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.

Clinical research nurse and midwife as an integral member of the Trial Management Group (TMG): much more than a resource to manage and recruit patients.

BACKGROUND: The clinical research nurse/midwife (CRN/M) makes a unique contribution to research delivery in the National Health Service, resulting from a close therapeutic relationship with research participants. Investment in research infrastructure has led to nurses and midwives undertaking extended roles to deliver clinical research and evidence demonstrates the important contributions they make to the clinical research process, quality of research outcomes and most importantly the safe expert care of research participants. The value of the CRN/M's contribution to the broader research team and acknowledgement of the importance of their input, however, remains unspecified and tacit in nature. AIM: To demonstrate the value a CRN/M has on overall trial design and performance when funded as a co-applicant and member of the Trial Management Group (TMG). METHOD: This briefing paper outlines the development and implementation of the CRN/M role and will describe its impact to promote the benefits of such a role as much more than a resource to recruit and manage participants. RESULTS: Recognising CRN/Ms expertise, knowledge and contribution within this context is a positive step for the research agenda, individual career development and opportunity to introduce innovative ways of working to benefit the research landscape, ultimately contributing to the growth of the body of evidence available to influence patient care. CONCLUSION: When a CRN/M is funded as a co-applicant and member of the TMG, the role has a positive demonstrable impact on overall trial success.

Managing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: A qualitative interview study with women and healthcare professionals.

AIM: To explore the experiences of women who have had ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, and healthcare professionals who care for them. BACKGROUND: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is a side effect of fertility treatment. Little research exists internationally that explores the experiences of women who have had this condition, or the healthcare professionals who manage it. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. METHODS: Eighteen interviews with women who had experienced ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (n = 10) and healthcare professionals (n = 8) in six UK fertility centres. Framework analysis was used. This paper is reported following COREQ guidelines. RESULTS: Women described a range of symptoms and severity, sometimes experiencing worrying physical health problems such as abdominal swelling and shortness of breath. The combination of the symptoms, and their management, on delaying future fertility treatment could cause emotional distress. Healthcare professionals at different centres described variation in practice, which generally involved 'active monitoring' until symptoms became severe, when women would be hospitalised. Women expressed feeling 'left in limbo' while waiting for symptoms to improve or worsen, and described a lack of control during this waiting period. Healthcare professionals felt they provided adequate information about ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and its management. This, however, did not align with women's perceptions that information, including potential delays to their fertility treatment, was missing. There was similar mismatch between women's and healthcare professionals' views of decision-making about fertility treatment following ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, including women's concerns about having to make rushed, unplanned decisions about their fertility treatment when they did not feel adequately informed to do so. CONCLUSION: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and its management can have a significant physical and emotional impact on women, and influence their fertility treatment. Improvements could be made to the information women receive about this condition, its management and its implications for wider fertility treatment. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Nurses have the skills and knowledge to support women through the physical and emotional stresses of fertility treatment. Therefore, they are well placed to provide specialist information and support for OHSS and ensure women are fully informed about all aspects of the condition, including how its management might delay fertility treatment.

Supervised Aerobic Exercise Training and Increased Lifestyle Physical Activity to Reduce Cardiovascular Disease Risk for Women With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Feasibility Trial.

BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a complex, heterogeneous endocrinopathy. Women with PCOS often present with cardiovascular disease risk factors. Physical activity (PA) interventions reduce cardiovascular disease risk factors in women with PCOS. However, sedentary behaviors have a distinct deleterious effect on cardiometabolic health. Increasing PA and reducing sedentary behaviors may be a worthwhile therapeutic target to improve cardiovascular health in this population. This study investigated the feasibility of 2 PA interventions to decrease cardiovascular disease risk in women with PCOS. METHODS: This was a feasibility randomized controlled trial of 2 PA interventions in 36 women with PCOS. Participants were randomized to a supervised exercise intervention (n = 12), a lifestyle physical activity group intervention aimed at reducing sedentary behaviors (n = 12), or a control group (n = 12), for 12 weeks. Primary outcomes included the feasibility and acceptability of the interventions and procedures. RESULTS: Recruitment rate was 56%. Adherence rate was 53% and 100% to the exercise intervention and lifestyle PA intervention, respectively. Secondary outcome data indicate a reduction in oxidized low-density lipoprotein concentrations in the exercise group, and weight loss in both intervention groups. CONCLUSIONS: The procedures for recruitment, allocation, and outcome measurements were acceptable. However, before progression to a full-scale trial, adherence to the exercise program should be addressed.

