and suppressing symptoms. Multiparous women could be less likely to suffer from endometriosis-related pregnancy complications than primiparous women. We aimed to systematically review the evidence examining the role of parity in the relationship between pregnancy outcomes and endometriosis. A systematic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library was performed from inception to May 2022. We searched for experimental and observational studies. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation was used to assess the quality of evidence with the risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions tool incorporated. Eleven studies were included in the meta-analysis. Primiparous women with endometriosis had almost double the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (OR: 1.99, 95% CI: 1.50-2.63, P < 0.001) compared to multiparous women with endometriosis. Primiparous women with endometriosis were at significantly increased risk of preterm delivery, caesarean delivery, and placenta praevia compared to primiparous women without endometriosis. There were no significant differences in outcomes when multiparous women with endometriosis were compared to multiparous women without endometriosis. There is limited evidence to suggest that primiparous women with endometriosis may be at higher risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes compared to multiparous women. The modulatory role of parity in the pathophysiology of endometriosis and its impact on pregnancy outcomes should be investigated. Lay summary: Endometriosis can adversely affect pregnancy and cause complications that can affect both mother and baby. The severity and symptoms of endometriosis are lessened in pregnancy and with increasing births. Women who have previously given birth could experience fewer pregnancy complications than women giving birth for the first time. We reviewed the literature to compare pregnancy outcomes in women with endometriosis by whether they had given birth before or not. Our review included 11 studies. More women with endometriosis giving birth for the first time had blood pressure disorders in pregnancy than women with endometriosis who had given birth before. First-time mothers with endometriosis tended to have a baby born early, caesarean delivery, and an abnormally located placenta compared to those without endometriosis. This study supports the theory that women with endometriosis in their first pregnancy are at higher risk of complications and may benefit from additional monitoring.

Risk Factors for Adhesion-Related Readmission and Abdominal Reoperation after Gynecological Surgery: A Nationwide Cohort Study.

More than half of women in developed countries undergo surgery during their lifetime, putting them at risk of adhesion-related complications. Adhesion-related complications include small bowel obstruction, chronic (pelvic) pain, subfertility, and complications associated with adhesiolysis during reoperation. The aim of this study is to predict the risk for adhesion-related readmission and reoperation after gynecological surgery. A Scottish nationwide retrospective cohort study was conducted including all women undergoing a gynecological procedure as their initial abdominal or pelvic operation between 1 June 2009 and 30 June 2011, with a five-year follow-up. Prediction models for two- and five-year risk of adhesion-related readmission and reoperation were constructed and visualized using nomograms. To evaluate the reliability of the created prediction model, internal cross-validation was performed using bootstrap methods. During the study period, 18,452 women were operated on, and 2719 (14.7%) of them were readmitted for reasons possibly related to adhesions. A total of 2679 (14.5%) women underwent reoperation. Risk factors for adhesion-related readmission were younger age, malignancy as indication, intra-abdominal infection, previous radiotherapy, application of a mesh, and concomitant inflammatory bowel disease. Transvaginal surgery was associated with a lower risk of adhesion-related complications as compared to laparoscopic or open surgeries. The prediction model for both readmissions and reoperations had moderate predictive reliability (c-statistics 0.711 and 0.651). This study identified risk factors for adhesion-related morbidity. The constructed prediction models can guide the targeted use of adhesion prevention methods and preoperative patient information in decision-making.

Digital support tools for fertility patients - a narrative systematic review.

Digital support tools, including smartphone apps, are increasingly being used alongside fertility treatments. These tools aim to harness the power of information and technology to improve care, facilitate communication and support patients through stressful treatment cycles. To warrant patient engagement, digital support tools must be perceived as useful. This review identifies and narratively analyses tools developed for fertility patients to date, discusses salient included features and evaluates user reviews. A systematic search of the app markets and electronic literature databases identified 46 digital support tools for fertility patients. The identified web-based tools focussed on psychosocial support, whereas the smartphone apps primarily have practical features, with some incorporating coping support. User feedback was collated from the Google and Apple app marketplaces and analysed using thematic analysis. Patients have high expectations of support apps, in particular the user experience. Nine published studies of web-based digital support tools were identified, but there was a complete absence of peer-reviewed studies of smartphone support apps for fertility patients. This review identifies the increasing range of available digital tools to support patients having fertility treatments and highlights the very limited evidence on which clinicians and patients can currently evaluate these tools.

