Levothyroxine in Women with Thyroid Peroxidase Antibodies before Conception.

BACKGROUND: Thyroid peroxidase antibodies are associated with an increased risk of miscarriage and preterm birth, even when thyroid function is normal. Small trials indicate that the use of levothyroxine could reduce the incidence of such adverse outcomes. METHODS: We conducted a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to investigate whether levothyroxine treatment would increase live-birth rates among euthyroid women who had thyroid peroxidase antibodies and a history of miscarriage or infertility. A total of 19,585 women from 49 hospitals in the United Kingdom underwent testing for thyroid peroxidase antibodies and thyroid function. We randomly assigned 952 women to receive either 50 µg once daily of levothyroxine (476 women) or placebo (476 women) before conception through the end of pregnancy. The primary outcome was live birth after at least 34 weeks of gestation. RESULTS: The follow-up rate for the primary outcome was 98.7% (940 of 952 women). A total of 266 of 470 women in the levothyroxine group (56.6%) and 274 of 470 women in the placebo group (58.3%) became pregnant. The live-birth rate was 37.4% (176 of 470 women) in the levothyroxine group and 37.9% (178 of 470 women) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.83 to 1.14, P = 0.74; absolute difference, -0.4 percentage points; 95% CI, -6.6 to 5.8). There were no significant between-group differences in other pregnancy outcomes, including pregnancy loss or preterm birth, or in neonatal outcomes. Serious adverse events occurred in 5.9% of women in the levothyroxine group and 3.8% in the placebo group (P = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: The use of levothyroxine in euthyroid women with thyroid peroxidase antibodies did not result in a higher rate of live births than placebo. (Funded by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research; TABLET Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN15948785.).

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.

A randomised controlled trial to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of the endometrial scratch procedure prior to first-time IVF, with or without ICSI.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the clinical-effectiveness and safety of the endometrial scratch (ES) procedure compared to no ES, prior to usual first time in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER: ES was safe but did not improve pregnancy outcomes when performed in the mid-luteal phase prior to the first IVF cycle, with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: ES is an 'add-on' treatment that is available to women undergoing a first cycle of IVF, with or without ICSI, despite a lack of evidence to support its use. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This pragmatic, superiority, open-label, multi-centre, parallel-group randomised controlled trial involving 1048 women assessed the clinical effectiveness and safety of the ES procedure prior to first time IVF, with or without ICSI, between July 2016 and October 2019. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants aged 18-37 years undergoing their first cycle of IVF, with or without ICSI, were recruited from 16 UK fertility clinics and randomised (1:1) by a web-based system with restricted access rights that concealed allocation. Stratified block randomisation was used to allocate participants to TAU or ES in the mid-luteal phase followed by usual IVF with or without ICSI treatment. The primary outcome was live birth after completing 24 weeks gestation within 10.5 months of egg collection. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In total, 1048 women randomised to TAU (n = 525) and ES (n = 523) were available for intention to treat analysis. In the ES group, 453 (86.6%) received the ES procedure. IVF, with or without ICSI, was received in 494 (94.1%) and 497 (95.0%) of ES and TAU participants respectively. Live birth rate was 37.1% (195/525) in the TAU and 38.6% (202/523) in the ES: an unadjusted absolute difference of 1.5% (95% CI -4.4% to 7.4%, P = 0.621). There were no statistical differences in secondary outcomes. Adverse events were comparable across groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: A sham ES procedure was not undertaken in the control group, however, we do not believe this would have influenced the results as objective fertility outcomes were used. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the largest trial that is adequately powered to assess the impact of ES on women undergoing their first cycle of IVF. ES was safe, but did not significantly improve pregnancy outcomes when performed in the mid-luteal phase prior to the first IVF or ICSI cycle. We recommend that ES is not undertaken in this population. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Funded by the National Institute of Health Research. Stephen Walters is an National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator (2018 to present) and was a member of the following during the project: National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Clinical Trials and Evaluation Committee (2011-2017), NIHR HTA Commissioning Strategy Group (2012 to 2017); NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research Committee (2020 to present); NIHR Pre doctoral Fellowship Committee (2019 to present). Dr. Martins da Silva reports grants from AstraZeneca, during the conduct of the study; and is Associate editor of Human Reproduction and Editorial Board member of Reproduction and Fertility. Dr. Bhide reports grants from Bart's Charity and grants and non-financial support from Pharmasure Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN number: ISRCTN23800982. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 31 May 2016. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 04 July 2016.

Suboptimal mid-luteal progesterone concentrations are associated with aberrant endometrial gene expression, potentially resulting in implantation failure.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the difference in endometrial transcriptomics between women with normal and with low mid-luteal progesterone during the implantation window? DESIGN: An endometrial biopsy and serum progesterone concentration were taken from participants during the mid-luteal phase (LH+7 to LH+9). A total of 12 participants were recruited and categorized into two groups based on their progesterone concentrations: normal progesterone (>15 ng/ml, n = 6) and low progesterone (<15 ng/ml, n = 6). Global endometrial gene expression between the two groups was compared by microarray techniques. Principal component analysis was used to display the gene's expression pattern. Pathway and gene ontology enrichment analysis were performed to determine the biological mechanism of progesterone on the endometrium. RESULTS: Several key genes related to endometrial receptivity were found to be regulated by progesterone. With regard to gene ontology and pathway analysis, progesterone was shown to be mainly involved in structure morphogenesis predominantly during a process of decidualization, extracellular matrix-receptor interaction and cell adhesion. Distinct differences were observed in the transcriptomic profiles between the two groups, indicating potential impairment of endometrial receptivity in women with suboptimal progesterone concentrations. There was a relatively similar pattern of gene expression between endometrial samples with progesterone concentrations approximately 10 ng/ml and >15 ng/ml. Thus, a progesterone concentration of between 10 and 15 ng/ml appears to be sufficient to induce endometrial receptivity. CONCLUSIONS: Abnormally low progesterone below the threshold of 10-15 ng/ml during the implantation window results in aberrant endometrial gene expression that may affect implantation potential.

