Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography versus hysterosalpingography during fertility work-up: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the costs and effects of tubal patency testing by hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) compared to hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile women during the fertility work-up? SUMMARY ANSWER: During the fertility work-up, clinical management based on the test results of HyFoSy leads to slightly lower, though not statistically significant, live birth rates, at lower costs, compared to management based on HSG results. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Traditionally, tubal patency testing during the fertility work-up is performed by HSG. The FOAM trial, formally a non-inferiority study, showed that management decisions based on the results of HyFoSy resulted in a comparable live birth rate at 12 months compared to HSG (46% versus 47%; difference -1.2%, 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%; P = 0.27). Compared to HSG, HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain, it lacks ionizing radiation and exposure to iodinated contrast medium. Moreover, HyFoSy can be performed by a gynaecologist during a one-stop fertility work-up. To our knowledge, the costs of both strategies have never been compared. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an economic evaluation alongside the FOAM trial, a randomized multicenter study conducted in the Netherlands. Participating infertile women underwent, both HyFoSy and HSG, in a randomized order. The results of both tests were compared and women with discordant test results were randomly allocated to management based on the results of one of the tests. The follow-up period was twelve months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied 1160 infertile women (18-41 years) scheduled for tubal patency testing. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth. The economic evaluation compared costs and effects of management based on either test within 12 months. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the difference in total costs and chance of live birth. Data were analyzed using the intention to treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 of the 1160 women underwent both tubal tests and had data available: 747 women with concordant results (48% live births), 136 with inconclusive results (40% live births), and 143 with discordant results (41% had a live birth after management based on HyFoSy results versus 49% with live birth after management based on HSG results). When comparing the two strategies-management based on HyfoSy results versus HSG results-the estimated chance of live birth was 46% after HyFoSy versus 47% after HSG (difference -1.2%; 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%). For the procedures itself, HyFoSy cost €136 and HSG €280. When costs of additional fertility treatments were incorporated, the mean total costs per couple were €3307 for the HyFoSy strategy and €3427 for the HSG strategy (mean difference €-119; 95% CI: €-125 to €-114). So, while HyFoSy led to lower costs per couple, live birth rates were also slightly lower. The ICER was €10 042, meaning that by using HyFoSy instead of HSG we would save €10 042 per each additional live birth lost. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: When interpreting the results of this study, it needs to be considered that there was a considerable uncertainty around the ICER, and that the direct fertility enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests was not incorporated as women underwent both tubal patency tests in this study. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS: Compared to clinical management based on HSG results, management guided by HyFoSy leads to slightly lower live birth rates (though not statistically significant) at lower costs, less pain, without ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast exposure. Further research on the comparison of the direct fertility-enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): FOAM trial was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm®-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel-and speakers fees from Guerbet and her department received research grants from Guerbet outside the submitted work. H.R.V. received consulting-and travel fee from Ferring. A.M.v.P. reports received consulting fee from DEKRA and fee for an expert meeting from Ferring, both outside the submitted work. C.H.d.K. received travel fee from Merck. F.J.M.B. received a grant from Merck and speakers fee from Besins Healthcare. F.J.M.B. is a member of the advisory board of Merck and Ferring. J.v.D. reported speakers fee from Ferring. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda and consultancy for Sanofi on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford Press in the role of deputy editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a DSMB as independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC GNT1176437. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Guerbet, iGenomix, and Merck KGaA and travel support from Merck KGaA. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck, and Ferring and travel and speakers fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746.

The endometrial transcriptome of infertile women with and without implantation failure.

INTRODUCTION: Implantation failure after transferring morphologically "good-quality" embryos in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) may be explained by impaired endometrial receptivity. Analyzing the endometrial transcriptome analysis may reveal the underlying processes and could help in guiding prognosis and using targeted interventions for infertility. This exploratory study investigated whether the endometrial transcriptome profile was associated with short-term or long-term implantation outcomes (ie success or failure). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Mid-luteal phase endometrial biopsies of 107 infertile women with one full failed IVF/ICSI cycle, obtained within an endometrial scratching trial, were subjected to RNA-sequencing and differentially expressed genes analysis with covariate adjustment (age, body mass index, luteinizing hormone [LH]-day). Endometrial transcriptomes were compared between implantation failure and success groups in the short term (after the second fresh IVF/ICSI cycle) and long term (including all fresh and frozen cycles within 12 months). The short-term analysis included 85/107 women (33 ongoing pregnancy vs 52 no pregnancy), excluding 22/107 women. The long-term analysis included 46/107 women (23 'fertile' group, ie infertile women with a live birth after ≤3 embryos transferred vs 23 recurrent implantation failure group, ie no live birth after ≥3 good quality embryos transferred), excluding 61/107 women not fitting these categories. As both analyses drew from the same pool of 107 samples, there was some sample overlap. Additionally, cell type enrichment scores and endometrial receptivity were analyzed, and an endometrial development pseudo-timeline was constructed to estimate transcriptomic deviations from the optimum receptivity day (LH + 7), denoted as ΔWOI (window of implantation). RESULTS: There were no significantly differentially expressed genes between implantation failure and success groups in either the short-term or long-term analyses. Principal component analysis initially showed two clusters in the long-term analysis, unrelated to clinical phenotype and no longer distinct following covariate adjustment. Cell type enrichment scores did not differ significantly between groups in both analyses. However, endometrial receptivity analysis demonstrated a potentially significant displacement of the WOI in the non-pregnant group compared with the ongoing pregnant group in the short-term analysis. CONCLUSIONS: No distinct endometrial transcriptome profile was associated with either implantation failure or success in infertile women. However, there may be differences in the extent to which the WOI is displaced.

Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation plus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI).

BACKGROUND: During a stimulated cycle of in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI), women receive daily doses of gonadotropin follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) to induce multifollicular development in the ovaries. A normal response to stimulation (e.g. retrieval of 5 to 15 oocytes) is considered desirable. Generally, the number of eggs retrieved is associated with the dose of FSH. Both hyper-response and poor response are associated with an increased chance of cycle cancellation. In hyper-response, this is due to increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), while poor response cycles are cancelled because the quantity and quality of oocytes is expected to be low. Clinicians often individualise the FSH dose using patient characteristics predictive of ovarian response. Traditionally, this meant women's age, but increasingly, clinicians use various ovarian reserve tests (ORTs). These include basal FSH (bFSH), antral follicle count (AFC), and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). It is unclear whether individualising FSH dose improves clinical outcomes. This review updates the 2018 version. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registers in February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared (a) different doses of FSH in women with a defined ORT profile (i.e. predicted low, normal, or high responders based on AMH, AFC, and/or bFSH) or (b) an individualised dosing strategy (based on at least one ORT measure) versus uniform dosing or a different individualised dosing algorithm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and severe OHSS. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 studies, involving 8520 women (6 new studies added to 20 studies included in the previous version). We treated RCTs with multiple comparisons as separate trials for the purpose of this review. Meta-analysis was limited due to clinical heterogeneity. Evidence certainty ranged from very low to low, with the main limitations being imprecision and risk of bias associated with lack of blinding. Direct dose comparisons according to predicted response in women Due to differences in dose comparisons, caution is required when interpreting the RCTs in predicted low responders. All evidence was low or very low certainty. Effect estimates were very imprecise, and increased FSH dosing may or may not have an impact on rates of live birth/ongoing pregnancy, OHSS, and clinical pregnancy. Similarly, in predicted normal responders (10 studies, 4 comparisons), higher doses may or may not impact the probability of live birth/ongoing pregnancy (e.g. 200 versus 100 international units (IU): odds ratio (OR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.36; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 522 women) or clinical pregnancy. Results were imprecise, and a small benefit or harm remains possible. There were too few events for the OHSS outcome to enable inferences. In predicted high responders, lower doses may or may not affect live birth/ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.46; 1 study, 521 women), severe OHSS, and clinical pregnancy. It is also unclear whether lower doses reduce moderate or severe OHSS (Peto OR 2.31, 95% CI 0.80 to 6.67; 1 study, 521 participants). ORT-algorithm studies Eight trials compared an ORT-based algorithm to a non-ORT control group. It is unclear whether live birth/ongoing pregnancy and clinical pregnancy are increased using an ORT-based algorithm (live birth/ongoing pregnancy: OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.29; I2 = 30%; 7 studies, 4400 women; clinical pregnancy: OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.18; I2 = 18%; 7 studies, 4400 women; low-certainty evidence). However, ORT algorithms may reduce moderate or severe OHSS (Peto OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.84; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 4400 women; low-certainty evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of severe OHSS (Peto OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.28; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2724 women; low-certainty evidence). Our findings suggest that if the chance of live birth with a standard starting dose is 25%, the chance with ORT-based dosing would be between 25% and 31%. If the chance of moderate or severe OHSS with a standard starting dose is 5%, the chance with ORT-based dosing would be between 2% and 5%. These results should be treated cautiously due to heterogeneity in the algorithms: some algorithms appear to be more effective than others. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find that tailoring the FSH dose in any particular ORT population (low, normal, high ORT) affected live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates, but we could not rule out differences, due to sample size limitations. Low-certainty evidence suggests that it is unclear if ORT-based individualisation leads to an increase in live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates compared to a policy of giving all women 150 IU. The confidence interval is consistent with an increase of up to around six percentage points with ORT-based dosing (e.g. from 25% to 31%) or a very small decrease (< 1%). A difference of this magnitude could be important to many women. It is unclear if this is driven by improved outcomes in a particular subgroup. Further, ORT algorithms reduced the incidence of OHSS compared to standard dosing of 150 IU. However, the size of the effect is also unclear. The included studies were heterogeneous in design, which limited the interpretation of pooled estimates. It is likely that different ORT algorithms differ in their effectiveness. Current evidence does not provide a clear justification for adjusting the dose of 150 IU in poor or normal responders, especially as increased dose is associated with greater total FSH dose and cost. It is unclear whether a decreased dose in predicted high responders reduces OHSS, although this would appear to be the most likely explanation for the results.