The new normal: a UK fertility clinic experience of universal RT-PCR SARS-CoV-2 testing.

Following the temporary closure of fertility clinics in 2020 in many countries across the world, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has meant that the sector has had to rapidly adapt to novel ways of operating. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and feasibility of universal real-time polymerase chain reaction testing at an IVF clinic within a UK tertiary referral centre. Between March and December 2020, we performed 2,401 SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR tests on 1,215 individual patients, of which eight were positive (0.3%). Appropriate positive case identification allowed for delay in treatment initiation or cancellation as applicable. This has allowed our unit to continue to operate safely and efficiently.

Follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval in assisted reproductive techniques.

BACKGROUND: Follicular aspiration under transvaginal ultrasound guidance is routinely performed as part of assisted reproductive technology (ART) to retrieve oocytes for in vitro fertilisation (IVF). The process involves aspiration of the follicular fluid followed by the introduction of flush, typically culture media, back into the follicle followed by re-aspiration. However, there is a degree of controversy as to whether this intervention yields a larger number of oocytes and is hence associated with greater potential for pregnancy than aspiration only. OBJECTIVES: To assess the safety and efficacy of follicular flushing as compared with aspiration only performed in women undergoing ART. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases up to 13 July 2021: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL (containing output from two trial registries and CINAHL), MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. We also searched LILACS, Google Scholar, and Epistemonikos. We reviewed the reference lists of relevant papers and contacted experts in the field to identify further relevant studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared follicular aspiration and flushing with aspiration alone in women undergoing ART using their own gametes. Primary outcomes were live birth rate and miscarriage rate per woman randomised. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies identified by search against the inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. A third review author was consulted if required. We contacted study authors as needed. We analysed dichotomous outcomes using Mantel-Haenszel odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and a fixed-effect model, and we analysed continuous outcomes using mean differences (MDs) between groups presented with 95% CIs. We examined the heterogeneity of studies via the I2 statistic. We assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 studies with a total of 1643 women. Fourteen studies reported outcomes per woman randomised, and one study reported outcomes per ovary. No studies were at low risk of bias across all domains; the main limitation was lack of blinding. The certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low, and was downgraded for risk of bias, imprecision, and inconsistency. We are uncertain of the effect of follicular flushing on live birth rate compared to aspiration alone (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.46; 4 RCTs; n = 467; I2 = 0%; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that with a live birth rate of approximately 30% with aspiration alone, the equivalent live birth rate with follicular flushing lies between 20% and 39%.  We are uncertain of the effect of follicular flushing on miscarriage rate compared to aspiration alone (OR 1.98, 95% CI 0.18 to 22.22; 1 RCT; n = 164; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that with a miscarriage rate of approximately 1% with aspiration alone, the equivalent miscarriage rate with follicular flushing lies between 0% and 22%. We are uncertain of the effect of follicular flushing on oocyte yield (MD -0.47 oocytes, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.22; 9 RCTs; n = 1239; I2 = 61%; very low-certainty evidence); total number of embryos (MD -0.10 embryos, 95% CI -0.34 to 0.15; 2 RCTs; n = 160; I2 = 58%; low-certainty evidence); and clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.51; 7 RCTs; n = 939; I2 = 46%; low-certainty evidence). The duration of the retrieval process may be longer with flushing (MD 175.44 seconds, 95% CI 152.57 to 198.30; 7 RCTs; n = 785; I2 = 87%; low-certainty evidence). It was not possible to perform a meta-analysis for adverse events, although individual studies reported on outcomes ranging from depression and anxiety to pain and pelvic organ injury. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effect of follicular flushing on both live birth and miscarriage rates compared with aspiration alone is uncertain. Although the evidence does not permit any firm conclusions on the impact of follicular flushing on oocyte yield, total number of embryos, number of cryopreserved embryos, or clinical pregnancy rate, it may be that the procedure itself takes longer than aspiration alone. The evidence was insufficient to permit any firm conclusions with respect to adverse events or safety.