Oxytocin antagonists for assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Embryo transfer (ET) is a crucial step of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment, and involves placing the embryo(s) in the woman's uterus. There is a negative association between endometrial wave-like activity (contractile activities) at the time of ET and clinical pregnancy, but no specific treatment is currently used in clinical practice to counteract their effects. Oxytocin is a hormone produced by the hypothalamus and released by the posterior pituitary. Its main role involves generating uterine contractions during and after childbirth. Atosiban is the best known oxytocin antagonist (and is also a vasopressin antagonist), and it is commonly used to delay premature labour by halting uterine contractions. Other oxytocin antagonists include barusiban, nolasiban, epelsiban, and retosiban. Administration of oxytocin antagonists around the time of ET has been proposed as a means to reduce uterine contractions that may interfere with embryo implantation. The intervention involves administering the medication before, during, or after the ET (or a combination). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of oxytocin antagonists around the time of ET in women undergoing assisted reproduction. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and two trials registers in March 2021; and checked references and contacted study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of the use of oxytocin antagonists for women undergoing ET, compared with the non-use of this intervention, the use of placebo, or the use of another similar drug. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary review outcomes were live birth and miscarriage; secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy and other adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included nine studies (including one comprising three separate trials, 3733 women analysed in total) investigating the role of three different oxytocin antagonists administered intravenously (atosiban), subcutaneously (barusiban), or orally (nolasiban). We found very low- to high-certainty evidence: the main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of study methods, and serious or very serious imprecision. Intravenous atosiban versus normal saline or no intervention We are uncertain of the effect of intravenous atosiban on live birth rate (risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.88 to 1.24; 1 RCT, N = 800; low-certainty evidence). In a clinic with a live birth rate of 38% per cycle, the use of intravenous atosiban would be associated with a live birth rate ranging from 33.4% to 47.1%. We are uncertain whether intravenous atosiban influences miscarriage rate (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.56; 5 RCTs, N = 1424; I² = 0%; very low-certainty evidence). In a clinic with a miscarriage rate of 7.2% per cycle, the use of intravenous atosiban would be associated with a miscarriage rate ranging from 5.4% to 11.2%. Intravenous atosiban may increase clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.89; 7 RCTs, N = 1646; I² = 69%; low-certainty evidence), and we are uncertain whether multiple or ectopic pregnancy and other complication rates were influenced by the use of intravenous atosiban (very low-certainty evidence). Subcutaneous barusiban versus placebo One study investigated barusiban, but did not report on live birth or miscarriage. We are uncertain whether subcutaneous barusiban influences clinical pregnancy rate (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.35; 1 RCT, N = 255; very low-certainty evidence). Trialists reported more mild to moderate injection site reactions with barusiban than with placebo, but there was no difference in severe reactions. They reported no serious drug reactions; and comparable neonatal outcome between groups. Oral nolasiban versus placebo Nolasiban does not increase live birth rate (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.28; 3 RCTs, N = 1832; I² = 0%; high-certainty evidence). In a clinic with a live birth rate of 33% per cycle, the use of oral nolasiban would be associated with a live birth rate ranging from 32.7% to 42.2%. We are uncertain of the effect of oral nolasiban on miscarriage rate (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.73 to 2.88; 3 RCTs, N = 1832; I² = 0%; low-certainty evidence). In a clinic with a miscarriage rate of 1.5% per cycle, the use of oral nolasiban would be associated with a miscarriage rate ranging from 1.1% to 4.3%. Oral nolasiban improves clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.15, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.30; 3 RCTs, N = 1832; I² = 0%; high-certainty evidence), and probably does not increase multiple or ectopic pregnancy, or other complication rates (moderate-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain whether intravenous atosiban improves pregnancy outcomes for women undergoing assisted reproductive technology. This conclusion is based on currently available data from seven RCTs, which provided very low- to low-certainty evidence across studies. We could draw no clear conclusions about subcutaneous barusiban, based on limited data from one RCT. Further large well-designed RCTs reporting on live births and adverse clinical outcomes are still required to clarify the exact role of atosiban and barusiban before ET. Oral nolasiban appears to improve clinical pregnancy rate but not live birth rate, with an uncertain effect on miscarriage and adverse events. This conclusion is based on a phased study comprising three trials that provided low- to high-certainty evidence. Further large, well-designed RCTs, reporting on live births and adverse clinical outcomes, should focus on identifying the subgroups of women who are likely to benefit from this intervention.

Endometrial injury in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF).

BACKGROUND: Implantation of an embryo within the endometrial cavity is a critical step in the process of in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Previous research has suggested that endometrial injury (also known as endometrial scratching), defined as intentional damage to the endometrium, can increase the chance of pregnancy in women undergoing IVF. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of endometrial injury performed before embryo transfer in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) including intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and frozen embryo transfer. SEARCH METHODS: In June 2020 we searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, LILACS, DARE and two trial registries. We also checked the reference sections of relevant studies and contacted experts in the field for any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing intentional endometrial injury before embryo transfer in women undergoing IVF, versus no intervention or a sham procedure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Two independent review authors screened studies, evaluated risk of bias and assessed the certainty of the evidence by using GRADE (Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. We contacted and corresponded with study investigators as required. Due to the high risk of bias associated with many of the studies, the primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at a low risk of bias for selection bias and other bias. Sensitivity analysis was then performed including all studies. The primary review outcomes were live birth and miscarriage. MAIN RESULTS: Endometrial injury versus control (no procedure or a sham procedure) A total of 37 studies (8786 women) were included in this comparison. Most studies performed endometrial injury by pipelle biopsy in the luteal phase of the cycle before the IVF cycle. The primary analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias, and included eight studies. The effect of endometrial injury on live birth is unclear as the result is consistent with no effect, or a small reduction, or an improvement (odds ratio (OR) 1.12, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.28; participants = 4402; studies = 8; I2 = 15%, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth with IVF is usually 27%, then the chance when using endometrial injury would be somewhere between < 27% and 32%. Similarly, the effect of endometrial injury on clinical pregnancy is unclear (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.23; participants = 4402; studies = 8; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of clinical pregnancy from IVF is normally 32%, then the chance when using endometrial injury before IVF is between 31% and 37%. When all studies were included in the sensitivity analysis, we were unable to conduct meta-analysis for the outcomes of live birth and clinical pregnancy due to high risk of bias and statistical heterogeneity. Endometrial injury probably results in little to no difference in chance of miscarriage (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.13; participants = 4402; studies = 8; I2 = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence), and this result was similar in the sensitivity analysis that included all studies. The result suggests that if the chance of miscarriage with IVF is usually 6.0%, then when using endometrial injury it would be somewhere between 4.2% and 6.8%. Endometrial injury was associated with mild to moderate pain (approximately 4 out of 10), and was generally associated with some minimal bleeding. The evidence was downgraded for imprecision due to wide confidence intervals and therefore all primary analyses were graded as moderate certainty. Higher versus lower degree of injury Only one small study was included in this comparison (participants = 129), which compared endometrial injury using two different instruments in the cycle prior to the IVF cycle: a pipelle catheter and a Shepard catheter. This trial was excluded from the primary analysis due to risk of bias. In the sensitivity analysis, all outcomes reported for this study were graded as very-low certainty due to risk of bias, and as such we were not able to interpret the study results. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The effect of endometrial injury on live birth and clinical pregnancy among women undergoing IVF is unclear. The results of the meta-analyses are consistent with an increased chance, no effect and a small reduction in these outcomes. We are therefore uncertain whether endometrial injury improves the chance of live birth or clinical pregnancy in women undergoing IVF. Endometrial injury does not appear to affect the chance of miscarriage. It is a somewhat painful procedure associated with a small amount of bleeding. In conclusion, current evidence does not support the routine use of endometrial injury for women undergoing IVF.