Endometrial scratch in women undergoing first-time IVF treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

The endometrial scratch procedure is an IVF 'add-on' sometimes provided prior to the first IVF cycle. A 2019 systematic review concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show whether endometrial scratch has a significant effect on pregnancy outcomes (including live birth rate, LBR) when undertaken prior to the first IVF cycle. Further evidence was published following this review, including the Endometrial Scratch Trial (ISRCTN23800982). The objective of the current review was to synthesize and critically appraise the evidence for the clinical effectiveness and safety of the endometrial scratch procedure in women undergoing their first IVF cycle. Databases searched include MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and ClinicalTrials.gov. Eligible randomized controlled trials included women undergoing IVF for the first time that reported the effectiveness and/or safety of the endometrial scratch procedure; 12 studies were included. Meta-analysis showed no evidence of a significant effect of the endometrial scratch on LBR (10 trials, odds ratio [OR] 1.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.76-1.79) or other pregnancy outcomes. This review confirms that there is a lack of evidence that endometrial scratch improves pregnancy outcomes, including LBR, for women undergoing their first IVF cycle. Clinicians are recommended not to perform this procedure in individuals undergoing their first cycle of IVF.

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.

The Current Role of Induced Endometrial Trauma (Endometrial Scratch) in Women Undergoing Infertility Treatment.

Induced endometrial trauma, otherwise known as endometrial scratch is a simple technique that has been rapidly adopted into clinical practice, mainly for women having IVF treatment, in an attempt to increase pregnancy rates. The introduction of endometrial scratch followed early reports of improved clinical pregnancy rates in women with repetitive implantation failure after having the procedure and follows on from evidence from animal models in the early 20th century suggesting that mechanical trauma to the endometrium can induce decidual changes. Due to the ease and low cost of the procedure, it has been rapidly adopted as an add-on to fertility treatments, in many cases where evidence is still lacking. Despite the initial publication of a large number of studies that demonstrated encouraging improvements in pregnancy rates in women who underwent this procedure, these studies were mainly limited by the small sample sizes and heterogeneity of their study populations, leading to limited validity of the evidence provided by these studies. More recently, three large randomized controlled studies have been published that paint a different picture regarding the value of this procedure. This article explores the evolution of the evidence and the current state of endometrial scratch as an adjuvant therapy for women undergoing IVF treatment.

Experiences of trial participants and site staff of participating in and running a large randomised trial within fertility (the endometrial scratch trial): a qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the experiences of endometrial scratch (ES) trial participants and site staff of trial recruitment and participation, in order to improve the experience of participants in future trials. DESIGN: Qualitative study of a subset of participants in the ES randomised controlled trial and a subset of trial site staff. SETTING: A purposeful sample of 9 of the 16 UK Fertility Units that participated in the trial. PARTICIPANTS: A purposeful sample of 27 trial participants and 7 site staff. RESULTS: Participants were largely happy with the recruitment practices, however, some were overwhelmed with the amount of information received. Interviewees had positive preconceptions regarding the possible effect of the ES on the outcome of their in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycle, which often originated from their own internet research and seemed to be exacerbated by how site staff described the intervention. Some participants appeared to not understand that receiving the ES could potentially reduce their chances of a successful IVF outcome. Those randomised to the control arm discussed feeling discontent; site staff developed mechanisms of dealing with this. CONCLUSIONS: A lack of equipoise in both study participants and the recruiting site staff led to trial participants having positive preconceptions of the potential impact of the ES on their upcoming IVF cycle. Trial participants may not have understood the potential harms of participating in a randomised trial. The trial information sheet did not clearly state this; further research should assess how such information should be presented to potential participants, to proportionately present the level of risk, but to not unduly discourage participation. The amount of information fertility patients require about a research study should also be investigated, in order to avoid participants feeling overwhelmed by the amount of information they receive prior to starting IVF. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN23800982.

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.