Endometrial gland specific progestagen-associated endometrial protein and cilia gene splicing changes in recurrent pregnancy loss.

Endometrial glands are essential for fertility, consisting of ciliated and secretory cells that facilitate a suitable uterine environment for embryo implantation. This study sought to determine whether an endometrial gland specific transcriptome and splicing profile are altered in women with recurrent pregnancy loss. Our data provide a comprehensive catalogue of cilia and PAEP gene isoforms and relative exon usage in endometrial glands. We report a previously unannotated endometrial gland cilia transcript GALNT11 and its susceptibility to exon skipping. Key endometrial receptivity gene transcripts are also reported to change in endometrial glands of women with recurrent pregnancy loss. The endometrial gland cilia and PAEP targets identified in this study could be used to identify a perturbed endometrium, isolate causes of recurrent pregnancy loss and develop targeted therapies in personalised medicine.

Transfer of thawed frozen embryo versus fresh embryo to improve the healthy baby rate in women undergoing IVF: the E-Freeze RCT.

BACKGROUND: Freezing all embryos, followed by thawing and transferring them into the uterine cavity at a later stage (freeze-all), instead of fresh-embryo transfer may lead to improved pregnancy rates and fewer complications during in vitro fertilisation and pregnancies resulting from it. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to evaluate if a policy of freeze-all results in a higher healthy baby rate than the current policy of transferring fresh embryos. DESIGN: This was a pragmatic, multicentre, two-arm, parallel-group, non-blinded, randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Eighteen in vitro fertilisation clinics across the UK participated from February 2016 to April 2019. PARTICIPANTS: Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of in vitro fertilisation treatment in which the female partner was aged < 42 years. INTERVENTIONS: If at least three good-quality embryos were present on day 3 of embryo development, couples were randomly allocated to either freeze-all (intervention) or fresh-embryo transfer (control). OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was a healthy baby, defined as a live, singleton baby born at term, with an appropriate weight for their gestation. Secondary outcomes included ovarian hyperstimulation, live birth and clinical pregnancy rates, complications of pregnancy and childbirth, health economic outcome, and State-Trait Anxiety Inventory scores. RESULTS: A total of 1578 couples were consented and 619 couples were randomised. Most non-randomisations were because of the non-availability of at least three good-quality embryos (n = 476). Of the couples randomised, 117 (19%) did not adhere to the allocated intervention. The rate of non-adherence was higher in the freeze-all arm, with the leading reason being patient choice. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a healthy baby rate of 20.3% in the freeze-all arm and 24.4% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.62 to 1.15). Similar results were obtained using complier-average causal effect analysis (risk ratio 0.77, 95% confidence interval 0.44 to 1.10), per-protocol analysis (risk ratio 0.87, 95% confidence interval 0.59 to 1.26) and as-treated analysis (risk ratio 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.64 to 1.29). The risk of ovarian hyperstimulation was 3.6% in the freeze-all arm and 8.1% in the fresh-embryo transfer arm (risk ratio 0.44, 99% confidence interval 0.15 to 1.30). There were no statistically significant differences between the freeze-all and the fresh-embryo transfer arms in the live birth rates (28.3% vs. 34.3%; risk ratio 0.83, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.06) and clinical pregnancy rates (33.9% vs. 40.1%; risk ratio 0.85, 99% confidence interval 0.65 to 1.11). There was no statistically significant difference in anxiety scores for male participants (mean difference 0.1, 99% confidence interval -2.4 to 2.6) and female participants (mean difference 0.0, 99% confidence interval -2.2 to 2.2) between the arms. The economic analysis showed that freeze-all had a low probability of being cost-effective in terms of the incremental cost per healthy baby and incremental cost per live birth. LIMITATIONS: We were unable to reach the original planned sample size of 1086 and the rate of non-adherence to the allocated intervention was much higher than expected. CONCLUSION: When efficacy, safety and costs are considered, freeze-all is not better than fresh-embryo transfer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN61225414. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 25. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