Regular (ICSI) versus ultra-high magnification (IMSI) sperm selection for assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Subfertility is a condition found in up to 15% of couples of reproductive age. Gamete micromanipulation, such as intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), is very useful for treating couples with compromised sperm parameters. An alternative method of sperm selection has been described; the spermatozoa are selected under high magnification (over 6000x) and used for ICSI. This technique, named intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI), has a theoretical potential to improve reproductive outcomes among couples undergoing assisted reproduction techniques (ART). However, our previous version of this Cochrane Review was unable to find evidence that supported this possible beneficial effect. This is an update of Teixeira 2013. OBJECTIVES: To identify, appraise, and summarise the available evidence regarding efficacy and safety of IMSI compared to ICSI in couples undergoing ART. SEARCH METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in these electronic databases: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, and in these trial registers: ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We also handsearched the reference lists of included studies and similar reviews. We performed the last electronic search on 18 November 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We only considered RCTs that compared ICSI and IMSI; we did not include quasi-randomised trials. We considered studies that permitted the inclusion of the same participant more than once (cross-over or per cycle trials) only if data regarding the first treatment of each participant were available. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction, and assessment of the risk of bias and quality of the evidence; we solved disagreements by consulting a third review author. We corresponded with study investigators to resolve any queries, as required. MAIN RESULTS: The updated search retrieved 535 records; we included 13 parallel-designed RCTs comparing IMSI and ICSI (four studies were added since the previous version), comprising 2775 couples (IMSI = 1256; ICSI = 1519). We are uncertain if IMSI improves live birth rates (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.39; 5 studies, 929 couples; I² = 1%), miscarriage rates per couple (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.48; 10 studies, 2297 couples; I² = 0%, very-low quality evidence), and miscarriage rate per pregnancy (RR 0.90, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.20; 10 studies, 783 couples; I² = 0%, very-low quality evidence). We are uncertain if IMSI improves clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.23, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.37; 13 studies, 2775 couples; I² = 47%, very-low quality evidence). None of the included studies reported congenital abnormalities. We judged the evidence for all outcomes to be of very low-quality. We downgraded the quality of the evidence due to limitations of the included studies (risk of bias), inconsistency of results, and a strong indication of publication bias. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence from randomised controlled trials does not support or refute the clinical use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (intracytoplasmic morphologically selected sperm injection (IMSI). We are very uncertain of the chances of having a live birth and of the risk of having a miscarriage. We found very low-quality evidence that IMSI may increase chances of a clinical pregnancy, which means that we are still very uncertain about any real difference. We did not find any trials reporting on the risk of congenital abnormalities. Well-designed and sufficiently powered trials are still required.

Men, chronic illness and healthwork: accounts from male partners of women with endometriosis.

Currently dominant in medical discourse, the concept of self-management sees the responsibility for health and illness shift from the state to the individual. However, while this emphasis on individual responsibility and management has burgeoned, the role and status of partners and other family members in the management of chronic illness remains under-theorised. While self-management privileges individual responsibility for the management of chronic illness, the role of partners remains unclear. This paper utilises data from a study of heterosexual couples' experiences of living with the chronic gynaecological condition endometriosis to explore how male partners engage in its day-to-day management. In all, 22 couples participated in in-depth, semi-structured interviews with each partner interviewed separately (n = 44). Data were analysed thematically and dyadically, informed by an interpretivist relational approach. The paper utilises the concept of healthwork to describe the illness work, everyday life work, biographical work and emotion work men engaged in. The paper demonstrates how the conceptual value of healthwork is enhanced by incorporating an analysis of the emotional effort required in managing chronic illness. The paper illustrates the value of investigating the role of partners in managing chronic illness to provide a fuller account of the distributed and relational nature of healthwork.

Study protocol: E-freeze - freezing of embryos in assisted conception: a randomised controlled trial evaluating the clinical and cost effectiveness of a policy of freezing embryos followed by thawed frozen embryo transfer compared with a policy of fresh embryo transfer, in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation.