Does hysteroscopic resection of uterine septum improve reproductive outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Uterine septum in women with subfertility or previous poor reproductive outcomes presents a clinical dilemma. Hysteroscopic septum resection has been previously associated with adverse reproductive outcomes but the evidence remains inconclusive. We aimed to thoroughly and systematically appraise relevant evidence on the impact of hysteroscopically resecting the uterine septum on this cohort of women. METHODS: AMED, BNI, CINAHL, EMBASE, EMCARE, Medline, PsychInfo, PubMed, Cochrane register of controlled trials, Cochrane database of systematic reviews and CINAHL were assessed to April 2020, with no language restriction. Only randomised control trials and comparative studies which evaluated outcomes in women with uterine septum and a history of subfertility and/or poor reproductive outcomes treated by hysteroscopic septum resection against control were included. The primary endpoint was live birth rate, whereas clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, preterm birth and malpresentation rates were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Seven studies involving 407 women with hysteroscopic septum resection and 252 with conservative management were included in the meta-analysis. Hysteroscopic septum resection was associated with a lower rate of miscarriage (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07-0.88) compared with untreated women. No significant effect was seen on live birth, clinical pregnancy rate or preterm delivery. However, there were fewer malpresentations during labour in the treated group (OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.06-0.73). CONCLUSION: Our review found no significant effect of hysteroscopic resection on live birth. However, given the limited evidence available, high-quality randomised controlled trials are recommended before any conclusive clinical guidance can be drawn.

The impact of endometrioma on in vitro fertilisation/intra-cytoplasmic injection IVF/ICSI reproductive outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) are often used to aid fertility in women with endometrioma; however, the implications of endometrioma on ART are unresolved. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of endometrioma on reproductive outcomes in women undergoing IVF or ICSI. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to identify articles examining women who had endometrioma and had undergone IVF or ICSI. Electronic searches were performed in PubMed, BIOSIS and MEDLINE up to September 2019. The primary outcome was live birth rate (LBR). Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), implantation rate (IR), number of oocytes retrieved, number of metaphase II (MII) oocytes retrieved, number of embryos and top-quality embryos and the duration of gonadotrophin stimulation and dose. RESULTS: Eight studies were included. Where significant heterogeneity between studies was identified, a random-effects model was used. The number of oocytes (weighted means difference; WMD-2.25; 95% CI 3.43 to - 1.06, p = 0.0002) and the number of MII oocytes retrieved (WMD-4.64; 95% CI 5.65 to - 3.63, p < 0.00001) were significantly lower in women with endometrioma versus controls. All other outcomes, including gonadotrophin dose and duration, the total number of embryos, high-quality embryos, CPR, IR and LBR were similar in women with and without endometrioma. CONCLUSION: Even though women with endometriomas had a reduced number of oocytes and MII oocytes retrieved when compared to women without, no other differences in reproductive outcomes were identified. This implies that IVF/ICSI is a beneficial ART approach for women with endometrioma.

Fluid and pharmacological agents for adhesion prevention after gynaecological surgery.