An unbiased approach of molecular characterization of the endometrium: toward defining endometrial-based infertility.

Infertility is a complex condition affecting millions of couples worldwide. The current definition of infertility, based on clinical criteria, fails to account for the molecular and cellular changes that may occur during the development of infertility. Recent advancements in sequencing technology and single-cell analysis offer new opportunities to gain a deeper understanding of these changes. The endometrium has a potential role in infertility and has been extensively studied to identify gene expression profiles associated with (impaired) endometrial receptivity. However, limited overlap among studies hampers the identification of relevant downstream pathways that could play a role in the development of endometrial-related infertility. To address these challenges, we propose sequencing the endometrial transcriptome of healthy and infertile women at the single-cell level to consistently identify molecular signatures. Establishing consensus on physiological patterns in endometrial samples can aid in identifying deviations in infertile patients. A similar strategy has been used with great success in cancer research. However, large collaborative initiatives, international uniform protocols of sample collection and processing are crucial to ensure reliability and reproducibility. Overall, the proposed approach holds promise for an objective and accurate classification of endometrial-based infertility and has the potential to improve diagnosis and treatment outcomes.

Home-based monitoring of ovulation to time frozen embryo transfers in the Netherlands (Antarctica-2): an open-label, nationwide, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The growing field of assisted reproductive techniques, including frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET), should lead the way to the best sustainable health care without compromising pregnancy chances. Correct timing of FET is crucial to allow implantation of the thawed embryo. Nowadays, timing based on hospital-controlled monitoring of ovulation in the natural cycle of a woman is the preferred strategy because of the assumption of favourable fertility prospects. However, home-based monitoring is a simple method to prevent patient travel and any associated environmental concerns. We compared ongoing pregnancy rates after home-based monitoring versus hospital-controlled monitoring with ovulation triggering. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial was undertaken in 23 hospitals and clinics in the Netherlands. Women aged between 18 and 44 years with a regular ovulatory menstrual cycle were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio via a web-based randomisation program to home-based monitoring or hospital-controlled monitoring. Those who analysed the data were masked to the groups; those collecting the data were not. All endpoints were analysed by intention to treat and per protocol. Non-inferiority was established when the lower limit of the 90% CI exceeded -4%. This study was registered at the Dutch Trial Register (Trial NL6414). FINDINGS: 1464 women were randomly assigned between April 10, 2018, and April 13, 2022, with 732 allocated to home-based monitoring and 732 to hospital-controlled monitoring. Ongoing pregnancy occurred in 152 (20·8%) of 732 in the home-based monitoring group and in 153 (20·9%) of 732 in the hospital-controlled monitoring group (risk ratio [RR] 0·99 [90% CI 0·81 to 1·22]; risk difference [RD] -0·14 [90% CI -3·63 to 3·36]). The per-protocol analysis confirmed non-inferiority (152 [21·0%] of 725 vs 153 [21·0%] of 727; RR 1·00 (90% CI 0·81 to 1·23); RD -0·08 [90% CI -3·60 to 3·44]). INTERPRETATION: Home-based monitoring of ovulation is non-inferior to hospital-controlled monitoring of ovulation to time FET. FUNDING: The Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development.

Endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI: an individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: In IVF/ICSI treatment, the process of embryo implantation is the success rate-limiting step. Endometrial scratching has been suggested to improve this process, but it is unclear if this procedure increases the chance of implantation and live birth (LB) and, if so, for whom, and how the scratch should be performed. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: This individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) aims to answer the question of whether endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI influences the chance of a LB, and whether this effect is different in specific subgroups of women. After its incidental discovery in 2000, endometrial scratching has been suggested to improve embryo implantation. Numerous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been conducted, showing contradicting results. Conventional meta-analyses were limited by high within- and between-study heterogeneity, small study samples, and a high risk of bias for many of the trials. Also, the data integrity of several trials have been questioned. Thus, despite numerous RCTs and a multitude of conventional meta-analyses, no conclusion on the clinical effectiveness of endometrial scratching could be drawn. An IPD-MA approach is able to overcome many of these problems because it allows for increased uniformity of outcome definitions, can filter out studies with data integrity concerns, enables a more precise estimation of the true treatment effect thanks to adjustment for participant characteristics and not having to make the assumptions necessary in conventional meta-analyses, and because it allows for subgroup analysis. SEARCH METHODS: A systematic literature search identified RCTs on endometrial scratching in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Authors of eligible studies were invited to share original data for this IPD-MA. Studies were assessed for risk of bias (RoB) and integrity checks were performed. The primary outcome was LB, with a one-stage intention to treat (ITT) as the primary analysis. Secondary analyses included as treated (AT), and the subset of women that underwent an embryo transfer (AT+ET). Treatment-covariate interaction for specific participant characteristics was analyzed in AT+ET. OUTCOMES: Out of 37 published and 15 unpublished RCTs (7690 participants), 15 RCTs (14 published, one unpublished) shared data. After data integrity checks, we included 13 RCTs (12 published, one unpublished) representing 4112 participants. RoB was evaluated as 'low' for 10/13 RCTs. The one-stage ITT analysis for scratch versus no scratch/sham showed an improvement of LB rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.29 [95% CI 1.02-1.64]). AT, AT+ET, and low-RoB-sensitivity analyses yielded similar results (OR 1.22 [95% CI 0.96-1.54]; OR 1.25 [95% CI 0.99-1.57]; OR 1.26 [95% CI 1.03-1.55], respectively). Treatment-covariate interaction analysis showed no evidence of interaction with age, number of previous failed embryo transfers, treatment type, or infertility cause. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: This is the first meta-analysis based on IPD of more than 4000 participants, and it demonstrates that endometrial scratching may improve LB rates in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. Subgroup analysis for age, number of previous failed embryo transfers, treatment type, and infertility cause could not identify subgroups in which endometrial scratching performed better or worse. The timing of endometrial scratching may play a role in its effectiveness. The use of endometrial scratching in clinical practice should be considered with caution, meaning that patients should be properly counseled on the level of evidence and the uncertainties.

An integrative analysis of endometrial steroid metabolism and transcriptome in relation to endometrial receptivity in in vitro fertilization patients.

OBJECTIVE: To study the relationship between the steroid concentration in the endometrium, in serum, and the gene expression level of steroid-metabolizing enzymes in the context of endometrial receptivity in in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients. DESIGN: Case-control study of 40 IVF patients recruited in the SCRaTCH study (NTR5342), a randomized controlled trial investigating pregnancy outcome after "endometrial scratching." Endometrial biopsies and serum were obtained from patients with a first failed IVF cycle randomized to the endometrial scratch in the midluteal phase of the natural cycle before the next fresh embryo transfer during the second IVF cycle. SETTING: University hopsital. PATIENTS: Twenty women with clinical pregnancy were compared with 20 women who did not conceive after fresh embryo transfer. Cases and controls were matched for primary vs. secondary infertility, embryo quality, and age. INTERVENTION: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Steroid concentrations in endometrial tissue homogenates and serum were measured with liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. The endometrial transcriptome was profiled by RNA-sequencing, followed by principal component analysis and differential expression analysis. False discovery rate-adjusted and log-fold change >|0.5| were selected as the threshold for differentially expressed genes. RESULT(S): Estrogen levels were comparable in both serum (n = 16) and endometrium (n = 40). Androgens and 17-hydroxyprogesterone were higher in serum than that in endometrium. Although steroid levels did not vary between pregnant and nonpregnant groups, subgroup analysis of primary women with infertility showed a significantly lower estrone concentration and estrone:androstenedione ratio in serum of the pregnant group (n = 5) compared with the nonpregnant group (n = 2). Expression of 34 out of 46 genes encoding the enzymes controlling the local steroid metabolism was detected, and estrogen receptor ß gene was differentially expressed between pregnant and nonpregnant women. When only the primary infertile group was considered, 28 genes were differentially expressed between pregnant and nonpregnant women, including HSD11B2, that catalyzes the conversion of cortisol into cortisone. CONCLUSION(S): Steroidomic and transcriptomic analyses show that steroid concentrations are regulated by the local metabolism in the endometrium. Although no differences were found in endometrial steroid concentration in the pregnant and nonpregnant IVF patients, primary women with infertility showed deviations in steroid levels and gene expression, indicating that a more homogeneous patient group is required to uncover the exact role of steroid metabolism in endometrial receptivity. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study was registered in the Dutch trial registry (www.trialregister.nl), registration number NL5193/NTR5342, available at https://trialsearch.who.int/Trial2.aspx?TrialID=NTR6687. The date of registration is July 31, 2015. The first enrollment is on January 1, 2016.

The endometrial microbiota of women with or without a live birth within 12 months after a first failed IVF/ICSI cycle.