During in vitro fertilisation, eggs and sperm are mixed in a laboratory to create embryos. An embryo is placed in the womb 2­5 days later (fresh-embryo transfer) and the remaining embryos are frozen for future use. Initial research suggested that freezing all embryos followed by thawing and replacing them a few weeks later could improve treatment safety and success. Although these data were promising, the data came from small studies and were not enough to change practice and policy. We conducted a large, multicentre, clinical trial to evaluate the two strategies: fresh-embryo transfer compared with later transfer of frozen embryos. We also compared the costs of both strategies during in vitro fertilisation treatment, pregnancy and delivery. This study was conducted across 18 clinics in the UK from 2016 to 2019, and 619 couples participated. Couples were allocated to one of two strategies: immediate fresh-embryo transfer or freezing of all embryos followed later by transfer of frozen embryo. The study's aim was to find out which type of embryo transfer gave participants a higher chance of having a healthy baby. We found that freezing all embryos followed by frozen-embryo transfer did not lead to a higher chance of having a healthy baby. There were no differences between strategies in the number of live births, the miscarriage rate or the number of pregnancy complications. Fresh-embryo transfer was less costly from both a health-care and a patient perspective. A routine strategy of freezing all embryos is not justified given that there was no increase in success rates but there were extra costs and delays to embryo transfer.

Discrete choice experiment exploring women's preferences in a novel device designed to monitor the womb environment and improve our understanding of reproductive disorders.

OBJECTIVES: The study aims to determine the relative importance of key attributes of a novel intrauterine device. The device monitors uterine oxygen, pH and temperature in real time with the aim of improving our understanding and treatment of reproductive disorders. DESIGN: A discrete choice experiment was used to elicit preferences in this novel investigative tool. The attributes and levels used in the choice scenarios were length of time using the device (7, 14 or 28 days), information obtained to guide treatment (limited, majority or all cases), risk of complications (1% or 10%) and discreteness (completely discrete, moderately discrete or indiscrete). SETTING: Secondary care hospital in Hampshire, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 361 women of reproductive age. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Conditional logit and latent class logit regression models to determine the preference for each attribute. RESULTS: Conditional logit coefficients allow comparison between attributes; women placed most importance on obtaining information to guide treatment in all cases (2.771), followed by having a completely discrete device (1.104), reducing risk of complications by 1% (0.184) and decreased length of time by 1 day (0.0150). All coefficients p<0.01. Latent class conditional logit assigns participants to two classes with 27.4% in class 1 who are less likely to have higher education or qualify for National Health Service-funded in vitro fertilisation compared with class 2. Those in class 2 placed 1.7 times more importance on a device whose information guided treatment in all cases and a 1% decrease in complications risk was nearly 15 times more attractive. CONCLUSIONS: Women placed most importance on having a device that obtains information to guide treatment and are willing to use the device for a longer, have a device with higher risk of complications and an indiscrete device if it is able to provide answers and direction for treatment of their reproductive disorder.

Endometrial scratch to increase live birth rates in women undergoing first-time in vitro fertilisation: RCT and systematic review.