BACKGROUND: Adhesions are fibrin bands that are a common consequence of gynaecological surgery. They are caused by conditions that include pelvic inflammatory disease and endometriosis. Adhesions are associated with comorbidities, including pelvic pain, subfertility, and small bowel obstruction. Adhesions also increase the likelihood of further surgery, causing distress and unnecessary expenses. Strategies to prevent adhesion formation include the use of fluid (also called hydroflotation) and gel agents, which aim to prevent healing tissues from touching one another, or drugs, aimed to change an aspect of the healing process, to make adhesions less likely to form. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of fluid and pharmacological agents on rates of pain, live births, and adhesion prevention in women undergoing gynaecological surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Epistemonikos to 22 August 2019. We also checked the reference lists of relevant papers and contacted experts in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials investigating the use of fluid (including gel) and pharmacological agents to prevent adhesions after gynaecological surgery. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE methods. Outcomes of interest were pelvic pain; live birth rates; incidence of, mean, and changes in adhesion scores at second look-laparoscopy (SLL); clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and ectopic pregnancy rates; quality of life at SLL; and adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 trials (3492 women), and excluded 11. We were unable to include data from nine studies in the statistical analyses, but the findings of these studies were broadly in keeping with the findings of the meta-analyses. Hydroflotation agents versus no hydroflotation agents (10 RCTs) We are uncertain whether hydroflotation agents affected pelvic pain (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.52 to 2.09; one study, 226 women; very low-quality evidence). It is unclear whether hydroflotation agents affected live birth rates (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.58; two studies, 208 women; low-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. Hydroflotation agents reduced the incidence of adhesions at SLL when compared with no treatment (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.55, four studies, 566 women; high-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that in women with an 84% chance of having adhesions at SLL with no treatment, using hydroflotation agents would result in 54% to 75% having adhesions. Hydroflotation agents probably made little or no difference to mean adhesion score at SLL (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.06, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.09; four studies, 722 women; moderate-quality evidence). It is unclear whether hydroflotation agents affected clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.14; three studies, 310 women; moderate-quality evidence) compared with no treatment. This suggests that in women with a 26% chance of clinical pregnancy with no treatment, using hydroflotation agents would result in a clinical pregnancy rate of 11% to 28%. No studies reported any adverse events attributable to the intervention. Gel agents versus no treatment (12 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain or live birth rate. Gel agents reduced the incidence of adhesions at SLL compared with no treatment (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.57; five studies, 147 women; high-quality evidence). This suggests that in women with an 84% chance of having adhesions at SLL with no treatment, the use of gel agents would result in 39% to 75% having adhesions. It is unclear whether gel agents affected mean adhesion scores at SLL (SMD -0.50, 95% CI -1.09 to 0.09; four studies, 159 women; moderate-quality evidence), or clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.02 to 2.02; one study, 30 women; low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention. Gel agents versus hydroflotation agents when used as an instillant (3 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain, live birth rate or clinical pregnancy rate. Gel agents probably reduce the incidence of adhesions at SLL when compared with hydroflotation agents (OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.83; three studies, 538 women; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that in women with a 46% chance of having adhesions at SLL with a hydroflotation agent, the use of gel agents would result in 21% to 41% having adhesions. We are uncertain whether gel agents improved mean adhesion scores at SLL when compared with hydroflotation agents (MD -0.79, 95% CI -0.82 to -0.76; one study, 77 women; very low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention. Steroids (any route) versus no steroids (4 RCTs) No studies in this comparison reported pelvic pain, incidence of adhesions at SLL or mean adhesion score at SLL. It is unclear whether steroids affected live birth rates compared with no steroids (OR 0.65, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.62; two studies, 223 women; low-quality evidence), or clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.01, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.55; three studies, 410 women; low-quality evidence). No studies in this comparison reported on adverse events attributable to the intervention. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Gels and hydroflotation agents appear to be effective adhesion prevention agents for use during gynaecological surgery, but we found no evidence indicating that they improve fertility outcomes or pelvic pain, and further research is required in this area. It is also worth noting that for some comparisons, wide confidence intervals crossing the line of no effect meant that clinical harm as a result of interventions could not be excluded. Future studies should measure outcomes in a uniform manner, using the modified American Fertility Society score. Statistical findings should be reported in full. No studies reported any adverse events attributable to intervention.

A prospective, single-centre, single-arm, open label study of the long term use of a gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist (Triptorelin SR, 11.25 mg) in combination with Tibolone add-back therapy in the management of chronic cyclical pelvic pain.

BACKGROUND: Chronic cyclic pelvic pain (CCPP) affects women's quality of life and pituitary downregulation is often used for symptomatic relief. However, prolonged suppression of ovarian function is associated with menopausal side effects and can lead to osteoporosis. Currently, the use of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) for treatment of CCPP is usually restricted to 6-9 months, limiting their efficacy. There is limited information regarding safety and efficacy with longer-term use. The aim of this study is to examine the safety and efficacy of long-term (24 months) pituitary down-regulation with the GnRHa (Triptorelin SR) with add-back therapy (ABT) using Tibolone for symptom relief in women with CCPP. METHODS: A single-arm, prospective clinical trial at a Tertiary University Teaching Hospital of 27 patients receiving Triptorelin SR (11.25 mg) and Tibolone (2.5 mg). Outcomes measures were the safety of treatment assessed by clinical examination, haematological markers, liver and renal function tests and bone mineral density (BMD) at 12, 18 and 24 months as well as at 6 months post-treatment. Pain and health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) assessed using the endometriosis health profile (EHP-30) and chronic pain grade (CPG) questionnaires. RESULTS: There was no evidence for any significant harmful effects on any of the measured haematological, renal or liver function tests. Although results regarding the effect on BMD are not conclusive there is an increased risk of development of osteopaenia after 12 months of treatment. Pain and HRQoL assessments showed significant improvement during medication, but with deterioration after treatment cessation. CONCLUSION: Long- term Triptorelin plus Tibolone add-back therapy in women suffering from CCPP does not appear to be associated with significant serious adverse events apart from the possibility of deterioration in the BMD that needs to be monitored. This mode of therapy appears to be effective in pain relief and in improving quality of life over a 24-month period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials database NCT00735852.

