The Prevalence of Thyroid Dysfunction and Autoimmunity in Women With History of Miscarriage or Subfertility.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the prevalence of and factors associated with different thyroid dysfunction phenotypes in women who are asymptomatic preconception. DESIGN: Observational cohort study. SETTING: A total of 49 hospitals across the United Kingdom between 2011 and 2016. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 16 to 41years with history of miscarriage or subfertility trying for a pregnancy. METHODS: Prevalences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated using the binomial exact method. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were conducted to identify risk factors for thyroid disease. INTERVENTION: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Rates of thyroid dysfunction. RESULTS: Thyroid function and thyroid peroxidase antibody (TPOAb) data were available for 19213 and 19237 women, respectively. The prevalence of abnormal thyroid function was 4.8% (95% CI, 4.5-5.1); euthyroidism was defined as levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) of 0.44 to 4.50 mIU/L and free thyroxine (fT4) of 10 to 21 pmol/L. Overt hypothyroidism (TSH > 4.50 mIU/L, fT4 < 10 pmol/L) was present in 0.2% of women (95% CI, 0.1-0.3) and overt hyperthyroidism (TSH < 0.44 mIU/L, fT4 > 21 pmol/L) was present in 0.3% (95% CI, 0.2-0.3). The prevalence of subclinical hypothyroidism (SCH) using an upper TSH concentration of 4.50 mIU/L was 2.4% (95% CI, 2.1-2.6). Lowering the upper TSH to 2.50 mIU/L resulted in higher rates of SCH, 19.9% (95% CI, 19.3-20.5). Multiple regression analyses showed increased odds of SCH (TSH > 4.50 mIU/L) with body mass index (BMI) ≥ 35.0 kg/m2 (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1.71; 95% CI, 1.13-2.57; P = 0.01) and Asian ethnicity (aOR 1.76; 95% CI, 1.31-2.37; P < 0.001), and increased odds of SCH (TSH ≥ 2.50 mIU/L) with subfertility (aOR 1.16; 95% CI, 1.04-1.29; P = 0.008). TPOAb positivity was prevalent in 9.5% of women (95% CI, 9.1-9.9). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of undiagnosed overt thyroid disease is low. SCH and TPOAb are common, particularly in women with higher BMI or of Asian ethnicity. A TSH cutoff of 2.50 mIU/L to define SCH results in a significant proportion of women potentially requiring levothyroxine treatment.

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.).

Cycle regimens for frozen-thawed embryo transfer.