BACKGROUND: Infertility affects one in seven couples; many of these need in vitro fertilisation (IVF). IVF involves external hormones to stimulate a woman's ovaries to produce eggs which are harvested surgically. Embryos, created in the laboratory by mixing eggs with sperm, are grown in culture for a few days before being replaced within the uterus (fresh embryo transfer). Spare embryos are usually frozen with a view to transfer at a later point in time - especially if the initial fresh transfer does not result in a pregnancy. Despite improvements in technology, IVF success rates remain low with an overall live birth rate of 25-30% per treatment. Additionally, there are concerns about health outcomes for mothers and babies conceived through IVF, particularly after fresh embryo transfer, including maternal ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and preterm delivery. It is believed that high levels of hormones during ovarian stimulation could create a relatively hostile environment for embryo implantation whilst increasing the risk of OHSS. It has been suggested that freezing all embryos with the intention of thawing and replacing them within the uterus at a later stage (thawed frozen embryo transfer) instead of fresh embryo transfer, may lead to improved pregnancy rates and fewer complications. We aim to compare the clinical and cost effectiveness of fresh and thawed frozen embryo transfer, with the primary aim of identifying any difference in the chance of having a healthy baby. METHODS: E-Freeze is a pragmatic, multicentre two-arm parallel group randomised controlled trial where women aged ≥18 and < 42 years, with at least three good quality embryos are randomly allocated to receive either a fresh or thawed frozen embryo transfer. The primary outcome is a healthy baby, defined as a term, singleton, live birth with appropriate weight for gestation. Cost effectiveness will be calculated from a healthcare and societal perspective. DISCUSSION: E-Freeze will determine the relative benefits of fresh and thawed frozen embryo transfer in terms of improving the chance of having a healthy baby. The results of this pragmatic study have the potential to be directly transferred to clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN registry: ISRCTN61225414 . Date assigned 29/12/2015.

Intrauterine administration of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) for subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Most women undergoing assisted reproduction treatment will reach the stage of embryo transfer (ET), but the proportion of embryos that can be successfully implanted after ET has remained small since the mid-1990s. Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) is a hormone that is synthesised and released by the syncytiotrophoblast and has a fundamental role in embryo implantation and the early stages of pregnancy. Intrauterine administration of hCG via ET catheter during a mock procedure around the time of ET is a novel approach that has been suggested to improve the outcomes of assisted reproduction. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether intrauterine (intracavity) administration of hCG (IC-hCG) around the time of ET improves clinical outcomes in subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction. SEARCH METHODS: We performed searches on 9 January 2018 using Cochrane methods. SELECTION CRITERIA: We looked for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating IC-hCG around the time of ET, irrespective of language and country of origin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data from studies, and attempted to contact study authors when data were missing. We performed statistical analysis using Review Manager 5. We assessed evidence quality using GRADE methods. Primary outcomes were live birth and miscarriage; secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate and complications. MAIN RESULTS: Seventeen RCTs investigated the effects of IC-hCG administration for 4751 subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction. IC-hCG was administered in variable doses at different times before the ET. hCG was obtained from the urine of pregnant women or from cell cultures using recombinant DNA technology.Most studies (12/17) were at high risk of bias in at least one of the seven domains assessed. Common problems were unclear reporting of study methods and lack of blinding. The main limitations for evidence quality were high risk of bias and serious imprecision.For analyses of live birth and clinical pregnancy, there was considerable heterogeneity (I² > 75%) and therefore we present subgroups for dosage and stage of ET. Exploration for sources of heterogeneity revealed two key prespecified variables as important determinants: stage of ET (cleavage vs blastocyst stage) and dose of IC-hCG (< 500 international units (IU) vs ≥ 500 IU). We performed meta-analyses within subgroups defined by stage of embryo and dose of IC-hCG.Live birth rates among women having cleavage-stage ET with an IC-hCG dose < 500 IU compared to women having cleavage-stage ET without IC-hCG showed no benefit of the intervention and would be consistent with no substantive difference or disadvantage of indeterminate magnitude (risk ratio (RR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.58 to 1.01; one RCT; 280 participants; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). In a clinic with a live birth rate of 49% per cycle, use of IC-hCG < 500 IU would be associated with a live birth rate ranging from 28% to 50%.Results show an increase in live birth rate in the subgroup of women undergoing cleavage-stage ET with an IC-hCG dose ≥ 500 IU compared to women having cleavage-stage ET without IC-hCG (RR 1.57, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.87; three RCTs; 914 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). At a clinic with a live birth rate of 27% per cycle, use of IC-hCG ≥ 500 IU would be associated with a live birth rate ranging from 36% to 51%.Results show no substantive differences in live birth among women having blastocyst-stage ET with an IC-hCG dose ≥ 500 IU compared to women having blastocyst-stage ET without IC-hCG (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.04; two RCTs; 1666 participants; I² = 0%; moderate-quality evidence). At a clinic with a live birth rate of 36% per cycle, use of IC-hCG ≥ 500 IU would be associated with a live birth rate ranging from 29% to 38%.Evidence for clinical pregnancy among women having cleavage-stage ET with an IC-hCG dose < 500 IU showed no benefit of the intervention and would be consistent with no substantive difference or disadvantage of indeterminate magnitude (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.10; one RCT; 280 participants; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence).Results show an increase in clinical pregnancy rate in the subgroup of women having cleavage-stage ET with an IC-hCG dose ≥ 500 IU compared to women having cleavage-stage ET without IC-hCG (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.68; 12 RCTs; 2186 participants; I² = 18%; moderate-quality evidence).Results show no substantive differences in clinical pregnancy among women having blastocyst-stage ET with an IC-hCG dose ≥ 500 IU (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.15; four RCTs; 2091 participants; I² = 42%; moderate-quality evidence) compared to women having blastocyst-stage ET with no IC-hCG.No RCTs investigated blastocyst-stage ET with an IC-hCG dose < 500 IU.We are uncertain whether miscarriage was influenced by intrauterine hCG administration (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.35; 11 RCTs; 3927 participants; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence).Reported complications were ectopic pregnancy (four RCTs; 1073 participants; four events overall), heterotopic pregnancy (one RCT; 495 participants; one event), intrauterine death (three RCTs; 1078 participants; 22 events), and triplets (one RCT; 48 participants; three events). Events were few, and very low-quality evidence was insufficient to permit conclusions to be drawn. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is moderate quality evidence that women undergoing cleavage-stage transfer using an IC-hCG dose ≥ 500 IU have an improved live birth rate. There is insufficient evidence for IC-hCG treatment for blastocyst transfer. There should be further trials with live birth as the primary outcome to identify the groups of women who would benefit the most from this intervention. There was no evidence that miscarriage was reduced following IC-hCG administration, irrespective of embryo stage at transfer or dose of IC-hCG. Events were too few to allow conclusions to be drawn with regard to other complications.