Supervised exercise training and increased physical activity to reduce cardiovascular disease risk in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: study protocol for a randomized controlled feasibility trial.

BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) affects up to 20% of women and is characterised by higher amounts of visceral fat, obesity, insulin resistance, dyslipidemia and reproductive and cardiometabolic complications. Increased oxidised low-density lipoprotein (LDL) concentrations have been associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD)-related events. Oxidised LDL is rarely used as a marker for CVD risk in PCOS-related studies despite its widely accepted role in atherogenesis and the increased risk factors associated with PCOS. Additionally, prolonged periods of sedentary behaviour can negatively affect metabolic health. No studies have specifically examined the effects of reducing sedentary behaviour on CVD risk in PCOS with a lifestyle physical activity intervention. The aim of the current study is to measure the feasibility of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) examining the effects of supervised exercise and reducing sedentary behaviour in women with PCOS on CVD risk. METHODS/DESIGN: A feasibility, exploratory RCT will be conducted. Fifty-one pre-menopausal females will be randomly allocated between an exercise group (EG), a lifestyle physical activity group (LPAG) and a control group. Participants in the EG will undertake a 12-week supervised aerobic exercise programme. The LPAG will aim to increase daily physical activity and reduce sedentary behaviour for 12 weeks. The control group will not take part in any intervention. Primary outcomes are feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and procedures. Secondary outcomes are oxidised LDL, aerobic fitness, blood lipid profile, fasting glucose and insulin, testosterone and inflammatory markers. DISCUSSION: PCOS is associated with various increased risk factors for CVD, including hypertension, dyslipidemia, abdominal obesity, insulin resistance, and inflammation. Whether oxidised LDL has a role in this increased risk is not yet known. The present study aims to measure the feasibility of implementing structured exercise training and/or increased lifestyle physical activity in women with PCOS, so that a subsequent adequately powered RCT can be designed. The results from the study will be used to refine the interventions and determine the acceptability of the study design. A limitation is that some self-monitoring in the lifestyle physical activity group may not be reliable or replicable, for example inputting information about time spent cleaning/gardening. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03678714. Registered 20 September 2018.

Surgical treatment of fibroids for subfertility.

BACKGROUND: Fibroids are the most common benign tumours of the female genital tract and are associated with numerous clinical problems including a possible negative impact on fertility. In women requesting preservation of fertility, fibroids can be surgically removed (myomectomy) by laparotomy, laparoscopically or hysteroscopically depending on the size, site and type of fibroid. Myomectomy is however a procedure that is not without risk and can result in serious complications. It is therefore essential to determine whether such a procedure can result in an improvement in fertility and, if so, to then determine the ideal surgical approach. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effect of myomectomy on fertility outcomes and to compare different surgical approaches. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Epistemonikos database, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), LILACS, conference abstracts on the ISI Web of Knowledge, OpenSigle for grey literature from Europe, and reference list of relevant papers. The final search was in February 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of myomectomy compared to no intervention or where different surgical approaches are compared regarding the effect on fertility outcomes in a group of infertile women suffering from uterine fibroids. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data collection and analysis were conducted in accordance with the procedure suggested in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. MAIN RESULTS: This review included four RCTs with 442 participants. The evidence was very low-quality with the main limitations being due to serious imprecision, inconsistency and indirectness. Myomectomy versus no intervention One study examined the effect of myomectomy compared to no intervention on reproductive outcomes. We are uncertain whether myomectomy improves clinical pregnancy rate for intramural (odds ratio (OR) 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 6.14; 45 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), submucous (OR 2.04, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.66; 52 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), intramural/subserous (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.40 to 10.09; 31 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence) or intramural/submucous fibroids (OR 3.24, 95% CI 0.72 to 14.57; 42 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Similarly, we are uncertain whether myomectomy reduces miscarriage rate for intramural fibroids (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.26 to 6.78; 45 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), submucous fibroids (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.27 to 5.97; 52 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), intramural/subserous fibroids (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.10 to 6.54; 31 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence) or intramural/submucous fibroids (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 12.33; 42 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). This study did not report on live birth, preterm delivery, ongoing pregnancy or caesarean section rate. Laparoscopic myomectomy versus myomectomy by laparotomy or mini-laparotomy Two studies compared laparoscopic myomectomy to myomectomy at laparotomy or mini-laparotomy. We are uncertain whether laparoscopic myomectomy compared to laparotomy or mini-laparotomy improves live birth rate (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.50; 177 participants; two studies; I2 = 0%; very low-quality evidence), preterm delivery rate (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.29; participants = 177; two studies; I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.78; 177 participants; two studies; I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence), ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.26 to 10.04; 115 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), miscarriage rate (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.89; participants = 177; two studies; I2 = 0%, very low-quality evidence), or caesarean section rate (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.39; participants = 177; two studies; I2 = 21%, very low-quality evidence). Monopolar resectoscope versus bipolar resectoscope One study evaluated the use of two electrosurgical systems during hysteroscopic myomectomy. We are uncertain whether bipolar resectoscope use compared to monopolar resectoscope use improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.50; 68 participants; one study, very low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.36; 68 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), or miscarriage rate (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.34; participants = 68; one study; very low-quality evidence). This study did not report on preterm delivery or caesarean section rate. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is limited evidence to determine the role of myomectomy for infertility in women with fibroids as only one trial compared myomectomy with no myomectomy. If the decision is made to have a myomectomy, the current evidence does not indicate a superior method (laparoscopy, laparotomy or different electrosurgical systems) to improve rates of live birth, preterm delivery, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, or caesarean section. Furthermore, the existing evidence needs to be viewed with caution due to the small number of events, minimal number of studies and very low-quality evidence.

