Reproductive outcome of patients undergoing in vitro fertilisation treatment and diagnosed with bacterial vaginosis or abnormal vaginal microbiota: a systematic PRISMA review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Despite recent efforts, the risks associated with bacterial vaginosis (BV) or abnormal vaginal microbiota in IVF patients are not well-established. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to evaluate the risks associated with BV in IVF patients using meta-analysis. SEARCH STRATEGY: Following preliminary searches to find relevant keywords and MeSH terms, a systematic search was performed in PubMed (MEDLINE) in September 2017. SELECTION CRITERIA: The population was infertile women attending IVF treatment. The exposure was BV or abnormal vaginal microbiota. Outcomes included live birth rate, early spontaneous abortion rate and clinical pregnancy rate. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were collected for each study and for each outcome using a summary of findings table. If appropriate, data were quantitatively assessed using meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis, funnel plots and GRADE evidence assessment were performed for the above-mentioned outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 12 studies were eligible, comprising a total of 2980 patients. The prevalence of BV was 16% (95% CI 15-18%) in the general study population and tubal factor infertility was highly prevalent in patients diagnosed with BV compared with normal vaginal microbiota patients (P = 0.001). Despite a significant association with early spontaneous abortion [relative risk (RR) 1.68, 95% CI 1.24-2.27], BV did not significantly impact the live birth rate (RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.96-1.57) or the clinical pregnancy rate (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.75-1.15). CONCLUSIONS: BV is associated with tubal factor infertility and early spontaneous abortion. However, the quality of evidence was very low and the equivocal results justify the need for further research. TWEETABLE ABSTRACT: Abnormal vaginal microbiota is associated with early spontaneous abortion in IVF patients.

Effect of adding insulin degludec to treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes inadequately controlled with metformin and liraglutide: a double-blind randomized controlled trial (BEGIN: ADD TO GLP-1 Study).

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of adding insulin degludec (IDeg) to treatment in patients with type 2 diabetes receiving liraglutide and metformin and qualifying for treatment intensification because of inadequate glycaemic control. METHODS: In this 26-week, double-blind trial, patients who still had inadequate glycaemic control after a 15-week run-in period with initiation and dose escalation of liraglutide to 1.8 mg in combination with metformin (≥1500 mg) were randomized to addition of once-daily IDeg ('IDeg add-on to liraglutide' arm; n = 174) or placebo ('placebo add-on to liraglutide' arm; n = 172), with dosing of both IDeg and placebo based on titration guidelines. RESULTS: At 26 weeks, the mean change in glycated haemoglobin level was greater in the IDeg add-on to liraglutide arm (-1.04%) than in the placebo add-on to liraglutide arm (-0.16%; p < 0.0001). Similarly, the mean fasting plasma glucose reduction was greater, and self-measured plasma glucose values were lower at all eight time points, with IDeg add-on versus placebo add-on (both p < 0.0001). At 26 weeks, the IDeg dose was 51 U (0.54 U/kg). During the run-in period with liraglutide, body weight decreased by ∼3 kg in both groups. After 26 weeks, the mean change was +2.0 kg (IDeg add-on to liraglutide) and -1.3 kg (placebo add-on to liraglutide). Confirmed hypoglycaemia rates were low in both groups, although higher with IDeg than with placebo (0.57 vs. 0.12 episodes/patient-years of exposure; p = 0.0002). Nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia was infrequent in both groups, with no episodes of severe hypoglycaemia, and no marked differences in adverse events with either treatment approach. CONCLUSION: The addition of liraglutide and IDeg to patients sub-optimally treated with metformin and liraglutide and requiring treatment intensification was found to be effective and well-tolerated.