Serum concentrations of Ang-2 and Flt-1 may be predictive of pregnancy outcome in women with pregnancies of uncertain viability: a phase I exploratory prognostic factor study.

The aim of this study was to determine whether serum concentrations of Ang-1, Ang-2, Flt-1, IL-15 and/or TRAIL can be used to predict outcome in women with pregnancies of uncertain viability (PUVs). Women presenting to the Early Pregnancy Unit at the Queen's Medical Centre in Nottingham between 17.06.14 and 01.09.15 were prospectively recruited. Serum concentrations of Ang-1, Ang-2, Flt-1, IL-15 and TRAIL were measured in women with PUVs. Women were followed-up according to departmental protocols until viability was determined. Biomarker concentrations were correlated with pregnancy outcome. Ninety-four PUVs were studied, of which 61 (64.9%) were subsequently proven to be viable. There were statistically significant (p < .01), linear (p-valuetrend <.01) associations between Ang-2 and Flt-1 concentrations and pregnancy viability such that women with lower concentrations were significantly more likely to have viable pregnancies than women with higher concentrations. In conclusion, Ang-2 and Flt-1 may be useful in predicting outcome in women with PUVs. Impact statement What is already known on this subject: Predicting outcome in women with pregnancies of uncertain viability (PUVs) is challenging. There is currently no accurate and reliable method. All PUVs need to be followed-up until a definitive diagnosis of either a viable or non-viable pregnancy can be made. This takes time, utilises limited resources and generates significant anxiety. Recent studies have demonstrated serum concentrations of Ang-1, Ang-2, Flt-1, IL-15 and TRAIL in viable pregnancies are significantly different to those in non-viable or ectopic pregnancies. What the results of this study add: The results from this prospective study of 94 women with PUVs suggest that serum concentrations of Ang-2 and Flt-1 may be able to predict pregnancy viability in cases of uncertainty. Women with PUVs and low concentrations of Ang-2 or Flt-1 are significantly more likely to have viable pregnancies than women with high concentrations. What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research: Evidence from multiple studies is necessary to appreciate the discriminating ability of these prognostic factors. Rapid clinical adoption in the absence of such evidence may lead to wasted resources. If our findings are confirmed, however, these biomarkers, either alone or as part of a prognostic model, may be capable of accurately predicting pregnancy outcome in cases of uncertainty. This would reduce the strain on limited resources and alleviate anxiety for women.

Deregulation of the endometrial stromal cell secretome precedes embryo implantation failure.

STUDY QUESTION: Is implantation failure following ART associated with a perturbed decidual response in endometrial stromal cells (EnSCs)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Dynamic changes in the secretome of decidualizing EnSCs underpin the transition of a hostile to a supportive endometrial microenvironment for embryo implantation; perturbation in this transitional pathway prior to ART is associated with implantation failure. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Implantation is the rate-limiting step in ART, although the contribution of an aberrant endometrial microenvironment in IVF failure remains ill defined. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In vitro characterization of the temporal changes in the decidual response of primary EnSCs isolated prior to a successful or failed ART cycle. An analysis of embryo responses to secreted cues from undifferentiated and decidualizing EnSCs was performed. The primary clinical outcome of the study was a positive urinary pregnancy test 14 days after embryo transfer. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Primary EnSCs were isolated from endometrial biopsies obtained prior to IVF treatment and cryopreserved. EnSCs from 10 pregnant and 10 non-pregnant patients were then thawed, expanded in culture, subjected to clonogenic assays, and decidualized for either 2 or 8 days. Transcript levels of decidual marker gene [prolactin (PRL), insulin-like growth factor binding protein 1 (IGFBP1) and 11ß-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase (HSD11B1)] were analysed using real-time quantitative PCR and temporal secretome changes of 45 cytokines, chemokines and growth factors were measured by multiplex suspension bead immunoassay. The impact of the EnSC secretome on human blastocyst development was scored morphologically; and embryo secretions in response to EnSC cues analyzed by multiplex suspension bead immunoassay. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Clonogenicity and induction of decidual marker genes were comparable between EnSC cultures from pregnant and non-pregnant group groups (P > 0.05). Analysis of 23 secreted factors revealed that successful implantation was associated with co-ordinated secretome changes in decidualizing EnSCs, which were most pronounced on Day 2 of differentiation: 17 differentially secreted proteins on Day 2 of decidualization relative to undifferentiated (Day 0) EnSCs (P < 0.05); 11 differentially secreted proteins on Day 8 relative to Day 2 (P < 0.05); and eight differentially secreted proteins on Day 8 relative to Day 0 (P < 0.05). By contrast, failed implantation was associated with a disordered secretome response. Blastocyst development was compromised when cultured for 24 h in medium conditioned by undifferentiated EnSCs when compared to decidualizing EnSCs. Analysis of the embryo microdroplets revealed that human blastocysts mount a secretory cytokine response to soluble decidual factors produced during the early (Day 2) but not late phase (Day 8) of differentiation. The embryo responses to secreted factors from decidualizing EnSCs were comparable between the pregnant and non-pregnant group (P > 0.05). LARGE SCALE DATA: Not applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although this study uses primary EnSCs and human embryos, caution is warranted when extrapolating the results to the in vivo situation because of the correlative nature of the study and limited sample size. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our finding raises the prospect that endometrial analysis prior to ART could minimize the risk of treatment failure. STUDY FUNDING AND COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported by funds from the Biomedical Research Unit in Reproductive Health, a joint initiative of the University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust and Warwick Medical School, the University of Nottingham and Nurture Fertility, and the National Medical Research Council, Singapore (NMRC/BNIG14NOV023), the "Instituut voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie" (IWT, Flanders, Belgium), the "Fonds voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek" (FWO, Flanders, Belgium) and the "Wetenschappelijk Fonds Willy Gepts" (WFWG, UZ Brussel). The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exists.