Improving the Lifetime Efficiency of Trimedlure-Dispensing System in Trapping the Fruit Fly Ceratitis capitata Using Polyethylene Matrix.

Detection of the Mediterranean fruit fly, Ceratitis capitata (Wiedemann), is highly reliant on traps loaded with trimedlure (TML), a male-specific attractant. The successful application of attractants requires that constituents are placed in a suitable dispensing system to reduce volatilization and increase the effective field longevity of the attractant. A series of trials were conducted in different fruit orchards to test 1) the efficiency of a polyethylene-matrix plug in regulating the emission rate of TML 2) and the lifetime attractiveness of the plug compared to the cotton wick dispenser. Cotton dispensers containing the recommended dose of TML (0.75 cm3) and with a double dose (1.5 cm3) remained active for 6 and 8 wk, respectively. The increase in TML dose from 0.75 cm3 to 1.5 cm3 led to an increase in the longevity of the cotton dispenser, but there was no significant difference between the doses in biological activity. In all trials, TML-polyethylene matrix dispensers were more efficient under field conditions as they attracted more males for up to 12 wk and prolonged the release of TML more than the cotton wick dispensers. The TML-loaded polyethylene matrix dispensers might be useful in 1) minimizing the losses of the liquid TML from cotton wicks, 2) avoiding the damage that occurs when using other dispensers, 3) prolonging the TML lifetime in the field through regulating its release rates, 4) potentially minimizing the adverse effect of high temperatures on release rate, and, finally, 5) minimizing the costs of using large amounts of expensive TML solutions.

The effects of exercise on cardiometabolic outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome not taking the oral contraceptive pill: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is the most common endocrinopathy, affecting 4-12% of reproductive-aged women. Women with PCOS often exhibit many metabolic abnormalities that are associated with an increased cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk, independent of obesity. Exercise interventions from 12 to 24 weeks have been shown to have positive effects on blood lipid profile, ovulation and insulin resistance in women with PCOS. However, no consensus on which exercise interventions are effective (i.e. duration, type of exercise, frequency), including for different phenotypes, currently exists. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to define effective types of exercise interventions to improve cardiometabolic profile, across the range of phenotypes of PCOS. METHODS: We will conduct electronic database searches, including randomised-controlled trials (RCT), quasi-RCT and clinical trials. Primary outcomes sought will be lipid profile, carotid-intima media thickness, fasting blood glucose, %HbA1c, blood pressure, waist circumference, waist-to-hip ratio, abdominal adiposity and inflammation markers. Secondary outcomes sought will be free and total testosterone, sex hormone binding globulin and insulin resistance. The Cochrane Risk Assessment Tool will be used to assess study quality. Data will be analysed in RevMan. Analysis of heterogeneity will be undertaken using the I2 statistic. Significant heterogeneity will be explored, and sensitivity analyses carried out as appropriate. A subgroup analysis based on androgen profile will be undertaken if data are sufficient. DISCUSSION: A large proportion of women are affected by PCOS. It is prudent to examine how CVD risk can be mitigated in this high-risk population, and this review aims to provide evidence-driven recommendations on the types of exercise interventions that are effective for this. The review will seek to provide recommendations regarding type, frequency and duration of exercise interventions to improve cardiometabolic profile in PCOS. The subgroup analysis may be able to highlight difference in intervention effects between normo-androgenic and hyper-androgenic profile. Limitations include heterogeneity across studies and a scarcity of clinical trials involving a PCOS control group not undertaking any intervention. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42018086117.