BACKGROUND: Among subfertile couples undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART), pregnancy rates following frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) treatment cycles have historically been found to be lower than following embryo transfer undertaken two to five days following oocyte retrieval. Nevertheless, FET increases the cumulative pregnancy rate, reduces cost, is relatively simple to undertake and can be accomplished in a shorter time period than repeated in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles with fresh embryo transfer. FET is performed using different cycle regimens: spontaneous ovulatory (natural) cycles; cycles in which the endometrium is artificially prepared by oestrogen and progesterone hormones, commonly known as hormone therapy (HT) FET cycles; and cycles in which ovulation is induced by drugs (ovulation induction FET cycles). HT can be used with or without a gonadotrophin releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa). This is an update of a Cochrane review; the first version was published in 2008. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of natural cycle FET, HT cycle FET and ovulation induction cycle FET, and compare subtypes of these regimens. SEARCH METHODS: On 13 December 2016 we searched databases including Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and CINAHL. Other search sources were trials registers and reference lists of included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the various cycle regimens and different methods used to prepare the endometrium during FET. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were live birth rates and miscarriage. MAIN RESULTS: We included 18 RCTs comparing different cycle regimens for FET in 3815 women. The quality of the evidence was low or very low. The main limitations were failure to report important clinical outcomes, poor reporting of study methods and imprecision due to low event rates. We found no data specific to non-ovulatory women. 1. Natural cycle FET comparisons Natural cycle FET versus HT FETNo study reported live birth rates, miscarriage or ongoing pregnancy.There was no evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rates between women in natural cycles and those in HT FET cycle (odds ratio (OR) 2.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.09 to 68.14, 1 RCT, n = 21, very low-quality evidence). Natural cycle FET versus HT plus GnRHa suppressionThere was no evidence of a difference in rates of live birth (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.53, 1 RCT, n = 159, low-quality evidence) or multiple pregnancy (OR 0.58, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.50, 1 RCT, n = 159, low-quality evidence) between women who had natural cycle FET and those who had HT FET cycles with GnRHa suppression. No study reported miscarriage or ongoing pregnancy. Natural cycle FET versus modified natural cycle FET (human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) trigger)There was no evidence of a difference in rates of live birth (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.16 to 1.93, 1 RCT, n = 60, very low-quality evidence) or miscarriage (OR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.13, 1 RCT, n = 168, very low-quality evidence) between women in natural cycles and women in natural cycles with HCG trigger. However, very low-quality evidence suggested that women in natural cycles (without HCG trigger) may have higher ongoing pregnancy rates (OR 2.44, 95% CI 1.03 to 5.76, 1 RCT, n = 168). There were no data on multiple pregnancy. 2. Modified natural cycle FET comparisons Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) versus HT FETThere was no evidence of a difference in rates of live birth (OR 1.34, 95% CI 0.88 to 2.05, 1 RCT, n = 959, low-quality evidence) or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.83, 1 RCT, n = 959, low-quality evidence) between women in modified natural cycles and those who received HT. There were no data on miscarriage or multiple pregnancy. Modified natural cycle FET (HCG trigger) versus HT plus GnRHa suppressionThere was no evidence of a difference between the two groups in rates of live birth (OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.87, 1 RCT, n = 236, low-quality evidence) or miscarriage (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.19, 1 RCT, n = 236, low-quality evidence) rates. There were no data on ongoing pregnancy or multiple pregnancy. 3. HT FET comparisons HT FET versus HT plus GnRHa suppressionHT alone was associated with a lower live birth rate than HT with GnRHa suppression (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.30, 1 RCT, n = 75, low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in either miscarriage (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.12, 6 RCTs, n = 991, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) or ongoing pregnancy (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.61 to 4.85, 1 RCT, n = 106, very low-quality evidence).There were no data on multiple pregnancy. 4. Comparison of subtypes of ovulation induction FET Human menopausal gonadotrophin(HMG) versus clomiphene plus HMG HMG alone was associated with a higher live birth rate than clomiphene combined with HMG (OR 2.49, 95% CI 1.07 to 5.80, 1 RCT, n = 209, very low-quality evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in either miscarriage (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.35 to 5.09,1 RCT, n = 209, very low-quality evidence) or multiple pregnancy (OR 1.41, 95% CI 0.31 to 6.48, 1 RCT, n = 209, very low-quality evidence).There were no data on ongoing pregnancy. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review did not find sufficient evidence to support the use of one cycle regimen in preference to another in preparation for FET in subfertile women with regular ovulatory cycles. The most common modalities for FET are natural cycle with or without HCG trigger or endometrial preparation with HT, with or without GnRHa suppression. We identified only four direct comparisons of these two modalities and there was insufficient evidence to support the use of either one in preference to the other.

'It's like taking a bit of masculinity away from you': towards a theoretical understanding of men's experiences of infertility.

In the UK, nearly half of all cases of infertility involve a 'male-factor'. Yet, little empirical work has explored how men as men negotiate this terrain. Three interrelated concepts; 'hegemonic masculinity', 'embodied masculinity' and the linkages between 'masculinities' and male help-seeking, provide the theoretical framework that guided a qualitative study conducted with 22 men experiencing infertility. The paper explores men's propensity to delay their help-seeking in relation to infertility despite their desire for children. It also demonstrates how, in the context of infertility, the male body can be defined as both a failed entity in itself (unable to father a child) and a subordinated social entity (unable to measure up to hegemonic ideals) that characterises men's masculine identities. The paper also illustrates how men appear willing to accept responsibility for their infertility and adopt aspects of hitherto subordinate masculine practice. This does not, however, constitute the total unravelling of well understood and accepted expressions of masculinity. Finally, the paper demonstrates how infertility is perceived as having the potential to fracture current and even future relationships. Moreover, regardless of how well men measured up to other hegemonic ideals, ultimately they can do little to counteract the threat of other (fertile) men.