BACKGROUND: In vitro fertilisation is a widely used reproductive technique that can be undertaken with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The endometrial scratch procedure is an in vitro fertilisation 'add-on' that is sometimes provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle, but there is a lack of evidence to support its use. OBJECTIVES: (1) To assess the clinical effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of endometrial scratch compared with treatment as usual in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle (the 'Endometrial Scratch Trial') and (2) to undertake a systematic review to combine the results of the Endometrial Scratch Trial with those of previous trials in which endometrial scratch was provided prior to the first in vitro fertilisation cycle. DESIGN: A pragmatic, multicentre, superiority, open-label, parallel-group, individually randomised controlled trial. Participants were randomised (1 : 1) via a web-based system to receive endometrial scratch or treatment as usual using stratified block randomisation. The systematic review involved searching electronic databases (undertaken in January 2020) and clinicaltrials.gov (undertaken in September 2020) for relevant trials. SETTING: Sixteen UK fertility units. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 18-37 years, inclusive, undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle. The exclusion criteria included severe endometriosis, body mass index ≥ 35 kg/m2 and previous trauma to the endometrium. INTERVENTIONS: Endometrial scratch was undertaken in the mid-luteal phase of the menstrual cycle prior to in vitro fertilisation, and involved inserting a pipelle into the cavity of the uterus and rotating and withdrawing it three or four times. The endometrial scratch group then received usual in vitro fertilisation treatment. The treatment-as-usual group received usual in vitro fertilisation only. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was live birth after completion of 24 weeks' gestation within 10.5 months of egg collection. Secondary outcomes included implantation, pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, pain and tolerability of the procedure, adverse events and treatment costs. RESULTS: One thousand and forty-eight (30.3%) women were randomised to treatment as usual (n = 525) or endometrial scratch (n = 523) and were followed up between July 2016 and October 2019 and included in the intention-to-treat analysis. In the endometrial scratch group, 453 (86.6%) women received the endometrial scratch procedure. A total of 494 (94.1%) women in the treatment-as-usual group and 497 (95.0%) women in the endometrial scratch group underwent in vitro fertilisation. The live birth rate was 37.1% (195/525) in the treatment-as-usual group and 38.6% (202/523) in the endometrial scratch group: an unadjusted absolute difference of 1.5% (95% confidence interval -4.4% to 7.4%; p = 0.621). There were no statistically significant differences in secondary outcomes. Safety events were comparable across groups. No neonatal deaths were recorded. The cost per successful live birth was £11.90 per woman (95% confidence interval -£134 to £127). The pooled results of this trial and of eight similar trials found no evidence of a significant effect of endometrial scratch in increasing live birth rate (odds ratio 1.03, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.22). LIMITATIONS: A sham endometrial scratch procedure was not undertaken, but it is unlikely that doing so would have influenced the results, as objective fertility outcomes were used. A total of 9.2% of women randomised to receive endometrial scratch did not undergo the procedure, which may have slightly diluted the treatment effect. CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to support the theory that performing endometrial scratch in the mid-luteal phase in women undergoing their first in vitro fertilisation cycle significantly improves live birth rate, although the procedure was well tolerated and safe. We recommend that endometrial scratch is not undertaken in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This trial is registered as ISRCTN23800982. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 26, No. 10. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

The endometrial scratch is a simple procedure that involves 'scratching' the lining of the womb (the endometrium). Several small studies have shown that undertaking this before the first in vitro fertilisation cycle may improve live birth rates; however, other studies have contradicted this. This large study was carried out to confirm whether or not having an endometrial scratch before the first in vitro fertilisation cycle would increase the number of women having a live birth compared with those having 'usual' in vitro fertilisation treatment (known as the 'control' group). We collected information about pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, pain during the procedure and costs of treatment to find out if there were any meaningful differences. A total of 1048 women aged between 18 and 37 years were randomly allocated to the two groups, so participants had a 50% chance of having the endometrial scratch. Women were followed up throughout their pregnancy to ascertain the outcome of their in vitro fertilisation cycle. Although the live birth rate was 1.5% higher in the endometrial scratch group (38.6%) than in the control group (37.1%), the difference was not large enough to show any benefit of having the procedure. Other outcomes did not differ significantly between the two groups. However, the procedure was safe and tolerable. We found that the cost of treatment was, on average, £316 per participant higher in the group that received endometrial scratch than in the control group; the difference was not large enough to show that receiving endometrial scratch was more cost-effective. We combined the results of this trial with those of previous trials that looked to answer a similar question, and found that, overall, the endometrial scratch procedure does not enhance the chances of achieving a live birth. We conclude that endometrial scratch before first-time in vitro fertilisation does not improve the outcome of treatment, and we recommend that this procedure is not undertaken prior to a first cycle of in vitro fertilisation.

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

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

The impact on Anti-Mullerian Hormone (AMH), uterine fibroid size and uterine artery patency following Uterine Fibroid Embolization (UFE) with a resorbable embolic agent.