The endometrial microbiota composition may be associated with implantation success. However, a 'core' composition has not yet been defined. This exploratory study analysed the endometrial microbiota by 16S rRNA sequencing (V1-V2 region) of 141 infertile women whose first IVF/ICSI cycle failed and compared the microbiota profiles of women with and without a live birth within 12 months of follow-up, and by infertility cause and type. Lactobacillus was the most abundant genus in the majority of samples. Women with a live birth compared to those without had significantly higher Lactobacillus crispatus relative abundance (RA) (p = 0.029), and a smaller proportion of them had ≤ 10% L. crispatus RA (42.1% and 70.4%, respectively; p = 0.015). A smaller proportion of women in the male factor infertility group had ≤ 10% L. crispatus RA compared to women in the unexplained and other infertility causes groups combined (p = 0.030). Women with primary infertility compared to secondary infertility had significantly higher L. crispatus RA (p = 0.004); lower proportions of them had ≤ 10% L. crispatus RA (p = 0.009) and > 10% Gardnerella vaginalis RA (p = 0.019). In conclusion, IVF/ICSI success may be associated with L. crispatus RA and secondary infertility with endometrial dysbiosis, more often than primary infertility. These hypotheses should be tested in rigorous well-powered longitudinal studies.

The Impact of BRCA1- and BRCA2 Mutations on Ovarian Reserve Status.

This study aimed to investigate whether female BRCA1- and BRCA2 mutation carriers have a reduced ovarian reserve status, based on serum anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) levels, antral follicle count (AFC) and ovarian response to ovarian hyperstimulation. A prospective, multinational cohort study was performed between October 2014 and December 2019. Normo-ovulatory women, aged 18-41 years old, applying for their first PGT-cycle for reason of a BRCA mutation (cases) or other genetic diseases unrelated to ovarian reserve (controls), were asked to participate. All participants underwent a ICSI-PGT cycle with a long-agonist protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Linear and logistic regression models were used to compare AMH, AFC and ovarian response in cases and controls. Sensitivity analyses were conducted on BRCA1- and BRCA2 mutation carrier subgroups. Thirty-six BRCA mutation carriers (18 BRCA1- and 18 BRCA2 mutation carriers) and 126 controls, with mean female age 30.4 years, were included in the primary analysis. Unadjusted median AMH serum levels (IQR) were 2.40 (1.80-3.00) ng/ml in BRCA mutation carriers and 2.15 (1.30-3.40) ng/ml in controls (p = 0.45), median AFC (IQR) was 15.0 (10.8-20.3) and 14.5 (9.0-20.0), p = 0.54, respectively. Low response rate was 22.6% among BRCA mutation carriers and 9.3% among controls, p = 0.06. Median number of retrieved oocytes was 9 (6-14) in carriers and 10 (7-13) in controls, p = 0.36. No substantial differences were observed between BRCA1- and BRCA2 mutation carriers. Based on several biomarkers, no meaningful differences in ovarian reserve status were observed in female BRCA mutation carriers compared to controls in the context of ICSI-PGT treatment.

Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination.

BACKGROUND: Intentional endometrial injury is being proposed as a technique to improve the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Endometrial injury is often performed by pipelle biopsy and is a common gynaecological procedure with established safety. However, it causes a moderate degree of discomfort/pain and requires an additional pelvic examination. The effectiveness of this procedure outside of ART, in women or couples attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse or with intrauterine insemination (IUI), remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of intentional endometrial injury performed in infertile women or couples attempting to conceive through sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI). SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, ISI Web of Knowledge, and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to 21 May 2020, as were conference abstracts and reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any kind of intentional endometrial injury in women planning to undergo IUI or attempting to conceive spontaneously (with or without ovarian stimulation (OS)) compared to no intervention, a mock intervention, or intentional endometrial injury performed at a different time. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain experienced during the procedure. Due to high risk of bias associated with many of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 RCTs (3703 women). Most of these studies included women with unexplained infertility. Intentional endometrial injury versus either no intervention or a sham procedure The primary analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias, which left only one study included. We are uncertain whether endometrial injury has an effect on the probability of live birth, as only one study is included in the analysis and the confidence interval is wide (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.59; 1 RCT, 210 participants). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 34%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 27% to 55%. When all studies were included in the sensitivity analysis, we were uncertain whether endometrial injury improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy, as the evidence was of very low quality (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.21; 8 RCTs, 1522 participants; I² = 16%). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth/ongoing pregnancy with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 13%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 17% to 28%. A narrative synthesis conducted for the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure included studies measuring pain on a zero-to-ten visual analogue scale (VAS) or grading pain as mild/moderate/severe, and showed that most often mild to moderate pain was reported (6 RCTs, 911 participants; very low-quality evidence). Timing of intentional endometrial injury Four trials compared endometrial injury performed in the cycle before IUI to that performed in the same cycle as IUI. None of these studies reported the primary outcomes of live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain during the procedure. One study compared endometrial injury in the early follicular phase (EFP; Day 2 to 4) to endometrial injury in the late follicular phase (LFP; Day 7 to 9), both in the same cycle as IUI. The primary outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy was not reported, but the study did report the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure assessed by a zero-to-ten VAS. The average pain score was 3.67 (standard deviation (SD) 0.7) when endometrial injury was performed in the EFP and 3.84 (SD 0.96) when endometrial injury was performed in the LFP. The mean difference was -0.17, suggesting that on average, women undergoing endometrial injury in the EFP scored 0.17 points lower on the VAS as compared to women undergoing endometrial injury in the LFP (95% CI -0.48 to 0.14; 1 RCT, 110 participants; very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is insufficient to show whether there is a difference in live birth/ongoing pregnancy between endometrial injury and no intervention/a sham procedure in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution, as the evidence was of low to very low quality due to high risk of bias present in most included studies and an overall low level of precision. Furthermore, studies investigating the effect of timing of endometrial injury did not report the outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy; therefore no conclusions could be drawn for this outcome. Further well-conducted RCTs that recruit large numbers of participants and minimise bias are required to confirm or refute these findings. Current evidence is insufficient to support routine use of endometrial injury in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse.