Intrauterine administration of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) for subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Subfertility affects 15% of couples and represents the inability to conceive naturally following 12 months of regular unprotected sexual intercourse. Assisted reproduction refers to procedures involving the in vitro handling of both human gametes and represents a key option for many subfertile couples. Most women undergoing assisted reproduction treatment will reach the stage of embryo transfer (ET) but the proportion of embryos that successfully implant following ET has remained small since the mid-1990s. Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) is a hormone synthesised and released by the syncytiotrophoblast and has a fundamental role in embryo implantation and the early stages of pregnancy. Intrauterine administration of synthetic or natural hCG via an ET catheter during a mock procedure around the time of ET is a novel approach that has recently been suggested to improve the outcomes of assisted reproduction. OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether the intrauterine administration of hCG around the time of ET improves the clinical outcomes in subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction. SEARCH METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, registers of ongoing trials andreference lists of all included studies and relevant reviews (from inception to 10 November 2015), in consultation with the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Search Co-ordinator. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating intrauterine administration of hCG around the time of ET in this review irrespective of language and country of origin. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data from studies and attempted to contact the authors where data were missing. We performed statistical analysis using Review Manager 5 in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We assessed evidence quality using GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS: Twelve RCTs investigated the effect of intrauterine administration of hCG for 4038 subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction. The intra-cavity hCG (IC-hCG) was administered in variable doses at different timings before the ET. The source of hCG was from the urine of pregnant women or from cell cultures using recombinant DNA technology.Most of the studies (9/12) were at high risk of bias in at least one of the seven domains assessed. Common problems were unclear reporting of study methods and lack of blinding. The main limitations in the overall quality of the evidence were high risk of bias and serious imprecision.For the analyses of live birth and clinical pregnancy, there was considerable heterogeneity (I(2) greater than 75%) and we did not undertake a meta-analysis. Exploration for the sources of heterogeneity identified two key pre-specified variables as important determinants: stage of ET (cleavage versus blastocyst stage) and dose of IC-hCG (less than 500 international units (IU) versus 500 IU or greater). We then performed meta-analysis for these analyses within the subgroups defined by stage of embryo and dose of IC-hCG.There was an increase in live birth rate in the subgroup of women having cleavage-stage ETs with an IC-hCG dose of 500 IU or greater compared to women having cleavage-stage ETs with no IC-hCG (risk ratio (RR) 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32 to 1.87, three RCTs, n = 914, I(2) = 0%, moderate quality evidence). In a clinic with a live birth rate of 25% per cycle then the use of IC-hCG -500 IU or greater would be associated with a live birth rate that varies from 33% to 46%. We did not observe a significant effect on live birth in any of the other subgroups.The was an increase in clinical pregnancy rate in the subgroup of women having cleavage-stage ETs with an IC-hCG dose of 500 IU or greater compared to women having cleavage-stage ETs with no IC-hCG (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.58, seven RCTs, n = 1414, I(2) = 0%, moderate quality evidence). We did not observe a significant effect on clinical pregnancy in either of the other subgroups.There was no evidence that miscarriage was influenced by intrauterine hCG administration (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.43, seven RCTs, n = 3395, I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence).Other complications reported in the included studies were ectopic pregnancy (three RCTs, n = 915, three events overall), heterotopic pregnancy (one RCT, n = 495, one event), intrauterine death (two RCTs, n = 978, 21 events) and triplets (one RCT, n = 48, three events). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups, but there were too few events to allow any conclusions to be drawn and the evidence was very low quality. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The pregnancy outcome for cleavage-stage ETs using an IC-hCG dose of 500 IU or greater is promising. However, given the small size and the variable quality of the trials and the fact that the positive finding was from a subgroup analysis, the current evidence for IC-hCG treatment does not support its use in assisted reproduction cycles. A definitive large clinical trial with live birth as the primary outcome is recommended. There was no evidence that miscarriage was influenced by intrauterine hCG administration, irrespective of embryo stage at transfer or dose of IC-hCG. There were too few events to allow any conclusions to be drawn with regard to other complications.

'We needed to change the mission statement of the marriage': biographical disruptions, appraisals and revisions among couples living with endometriosis.

The concept of biographical disruption has been widely applied in sociological explorations of chronic illness and has been subject to much theoretical scrutiny, reflection and development. However, little attention has been given to the impact of biographical disruption beyond the individual level. This article explores the concept from a dyadic perspective, utilising data from an exploratory, qualitative study (ENDOPART) that investigated the impact of endometriosis on women and their male partners. In total, 22 couples participated in in-depth, semi-structured, face-to-face interviews. The women and their partners were interviewed separately and, in most cases, simultaneously, by different interviewers. Data analysis was informed by an interpretivist relational approach, foregrounding the meanings participants applied to their experiences, treating interviews as accounts, and exploring partners' accounts in relation to one another. Two analytic approaches generated several themes for exploration in the context of the concept of biographical disruption: sex and intimacy; planning for and having children; working lives and social lives. The article argues that biographical disruptions are social and inter-relational processes and discusses how couples living with endometriosis negotiated these disruptions, how they were appraised and how lives and expectations were revised as a result.

Blastocyst culture using single versus sequential media in clinical IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to undertake a review of the available evidence comparing the use of a single medium versus sequential media for embryo culture to the blastocyst stage in clinical IVF. METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central, PubMed, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, Current Controlled Trials and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to identify randomized controlled trials comparing single versus sequential media for blastocyst culture and ongoing pregnancy rate. Included studies randomized either oocytes/zygotes or women. Eligible oocyte/zygote studies were analyzed to assess the risk difference (RD) and 95 % confidence intervals (CI) between the two media systems; eligible woman-based studies were analyzed to assess the risk ratio (RR) and 95 % CI for clinical pregnancy rate. RESULTS: No differences were observed between single and sequential media for either ongoing pregnancy per randomized woman (relative risk (RR) = 0.9, 95 % CI = 0.7 to 1.3, two studies including 246 women, I 2 = 0 %) or clinical pregnancy per randomized woman (RR = 1.0, 95 % CI = 0.7 to 1.4, one study including 100 women); or miscarriage per clinical pregnancy: RR = 1.3, 95 % CI = 0.4 to 4.3, two studies including 246 participants, I 2 = 0 %). Single media use was associated with an increase blastocyst formation per randomized oocyte/zygote (relative distribution (RD) = +0.06, 95 % CI = +0.01 to +0.12, ten studies including 7455 oocytes/zygotes, I 2 = 83 %) but not top/high blastocyst formation (RD = +0.05, 95 % CI = -0.01 to +0.11, five studies including 3879 oocytes/zygotes, I 2 = 93 %). The overall quality of the evidence was very low for all these four outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Although using a single medium for extended culture has some practical advantages and blastocyst formation rates appear to be higher, there is insufficient evidence to recommend either sequential or single-step media as being superior for the culture of embryos to days 5/6. Future studies comparing these two media systems in well-designed trials should be performed.