The effect of Uterine Fibroid Embolization on fertility and ovarian reserve remains uncertain. We assessed the impact of a new resorbable, spherical particle (Gelbead) on concentration of Anti-Mullerian (AMH) hormone, fibroid volume and uterine artery patency. This prospective cohort study recruited consecutive patients from July 2017 to June 2018. Serum AMH, fibroid and uterine volume, UFS-QOL (uterine fibroid score-quality of life) scores were measured prior to and at 1 month and/or 3 months post embolization. Twenty-four participants were enrolled (median age 44 years, uterine volume 484 cm3, initial dominant fibroid volume 167 cm3). One patient was lost to follow-up. AMH (median ± SD) immediately prior to embolization was 3.2 ± 13.7 pmol/L. At 1-month postembolization, AMH was 4.1 ± 8.6 pmol/L and at 3 months 4.4 ± 8.6 pmol/L. We found no significant difference in AMH levels between baseline and at 1 month (p = 0.58) or baseline and 3 months (p = 0.17). The median dominant uterine fibroid volume decreased (167 to 64 cm3, p < 0.001). At 3 months post-embolization, 17/23 patients had patent uterine arteries bilaterally (73.9%). UFE with Gel-bead did not significantly affect AMH at 3 months post embolization, whilst maintaining a high rate of uterine artery patency.

Levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD) for symptomatic endometriosis following surgery.

BACKGROUND: Endometriosis is a condition characterised by the presence of ectopic deposits of endometrial-like tissue outside the uterus, usually in the pelvis. The impact of laparoscopic treatment on overall pain is uncertain and a significant proportion of women will require further surgery. Therefore, adjuvant medical therapies following surgery, such as the levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (LNG-IUD), have been considered to reduce recurrence of symptoms.  OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of post-operative LNG-IUD in women with symptomatic endometriosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases from inception to January 2021: The Specialised Register of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, CENTRAL (which now includes records from two trial registries), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS and Epistemonikos. We handsearched citation lists of relevant publications, review articles, abstracts of scientific meetings and included studies. We contacted experts in the field for information about any additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing women undergoing surgical treatment of endometriosis with uterine preservation who were assigned to LNG-IUD insertion, versus control conditions including expectant management, post-operative insertion of placebo (inert intrauterine device), or other medical treatment such as gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) drugs. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, and extracted data to allow for an intention-to-treat analysis. For dichotomous data, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using the Mantel-Haenszel fixed-effect method. For continuous data, we calculated the mean difference (MD) and 95% CI using the inverse variance fixed-effect method. MAIN RESULTS: Four RCTs were included, with a total of 157 women. Two studies are ongoing. The GRADE certainty of evidence was very low to low. The certainty of evidence was graded down primarily for serious risk of bias and imprecision. LNG-IUD versus expectant management Overall pain: No studies reported on the primary outcome of overall pain. Dysmenorrhoea: We are uncertain whether LNG-IUD improves dysmenorrhoea at 12 months. Data on this outcome were reported on by two RCTs; meta-analysis was not possible (RCT 1: delta of median visual analogue scale (VAS) 81 versus 50, P = 0.006, n = 55; RCT 2: fall in VAS by 50 (35 to 65) versus 30 (25 to 40), P = 0.021, n = 40; low-certainty evidence). Quality of life: We are uncertain whether LNG-IUD improves quality of life at 12 months. One trial demonstrated a change in total quality of life score with postoperative LNG-IUD from baseline (mean 61.2 (standard deviation (SD) 14.8) to 12 months (mean 70.3 (SD 16.2) compared to expectant management (baseline 55.1 (SD 17.0) to 57.0 (SD 33.2) at 12 months) (n = 55, P = 0.014, very low-certainty evidence). Patient satisfaction: Two studies found higher rates of satisfaction with LNG-IUD compared to expectant management; however, combining the studies in meta-analysis was not possible (n = 95, very low-certainty evidence). One study found 75% (15/20) of those given post-operative LNG-IUD were "satisfied" or "very satisfied", compared to 50% (10/20) of those in the expectant management group (RR 1.5, 95% CI 0.90-2.49, 1 RCT, n=40, very low-certainty evidence). The second study found that fewer were "very satisfied" in the expectant management group when compared to LNG, but there were no data to include in a meta-analysis.  Adverse events: One study found a significantly higher proportion of women reporting melasma (n = 55, P = 0.015, very low-certainty evidence) and bloating (n = 55, P = 0.021, very low-certainty evidence) following post-operative LNG-IUD. There were no differences in other reported adverse events, such as weight gain, acne, and headaches.  LNG-IUD versus GnRH-a Overall pain: No studies reported on the primary outcome of overall pain. Chronic pelvic pain: We are uncertain whether LNG-IUD improves chronic pelvic pain at 12 months when compared to GnRH-a (VAS pain scale) (MD -2.0, 95% CI -20.2 to 16.2, 1 RCT, n = 40, very low-certainty evidence). Dysmenorrhoea: We are uncertain whether LNG-IUD improves dysmenorrhoea at six months when compared to GnRH-a (measured as a reduction in VAS pain score) (MD 1.70, 95%.CI -0.14 to 3.54, 1 RCT, n = 18, very low-certainty evidence). Adverse events: One study suggested that vasomotor symptoms were the most common adverse events reported with patients receiving GnRH-a, and irregular bleeding in those receiving LNG-IUD (n = 40, very low-certainty evidence) AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Post-operative LNG-IUD is widely used to reduce endometriosis-related pain and to improve operative outcomes. This review demonstrates that there is no high-quality evidence to support this practice. This review highlights the need for further studies with large sample sizes to assess the effectiveness of post-operative adjuvant hormonal IUD on the core endometriosis outcomes (overall pain, most troublesome symptom, and quality of life).