Twice-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart provides superior fasting plasma glucose control and a reduced rate of hypoglycaemia compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30 in insulin-naïve adults with Type 2 diabetes.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of twice-daily insulin degludec/insulin aspart vs. twice-daily biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus who were naïve to insulin. METHODS: In this 26-week, multinational, open-label, controlled, two-arm, parallel-group, treat-to-target trial, participants [mean (± sd) age 58.9 (±8.9) years, duration of diabetes 9.5 (±5.9) years, HbA1c 68 (±8.7) mmol/mol or 8.4 (±0.8)% and BMI 31.2 (±4.2) kg/m(2) ) were randomized (1:1) to insulin degludec/insulin aspart (n = 197) or biphasic insulin aspart 30 (n = 197), administered with breakfast and the main evening meal, titrated to a self-monitored plasma glucose target > 3.9 and ≤ 5.0 mmol/l. RESULTS: The mean HbA1c was reduced to 49 mmol/mol (6.6%) with insulin degludec/insulin aspart and 48 mmol/mol (6.5%) with biphasic insulin aspart 30. Insulin degludec/insulin aspart achieved the prespecified non-inferiority margin (estimated treatment difference 0.02%; 95% CI -0.12, 0.17). Insulin degludec/insulin aspart was superior in lowering fasting plasma glucose (estimated treatment difference -1.00 mmol/l; 95% CI -1.4, -0.6; P < 0.001) and reducing overall and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia at a similar overall insulin dose compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30. Similar proportions of participants in each arm experienced severe hypoglycaemia. Adverse events were equally distributed. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent with previous findings, insulin degludec/insulin aspart twice daily effectively improved long-term glycaemic control, with superior reductions in FPG, and significantly less overall and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemia compared with biphasic insulin aspart 30 in people with Type 2 diabetes who were insulin-naïve.

Treatment intensification with an insulin degludec (IDeg)/insulin aspart (IAsp) co-formulation twice daily compared with basal IDeg and prandial IAsp in type 2 diabetes: a randomized, controlled phase III trial.

AIMS: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of two insulin intensification strategies for patients with type 2 diabetes previously treated with basal insulin--insulin degludec (IDeg) and insulin aspart (IAsp)--administered as a co-formulation (IDegAsp) or as a basal-bolus regimen (IDeg and IAsp in separate injections). METHODS: This 26-week, open-label, treat-to-target, phase IIIb, non-inferiority trial randomized patients (1 : 1) to IDegAsp twice daily with main meals (n = 138; IDegAsp group) or IDeg once daily and IAsp 2-4 times daily (n = 136; IDeg+IAsp group). RESULTS: After 26 weeks, the mean glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) level was 7.0% (53 mmol/mol) for the IDegAsp group and 6.8% (51 mmol/mol) for the IDeg+IAsp group (Δ%HbA1c from baseline -1.31 and -1.50%, respectively). The non-inferiority of IDegAsp versus IDeg+IAsp was not confirmed for mean change in HbA1c [estimated treatment difference (ETD) 0.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.04, 0.41; p = non-significant]. No significant differences were observed in the proportion of patients achieving HbA1c <7.0% (56.5 and 59.6%, respectively). IDegAsp treatment resulted in a significantly lower total daily insulin dose, a smaller change in body weight, numerically lower rates of confirmed hypoglycaemia (self-reported plasma glucose <3.1 mmol/l; rate ratio 0.81; p = non-significant), and nocturnal confirmed hypoglycaemic episodes (rate ratio 0.80; p = non-significant) versus IDeg+IAsp. Patient-reported outcome scores for social functioning were significantly higher for IDegAsp versus IDeg+IAsp (ETD 2.2; 95% CI 0.3, 4.1; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both intensification strategies effectively improved glycaemic control. Although non-inferiority was not confirmed, there were no significant differences between the groups that could affect clinical utility.

C-reactive protein levels and body mass index: elucidating direction of causation through reciprocal Mendelian randomization.