Insights into ovarian response with a fixed low dose FSH stimulation in an IUI programme: the PRORAILS study.

STUDY QUESTION: Are patients' characteristics, such as anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) and BMI, reliable factors to predict ovarian response in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-OH)? SUMMARY ANSWER: We observed no solid relationship between serum AMH and ovarian response. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Ovarian stimulation during IUI treatment could lead to a higher chance of pregnancy, but also a higher incidence of multiple pregnancies, unless strict cancellation criteria are being used. Several factors could influence the result of the stimulation, such as age, BMI and hormonal status of the female. In IVF treatment, AMH has shown to be a useful predictor of ovarian stimulation to optimize the outcome; however, in a milder stimulation protocol, such as IUI, this has not been investigated. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a prospective cohort study and evaluated the first IUI stimulation cycle of 492 patients. The study was conducted between 2012 and 2017. Follow-up ended if patients were not pregnant after the first cycle. If pregnancy did occur, follow-up lasted until delivery. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: PRORAILS is a large multicentre nationwide cohort study executed in the Netherlands. Eligible women aged 18-43 years who were diagnosed with unexplained subfertility or mild male subfertility according to the Dutch guideline, with a regular indication for IUI-OH, were asked to participate. Ovarian response was assessed using a transvaginal ultrasound 5-7 days after initiation of the stimulation and was repeated according to the size of the leading follicles. Ovarian response was defined as optimal or suboptimal based on the total number of dominant follicles >15 mm. A successful stimulation was defined as the presence of two to three follicles >15 mm on the day of hCG administration. Serum AMH (µg/l) was measured by ELISA, and samples were taken on day 2, 3 or 4 of the menstrual cycle. Poisson regression was used to estimate the risk of a suboptimal ovarian response. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 492 participants, the mean age was 33 years and the mean subfertility duration was 2.5 years. The median serum AMH was 2.1 (µg/l). The majority of patients had a suboptimal response: 326 women (66%), of whom 224 (45%) had a hypo response (defined as 15 mm) and 102 (21%) had a hyper response (defined as more than three follicles sized >15 mm). The lowest AMH category showed a trend towards a smaller risk of a suboptimal response (relative risk ratio 0.76 (95% CI 0.54, 1.06)), but this effect did not reach statistical significance. In the prediction models, BMI and serum basal FSH were significant predictors of a hypo response, while for hyper response the factors age, BMI and serum FSH were significant. A higher BMI showed a higher risk for hypo response, as did a higher FSH whereas a lower BMI and lower FSH showed a higher risk for hyper response. The addition of AMH to the models did not improve the predictive abilities. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although the study was prospective, the main analyses were cross-sectional with characteristics measured at one time-point. The study was not powered to provide insight into predictors of pregnancy and live births and, therefore, the result for pregnancy should be interpreted with caution. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This was the first large multicentre study that investigated the characteristics of ovarian response categories using standardized methods and centrally analysed laboratory measures. PRORAILS is a nationwide study with 15 hospitals and, therefore, these results are generalizable to other hospitals in the Netherlands. This study provides high-quality outcomes advancing the subfertility research field. Future studies would benefit from a randomized design investigating the effectiveness of an individualized approach versus a fixed dose. Also, the relation between a good ovarian stimulation and pregnancy rate could be further investigated. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The PRORAILS study is sponsored by Merck B.V., Schiphol-Rijk, the Netherlands, an affiliation of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (EMR700623_612). Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, reviewed the manuscript prior to submission. The opinions remain those of the authors. Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, had no influence on the use of medication in this study. The recombinant FSH was mostly provided by Merck B.V. or MSD. F.B. is a member of the external advisory board for Merck B.V., Schiphol-Rijk, the Netherlands, and has received a research grant from Merck B.V., Schiphol-Rijk. H.v.B. is an employee from IQVIA, which is a commercial data-analysing company, and received payment for her part in the article. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01662180.

Genome-wide association study meta-analysis identifies three novel loci for circulating anti-Müllerian hormone levels in women.