Surgical interventions for the management of chronic pelvic pain in women.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pelvic pain (CPP) is a common gynaecological condition accounting for 20% of all gynaecological referrals. There are wide ranges of causes with overlapping symptomatology, therefore the management of the condition is a formidable challenge for clinicians. The aetiology of CPP is heterogeneous and in many cases, no clear diagnosis can be reached. It is in this scenario that the label of chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CPPS) can be applied. We defined women with CPPS as having a minimum duration of pain of at least 6 months, including with a diagnosis of pelvic congestion syndrome, but excluding pain caused by a condition such as endometriosis. Many surgical interventions have been tried in isolation or in conjunction with non-surgical interventions in the management with variable results. Surgical interventions are invasive and carry operative risks. Surgical interventions must be evaluated for their effectiveness prior to their prevalent use in the management of women with CPPS. OBJECTIVES: To review the effectiveness and safety of surgical interventions in the management of women with CPPS. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGF) Specialised Register of Controlled Trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO, on 23 April 2021 for any randomised controlled trials (RCT) for surgical interventions in women with CPPS. We also searched the citation lists of relevant publications, two trial registries, relevant journals, abstracts, conference proceedings and several key grey literature sources. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs with women who had CPPS. The review authors were prepared to consider studies of any surgical intervention used for the management of CPPS. Outcome measures were pain rating scales, adverse events, psychological outcomes, quality of life (QoL) measures and requirement for analgesia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently evaluated studies for inclusion and extracted data using the forms designed according to Cochrane guidelines. For each included trial, we collected information regarding the method of randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding, data reporting and analyses. We reported pooled results as mean difference (MDs) or odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) by the Mantel-Haenszel method. If similar outcomes were reported on different scales, we calculated the standardised mean difference (SMD). We applied GRADE criteria to judge the overall certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies met our inclusion criteria involving 216 women with CPP and no identifiable cause. Adhesiolysis compared to no surgery or diagnostic laparoscopy We are uncertain of the effect of adhesiolysis on pelvic pain scores postoperatively at three months (MD -7.3, 95% CI -29.9 to 15.3; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence), six months (MD -14.3, 95% CI -35.9 to 7.3; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence) and 12 months postsurgery (MD 0.00, 95% CI -4.60; 1 study, 43 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Adhesiolysis may improve both the emotional wellbeing (MD 24.90, 95% CI 7.92 to 41.88; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence) and social support (MD 23.90, 95% CI -1.77 to 49.57; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence) components of the Endometriosis Health Profile-30, and both the emotional component (MD 32.30, 95% CI 13.16 to 51.44; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence) and the physical component of the 12-item Short Form (MD 22.90, 95% CI 10.97 to 34.83; 1 study, 43 participants; low-certainty evidence) when compared to diagnostic laparoscopy. We are uncertain of the safety of adhesiolysis compared to comparator groups due to low-certainty evidence and lack of structured adverse event reporting. No studies reported on psychological outcomes or requirements for analgesia. Laparoscopic uterosacral ligament ablation or resection compared to diagnostic laparoscopy/other treatment We are uncertain of the effect of laparoscopic uterosacral ligament/nerve ablation (LUNA) or resection compared to other treatments postoperatively at three months (OR 1.26, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.93; 1 study, 51 participants; low-certainty evidence) and six months (MD -2.10, 95% CI -4.38 to 0.18; 1 study, 74 participants; very low-certainty evidence). At 12 months post-surgery, we are uncertain of the effect of LUNA on the rate of successful treatment compared to diagnostic laparoscopy. One study of 56 participants found no difference in the effect of LUNA on non-cyclical pain (P = 0.854) or dyspareunia (P = 0.41); however, there was a difference favouring LUNA on dysmenorrhea (P = 0.045) and dyschezia (P = 0.05). We are also uncertain of the effect of LUNA compared to vaginal uterosacral ligament resection on pelvic pain at 12 months (MD 2.00, 95% CI 0.47 to 3.53; 1 study, 74 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the safety of LUNA or resection compared to comparator groups due to the lack of structured adverse event reporting. Women undergoing LUNA may require more analgesia postoperatively than those undergoing other treatments (P < 0.001; 1 study, 74 participants). No studies reported psychological outcomes or QoL. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain about the benefit of adhesiolysis or LUNA in management of pain in women with CPPS based on the current literature. There may be a QoL benefit to adhesiolysis in improving both emotional wellbeing and social support, as measured by the validated QoL tools. It was not possible to synthesis evidence on adverse events as these were only reported narratively in some studies, in which none were observed. With the inadequate objective assessment of adverse events, especially long-term adverse events, associated with adhesiolysis or LUNA for CPPS, there is currently little to support these interventions for CPPS.