Artificial oocyte activation to improve reproductive outcomes in women with previous fertilization failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.

STUDY QUESTION: In couples with previous fertilization failure, are reproductive outcomes improved using ICSI followed by artificial oocyte activation (ICSI-AOA) compared with conventional ICSI? SUMMARY ANSWER: There is insufficient evidence available from RCTs to judge the efficacy and safety of ICSI-AOA for couples with previous fertilization failure. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In cases with previous low fertilization rates or total fertilization failure using ICSI due to sperm-related, oocyte activation deficiency, several methods of AOA have been described, which employ mechanical, electrical or chemical stimuli. Reported fertilization and pregnancy rates appear to be improved after ICSI-AOA compared with conventional ICSI; however, the small studies performed to date make it difficult to assess the clinical efficacy or safety of AOA. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, AND DURATION: The present systematic review and meta-analysis identified RCTs that compared ICSI-AOA and conventional ICSI. The last electronic search was conducted in August 2014 and there was no limitation regarding language, publication date, or publication status. We included studies that randomized either oocytes or women and included them in two different parts of this review: a women-based review and an oocyte-based review. For the women-based review, the primary outcome of effectiveness was live birth per randomized woman and the primary outcome for safety was congenital anomalies per clinical pregnancy. For the oocyte-based review, the primary outcome was embryo formation per oocyte randomized. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, AND METHODS: Record screening and data extraction were performed independently by two authors and risk of bias was assessed by three authors. The effects of ICSI-AOA compared with conventional ICSI were summarized as risk ratio (RR) and the precision of the estimates was evaluated by the 95% confidence interval (CI). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 14 articles were assessed for eligibility and 9 included in the meta-analysis: 2 studies comprised the woman-based review (n = 168 women) and 7 studies the oocyte-based review (n = 4234 oocytes). Only four studies evaluated AOA due to fertilization failure after conventional ICSI: these were included in the quantitative analysis. In two studies evaluating couples with a history of fertilization failure in a previous cycle, ICSI-AOA was associated with an increase in the proportion of cleavage stage embryos (RR 5.44, 95% CI 2.98-9.91) and top/high quality cleavage stage embryos (RR 10.02, 95% CI 2.45-40.95). There was no evidence of effect on fertilization rate (RR 2.97, 95% CI 0.84-10.48). In the two studies that evaluated ICSI-AOA as a rescue method for unfertilized oocytes after conventional ICSI, ICSI-AOA was associated with an increase in fertilization (RR 8.26, 95% CI 1.28-53.32, P = 0.03) and cleavage rates (RR 8.65, 95% CI 2.28-32.77) although there was no significant effect on the likelihood of blastocyst formation (RR 1.97, 95% CI 0.11-34.99). The remaining five studies evaluated ICSI-AOA for reasons other than fertilization failure and were excluded. LIMITATIONS AND REASONS FOR CAUTION: The majority of the studies were not considered to be similar enough for meta-analysis due to different AOA methods and patient inclusion criteria, thus limiting the possibility of pooling studies and achieving a more robust conclusion. Only two studies examined ICSI-AOA in couples with previous fertilization failure, and only one of these included couples with proven male-related, oocyte activation deficiency, which is the primary indication for AOA. The resulting evidence was considered to be of very low quality and should be interpreted with caution. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: There is insufficient evidence available from the currently available RCTs to judge the efficacy or safety of ICSI-AOA on key reproductive outcomes in couples with previous fertilization failure. Such interventions should be further examined by well-designed RCTs before the introduction of ICSI-AOA as a standard treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No funding was obtained. No competing interests to declare. REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42014007445.

A clinically useful simplified blastocyst grading system.

The aim of this study was to investigate whether a new simplified blastocyst grading system (A: fully expanded, clear inner cell mass, cohesive trophectoderm; B: not yet expanded, clear inner cell mass, cohesive trophectoderm; C: small inner cell mass ± irregular trophectoderm ± excluded/degenerate cells) was clinically useful. All day-5 single embryo transfers between 15 June 2009 and 29 June 2012 were reviewed. Implantation, clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were related to embryo quality. Five embryologists were asked to grade and decide the clinical fate of 80 images of day-5 embryos on two occasions 4-6 weeks apart. Implantation, clinical pregnancy and live birth rates decreased with deteriorating embryo quality. A highly significant (P < 0.01) difference was observed between the groups. Inter-observer agreement was substantial for grade allocation (K = 0.63) and clinical decision-making (K = 0.66). Intra-observer agreement ranged from substantial (K = 0.71) to almost perfect (K = 0.88) for grade allocation, and was almost perfect for clinical fate determination (K ≥ 0.84). This grading system is quick and easy to use, effectively predicts IVF outcome and has levels of agreement similar to, if not better than, those associated with more complex grading systems.

Endometrial injury in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques.