CONTEXT: The assignment of direction and causality within networks of observational associations is problematic outside randomized control trials, and the presence of a causal relationship between body mass index (BMI) and C-reactive protein (CRP) is disputed. OBJECTIVE: Using reciprocal Mendelian randomization, we aim to assess the direction of causality in relationships between BMI and CRP and to demonstrate this as a promising analytical technique. PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS: The study was based on a large, cross-sectional European study from Copenhagen, Denmark. Genetic associates of BMI (FTO(rs9939609)) and circulating CRP (CRP(rs3091244)) have been used to reexamine observational associations between them. RESULTS: Observational analyses showed a strong, positive association between circulating CRP and BMI (change in BMI for a doubling in log CRP of 1.03 kg m(-2) (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 1.00, 1.07), P<0.0001). Analysis using CRP(rs3091244) to re-estimate the causal effect of circulating CRP on BMI yielded null effects (change in BMI for a doubling in log CRP of -0.24 kg m(-2) (95% CI: -0.58, 0.11), P=0.2). In contrast, analysis using FTO(rs9939609) to assess the causal effect of BMI on circulating CRP confirmed observational associations (ratio of geometric means of CRP per s.d. increase in BMI 1.41 (95% CI: 1.10, 1.80), P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: Taken together, these data suggest that the observed association between circulating CRP and measured BMI is likely to be driven by BMI, with CRP being a marker of elevated adiposity. More generally, the method of reciprocal randomization has general applicability in determining the direction of causation within inter-correlated networks of metabolic components.

Bayesian methods for meta-analysis of causal relationships estimated using genetic instrumental variables.

Genetic markers can be used as instrumental variables, in an analogous way to randomization in a clinical trial, to estimate the causal relationship between a phenotype and an outcome variable. Our purpose is to extend the existing methods for such Mendelian randomization studies to the context of multiple genetic markers measured in multiple studies, based on the analysis of individual participant data. First, for a single genetic marker in one study, we show that the usual ratio of coefficients approach can be reformulated as a regression with heterogeneous error in the explanatory variable. This can be implemented using a Bayesian approach, which is next extended to include multiple genetic markers. We then propose a hierarchical model for undertaking a meta-analysis of multiple studies, in which it is not necessary that the same genetic markers are measured in each study. This provides an overall estimate of the causal relationship between the phenotype and the outcome, and an assessment of its heterogeneity across studies. As an example, we estimate the causal relationship of blood concentrations of C-reactive protein on fibrinogen levels using data from 11 studies. These methods provide a flexible framework for efficient estimation of causal relationships derived from multiple studies. Issues discussed include weak instrument bias, analysis of binary outcome data such as disease risk, missing genetic data, and the use of haplotypes.

Lipids, atherosclerosis and CVD risk: is CRP an innocent bystander?

AIM: To evaluate recent human studies with respect to the interpretation of whether elevated plasma levels of C-reactive protein (CRP) cause cardiovascular disease (CVD), or whether elevated CRP levels more likely is an innocent bystander. DATA SYNTHESIS: Elevated CRP concentrations are consistently associated with CVD risk. A recent study showed that aggressive statin treatment caused reductions of 50% in LDL cholesterol, 37% in CRP, 44% in CVD events, and 20% in total mortality, and that the highest treatment benefits were obtained in those with the lowest achieved levels of both LDL cholesterol and CRP. However, a reduction in CRP levels after statin treatment could be secondary to the reduced LDL cholesterol levels, and thereby less inflammation in atherosclerotic plaques. We recently performed 4 large Mendelian randomization studies, studies that demonstrated that elevated CRP associate with increased risk of CVD, that genetic variation in the CRP gene associate with increased CRP levels, but that this genetic variation in the CRP gene do not associate with increased risk of CVD. In contrast to previous studies, these new studies had enough statistical power to effectively exclude that genetically elevated CRP cause CVD. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that elevated CRP per se does not cause CVD; however, inflammation per se possibly contributes to CVD. Elevated CRP levels more likely is a marker for the extent of atherosclerosis or for the inflammatory activity and vulnerability of atherosclerotic plaques, and thus simply an innocent bystander in CVD.