The influence of gender and ethnicity on facemasks and respiratory protective equipment fit: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) people are disproportionately affected by COVID-19. Respiratory protective equipment (RPE) has conventionally been developed for a predominantly white male population that does not represent the healthcare workforce. The literature was reviewed to determine the protection offered to female and BAME users. METHODS: Five databases were searched. Eligible studies related to respirator fit in the context of anthropometrics, gender and ethnicity. Meta-analysis was performed for gender-based anthropometric differences. A priori protocol registration was not performed. RESULTS: 32 studies were included and anthropometric data was extracted from 15 studies. Meta-analysis revealed 14 anthropometric measurements were significantly smaller for females. Mean differences ranged from 0.37 mm to 22.05 mm. Gender-based anthropometric differences did not always translate to lower fit factor scores, with 12 studies reporting worse performance and fit for females and 10 reporting no gender effect. No studies provided disaggregate anthropometric data by ethnic group. Pass rates (PR) were low or moderate in 12 BAME or mixed-ethnicity cohorts. 14 studies reported associations between facial dimensions (FD) and respirator fit. Three comparative studies showed lower PR among selective BAME people. 18 studies reported RPE performance differed with model and design. Most studies did not prespecify inclusion/exclusion criteria. Small sample size and lack of justification or power calculations was a concern. Significant heterogeneity in study designs limited comparisons, particularly relating to respirator selection or availability and defining study outcomes relating to RPE performance. CONCLUSION: The literature reports on largely Caucasian or single ethnic populations, and BAME people remain under-represented, limiting comparisons between ethnic groups. Facial anthropometrics vary between gender and likely between ethnicity, which may contribute to lower PR among females and ethnic minorities, particularly Asians. There is a need for studies including a broader spectrum of ethnicities and for consideration of female and BAME users during RPE development.