BACKGROUND: Implantation of an embryo within the endometrial cavity is a critical step in assisted reproductive techniques (ART). Previous research has suggested that endometrial injury - intentional damage to the endometrium - can increase the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing ART. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of endometrial injury performed before embryo transfer in women undergoing ART. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group (MDSG) Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Latin American Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS) and ClinicalTrials.gov. The original search was performed in November 2011, and further searches were done in March 2014 and January 2015. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing intentional endometrial injury before embryo transfer in women undergoing ART, versus no intervention or a sham procedure. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two independent review authors screened studies and extracted data which were checked by a third review author. Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias. We contacted and corresponded with study investigators as required and analysed data using risk ratio (RR) and a random-effects model. We assessed the quality of the evidence by using GRADE (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 trials that included 1063 women in the intervention groups and 1065 women in the control groups. Thirteen studies compared endometrial injury performed between day 7 of the previous cycle and day 7 of the embryo transfer (ET) cycle versus no injury, and one study compared endometrial injury on the day of oocyte retrieval versus no injury. Overall, eight of the 14 included studies were deemed to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain.In studies comparing endometrial injury performed between day 7 of the previous cycle and day 7 of the ET cycle versus no intervention or a sham procedure, endometrial injury was associated with an increase in live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate: RR 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.08 to 1.85; P value 0.01; nine RCTs; 1496 women; I² = 53%; moderate-quality evidence. In other words, moderate-quality evidence suggests that if 26% of women achieve live birth without endometrial injury, between 28% and 48% will achieve live birth with endometrial injury. A sensitivity analysis removing the studies at high risk of bias showed no difference in effect.There was no evidence of an effect on miscarriage, however the evidence is of low-quality: RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.53; P value 0.06; eight RCTs; 500 clinical pregnancies; I² = 10%; low-quality evidence.Endometrial injury was also associated with an increased clinical pregnancy rate: RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.61; P value 0.002; 13 RCTs; 1972 women; I² = 45%; moderate-quality evidence. This suggests that if 30% of women achieve clinical pregnancy without endometrial injury, between 33% and 48% will achieve clinical pregnancy with this intervention.Endometrial injury was associated with increased pain, however the evidence was of very low quality. One study reported pain on a VAS scale: MD 4.60, 95% CI 3.98 to 5.22; P value < 0.00001; one RCT; 158 women. Two studies reported the number of pain complaints after the procedure; one recorded no events in either group, and the other reported that endometrial injury increased pain complaints: OR 8.65, 95% CI 2.49 to 30.10; P value 0.0007; one RCT; 101 women.Results from the only randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing endometrial injury on the day of oocyte retrieval versus no injury, reported that this endometrial injury markedly decreased live birth (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.69; P value 0.004; 156 women; low-quality evidence) and clinical pregnancy (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.71; P value 0.003; one RCT; 156 women; low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Moderate-quality evidence indicates that endometrial injury performed between day 7 of the previous cycle and day 7 of the embryo transfer (ET) cycle is associated with an improvement in live birth and clinical pregnancy rates in women with more than two previous embryo transfers. There is no evidence of an effect on miscarriage, multiple pregnancy or bleeding. The procedure is mildly painful. Endometrial injury on the day of oocyte retrieval is associated with a reduction of clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates.Although current evidence suggests some benefit of endometrial injury, we need evidence from well-designed trials that avoid instrumentation of the uterus in the preceding three months, do not cause endometrial damage in the control group, stratify the results for women with and without recurrent implantation failure (RIF) and report live birth.

Surgical intervention versus expectant management for endometrial polyps in subfertile women.

BACKGROUND: Endometrial polyps, which are benign growths of the endometrium, may be a factor in female subfertility. Possible mechanisms include physical interference with gamete transport, alteration of the endometrial milieu and unresponsiveness to the cyclical global endometrial changes. As such polyps remain mostly asymptomatic, their diagnosis is often incidental during routine investigations prior to embarking on assisted reproductive treatment. Transvaginal sonography, hysterosalpingography and saline infusion sonography are the diagnostic tools most commonly employed. However, hysteroscopy remains the gold standard for diagnosis, as well as for treatment. Due to the possible effect of endometrial polyps on fertility, their removal prior to any subfertility treatment is widely practiced. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and safety of removal of endometrial polyps in subfertile women. SEARCH METHODS: Electronic databases were searched, including the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and trial registers. The reference lists of identified articles were checked. The last search was performed on 30 July 2014. SELECTION CRITERIA: Only randomised controlled trials, reporting pregnancy or live birth rates and complication rates as primary or secondary outcomes, in which polyps were removed surgically prior to treatment of subfertility were eligible for inclusion. The diagnosis of endometrial polyps was required to be made by transvaginal ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, saline infusion, sono-hysterography or hysteroscopy. Any surgical technique of polyp removal was acceptable, with no intervention in the control groups. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened the titles, abstracts and full articles to assess their suitability for inclusion in this review. Quality assessment was attempted independently by two authors with discrepancies being settled by consensus or consultation with a third review author.No data extraction was performed due to the absence of useable data in the one eligible study. If there had been data to include, two review authors would have independently extracted the data from the studies using a data extraction form designed and pilot tested by the authors. Any disagreements would have been resolved by discussion or by a third review author. MAIN RESULTS: Only one randomised controlled trial of endometrial polypectomy was identified for inclusion. However, a single set of data could not be extracted from this study due to internal inconsistencies of the results reported. Attempts to contact the authors to resolve the issue were unsuccessful, by phone, post and e-mail. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Removal of endometrial polyps in subfertile women is commonly being performed in many countries with an aim to improve the reproductive outcome. We did not identify any analysable randomised trials which would allow us to reach any sound scientific conclusions on the efficacy of endometrial polypectomy in subfertile women. Well designed, methodologically sound, randomised controlled trials are urgently needed.

The association of physiological cortisol and IVF treatment outcomes: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: A systematic review was conducted to (1) collate and synthesise the available evidence for the role of cortisol in relation to IVF treatment outcomes; (2) to establish the strength of an association between cortisol and IVF; and (3) to assess the overall quality of the studies and guide future research in this area. METHODS: Seven electronic databases, including the reference lists of published papers, were searched. Inclusion criteria qualified any prospective/observational cohort study that reported original data. Quality assessment of eligible studies was conducted using the STROBE statement, which was used to assess the risk of bias and the quality of observational studies included in this review. RESULTS: A total of eight studies reported a significant association between cortisol and IVF outcomes. Three studies found that higher cortisol may be associated with more favourable IVF outcomes, whereas five studies found that lower cortisol levels may be conducive to IVF success. Eleven of all studies included in this review were regarded as low quality publications. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings were that the evidence for the role of cortisol in relation to IVF outcomes is currently mixed. Future researchers are encouraged to consider the methodological limitations highlighted in this review and to utilise more robust assessment methods when examining the influence that chronic, rather than acute, stress may have on IVF outcomes.