The effect of prednisolone on endometrial uterine NK cell concentrations and pregnancy outcome in women with reproductive failure. A retrospective cohort study.

This retrospective study of prospectively collected data examines the effect of prednisolone therapy on raised uterine Natural Killer cell (uNK) concentrations and pregnancy outcomes in women with recurrent miscarriage (RM) and recurrent implantation failure (RIF) after IVF/ICSI treatment. 136 women diagnosed with RRF who had a timed midluteal endometrial biopsy taken for uNK cell analysis were included. Women with high uNK cell concentrations (n = 45) were treated with prednisolone (10 mg/day) for one month, after which a second biopsy was taken for repeat uNK cell analysis. Women for whom prednisolone caused a decrease in uNK cell concentrations continued on prednisolone until 12 weeks of pregnancy. Pregnancy outcomes (live birth, miscarriage and implantation rates) and pregnancy complications were compared for women who received prednisolone and those who did not. Results showed that the prevalence of high uNK cells was 33.1%. Prednisolone significantly decreased the uNK cell concentration (P < 0.001), however reduction to normal limits was achieved in only 48.3% of patients. There was no difference in any of the pregnancy outcomes or complications between women who had received prednisolone and those who had not. In conclusion, this study showed a relatively high prevalence of raised uNK cells in women with recurrent reproductive failure and confirmed the effect of prednisolone on reducing uNK cell concentrations. We found however no evidence for a significant beneficial effect for prednisolone therapy on pregnancy outcomes. Until the results of an adequately powered RCT become available however, these findings should be considered preliminary.

The effects of physical exercise on cardiometabolic outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome not taking the oral contraceptive pill: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) exhibit many metabolic abnormalities that are associated with an increased cardiovascular disease risk. Exercise may promote improvements in lipid profile and insulin sensitivity in women with PCOS. There is however, a knowledge gap on the optimal dose of exercise, regarding duration, intensity, type, and frequency of exercise. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to define effective types of exercise to improve cardiometabolic profile in PCOS. METHODS: We included randomised controlled trials (RCT), quasi-RCT, and controlled clinical trials focusing on reproductive-aged women diagnosed with PCOS. Eligible interventions included those with at least two weeks of supervised exercise sessions. Primary outcomes were blood lipids, blood glucose, blood pressure, measures of abdominal adiposity, and inflammation markers. Secondary outcomes were total and free testosterone, sex hormone binding globulin, and measures of insulin resistance. Nine electronic databases were searched from inception to present for English language publications. The Cochrane Risk Assessment tool was used to assess bias in the included studies. Outcomes were quantitatively synthesised and a meta- analysis was performed. Pooled effect estimates and 95% confidence intervals were presented. RESULTS: This systematic review identified three trials, including 231 participants with PCOS, that examined the effect of structured, supervised exercise on cardiometabolic outcomes. Analysis of pooled data indicated statistical favourable effects of exercise on total cholesterol, fasting glucose, waist circumference and waist-to-hip ratio, systolic blood pressure, C-reactive protein, total testosterone, and sex hormone binding globulin using post-intervention scores. CONCLUSIONS: Moderate aerobic exercise interventions ≥3 months in duration, with a frequency of 3/week for at least 30-min, may have favourable effects on various cardiometabolic risk factors in women with PCOS. However, results should be interpreted with caution. Many of the outcomes were based on studies with serious methodological limitations, and only one "gold-standard" RCT was identified.PROSPERO ID: CRD42018086117.