STUDY QUESTION: Can additional genetic variants for circulating anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels be identified through a genome-wide association study (GWAS) meta-analysis including a large sample of premenopausal women? SUMMARY ANSWER: We identified four loci associated with AMH levels at P < 5 × 10-8: the previously reported MCM8 locus and three novel signals in or near AMH, TEX41 and CDCA7. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: AMH is expressed by antral stage ovarian follicles in women, and variation in age-specific circulating AMH levels has been associated with disease outcomes. However, the physiological mechanisms underlying these AMH-disease associations are largely unknown. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a GWAS meta-analysis in which we combined summary statistics of a previous AMH GWAS with GWAS data from 3705 additional women from three different cohorts. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In total, we included data from 7049 premenopausal female participants of European ancestry. The median age of study participants ranged from 15.3 to 48 years across cohorts. Circulating AMH levels were measured in either serum or plasma samples using different ELISA assays. Study-specific analyses were adjusted for age at blood collection and population stratification, and summary statistics were meta-analysed using a standard error-weighted approach. Subsequently, we functionally annotated GWAS variants that reached genome-wide significance (P < 5 × 10-8). We also performed a gene-based GWAS, pathway analysis and linkage disequilibrium score regression and Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We identified four loci associated with AMH levels at P < 5 × 10-8: the previously reported MCM8 locus and three novel signals in or near AMH, TEX41 and CDCA7. The strongest signal was a missense variant in the AMH gene (rs10417628). Most prioritized genes at the other three identified loci were involved in cell cycle regulation. Genetic correlation analyses indicated a strong positive correlation among single nucleotide polymorphisms for AMH levels and for age at menopause (rg = 0.82, FDR = 0.003). Exploratory two-sample MR analyses did not support causal effects of AMH on breast cancer or polycystic ovary syndrome risk, but should be interpreted with caution as they may be underpowered and the validity of genetic instruments could not be extensively explored. LARGE SCALE DATA: The full AMH GWAS summary statistics will made available after publication through the GWAS catalog (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/gwas/). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Whilst this study doubled the sample size of the most recent GWAS, the statistical power is still relatively low. As a result, we may still lack power to identify more genetic variants for AMH and to determine causal effects of AMH on, for example, breast cancer. Also, follow-up studies are needed to investigate whether the signal for the AMH gene is caused by reduced AMH detection by certain assays instead of actual lower circulating AMH levels. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Genes mapped to the MCM8, TEX41 and CDCA7 loci are involved in the cell cycle and processes such as DNA replication and apoptosis. The mechanism underlying their associations with AMH may affect the size of the ovarian follicle pool. Altogether, our results provide more insight into the biology of AMH and, accordingly, the biological processes involved in ovarian ageing. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Nurses' Health Study and Nurses' Health Study II were supported by research grants from the National Institutes of Health (CA172726, CA186107, CA50385, CA87969, CA49449, CA67262, CA178949). The UK Medical Research Council and Wellcome (217065/Z/19/Z) and the University of Bristol provide core support for ALSPAC. This publication is the work of the listed authors, who will serve as guarantors for the contents of this article. A comprehensive list of grants funding is available on the ALSPAC website (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/external/documents/grant-acknowledgements.pdf). Funding for the collection of genotype and phenotype data used here was provided by the British Heart Foundation (SP/07/008/24066), Wellcome (WT092830M and WT08806) and UK Medical Research Council (G1001357). M.C.B., A.L.G.S. and D.A.L. work in a unit that is funded by the University of Bristol and UK Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00011/6). M.C.B.'s contribution to this work was funded by a UK Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship (MR/P014054/1) and D.A.L. is a National Institute of Health Research Senior Investigator (NF-0616-10102). A.L.G.S. was supported by the study of Dynamic longitudinal exposome trajectories in cardiovascular and metabolic non-communicable diseases (H2020-SC1-2019-Single-Stage-RTD, project ID 874739). The Doetinchem Cohort Study was financially supported by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports of the Netherlands. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. Ansh Labs performed the AMH measurements for the Doetinchem Cohort Study free of charge. Ansh Labs was not involved in the data analysis, interpretation or reporting, nor was it financially involved in any aspect of the study. R.M.G.V. was funded by the Honours Track of MSc Epidemiology, University Medical Center Utrecht with a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) (022.005.021). The Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN) has grant support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), DHHS, through the National Institute on Aging (NIA), the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) and the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health (ORWH) (U01NR004061; U01AG012505, U01AG012535, U01AG012531, U01AG012539, U01AG012546, U01AG012553, U01AG012554, U01AG012495). The SWAN Genomic Analyses and SWAN Legacy have grant support from the NIA (U01AG017719). The Generations Study was funded by Breast Cancer Now and the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR). The ICR acknowledges NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. The content of this manuscript is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent official views of the funders. The Sister Study was funded by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Z01-ES044005 to D.P.S.); the AMH assays were supported by the Avon Foundation (02-2012-065 to H.B. Nichols and D.P.S.). The breast cancer genome-wide association analyses were supported by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the 'Ministère de l'Économie, de la Science et de l'Innovation du Québec' through Genome Québec and grant PSR-SIIRI-701, The National Institutes of Health (U19 CA148065, X01HG007492), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A16563, C1287/A10710) and The European Union (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175 and H2020 633784 and 634935). All studies and funders are listed in Michailidou et al. (Nature, 2017). F.J.M.B. has received fees and grant support from Merck Serono and Ferring BV. D.A.L. has received financial support from several national and international government and charitable funders as well as from Medtronic Ltd and Roche Diagnostics for research that is unrelated to this study. N.S. is scientific consultant for Ansh Laboratories. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Can hysterosalpingo-foam sonography replace hysterosalpingography as first-choice tubal patency test? A randomized non-inferiority trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) lead to similar pregnancy outcomes, compared with hysterosalpingography (HSG), as first-choice tubal patency test in infertile couples? SUMMARY ANSWER: HyFoSy and HSG produce similar findings in a majority of patients and clinical management based on the results of either HyFoSy or HSG, leads to comparable pregnancy outcomes. HyFoSy is experienced as significantly less painful. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Traditionally, tubal patency testing during fertility work-up is performed by HSG. HyFoSy is an alternative imaging technique lacking ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast medium exposure which is less expensive than HSG. Globally, there is a shift towards the use of office-based diagnostic methods, such as HyFoSy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This multicentre, prospective, comparative study with a randomized design was conducted in 26 hospitals in The Netherlands. Participating women underwent both HyFoSy and HSG in randomized order. In case of discordant results, women were randomly allocated to either a management strategy based on HyFoSy or one based on HSG. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We included infertile women between 18 and 41 years old who were scheduled for tubal patency testing during their fertility work-up. Women with anovulatory cycles not responding to ovulation induction, endometriosis, severe male infertility or a known iodine contrast allergy were excluded. The primary outcome for the comparison of the HyFoSy- and HSG-based strategies was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth within 12 months after inclusion in an intention-to-treat analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 women underwent HyFoSy and HSG. HyFoSy was inconclusive in 97 of them (9.5%), HSG was inconclusive in 30 (2.9%) and both were inconclusive in 9 (0.9%). In 747 women (73%) conclusive tests results were concordant. Of the 143/1026 (14%) with discordant results, 105 were randomized to clinical management based on the results of either HyFoSy or HSG. In this group, 22 of the 54 women (41%) allocated to management based on HyFoSy and 25 of 51 women (49%) allocated to management based on HSG had an ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth (Difference -8%; 95% CI: -27% to 10%). In total, clinical management based on the results of HyFoSy was estimated to lead to a live birth in 474 of 1026 women (46%) versus 486 of 1026 (47%) for management based on HSG (Difference -1.2%; 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%). Given the pre-defined margin of -2%, statistically significant non-inferiority of HyFoSy relative to HSG could not be demonstrated (P = 0.27). The mean pain score for HyFoSy on the 1-10 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was 3.1 (SD 2.2) and the mean VAS pain score for HSG was 5.4 (SD 2.5; P for difference < 0.001). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Since all women underwent both tubal patency tests, no conclusions on a direct therapeutic effect of tubal flushing could be drawn. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: HyFoSy or HSG produce similar tubal pathology findings in a majority of infertile couples and, where they differ, a difference in findings does not lead to substantial difference in pregnancy outcome, while HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The FOAM study was an investigator-initiated study funded by ZonMw, The Netherlands organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). ZonMw funded the whole project. IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm-foam® kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel and speaker fees from Guerbet. F.J.M.B. reports personal fees as a member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, The Netherlands, and a research support grant from Merck Serono, outside the submitted work. C.B.L. reports speakers' fee from Ferring in the past, and his department receives research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.V.W. reports leading The Netherlands Satellite of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for Guerbet and research funding from Merck and Guerbet. V.M. reports non-financial support from IQ medicals ventures, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4746/NL4587 (https://www.trialregister.nl). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 19 August 2014. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 7 May 2015.

Role of AMH in Prediction of Menopause.

Anti-Müllerian Hormone (AMH) is produced by small antral follicles and has evolved over the past three decades as an assumed potential marker of the number of follicles in the human ovaries, also known as ovarian reserve. This quantitative measure, given the gradual decline over time and its non-replenishable feature, could be the dreamed marker for predicting the final exhaustion of ovarian storage: the post-menopause. This introductory chapter summarizes current knowledge with regard to the contribution of serum AMH measurements to predict age of normal menopause and critically discuss its potential in this regard. Furthermore, its predictive role in the context of menopause in association with several frequently occurring fertility disorders such as premature menopause, polycystic ovarian syndrome and endometriosis are discussed. Overall, while ovarian reserve markers including AMH are unmistakably related to age at menopause, they are insufficiently precise to inform on an individual's journey of ovarian aging.

Lifestyle intervention prior to IVF does not improve embryo utilization rate and cumulative live birth rate in women with obesity: a nested cohort study.

STUDY QUESTION: Does lifestyle intervention consisting of an energy-restricted diet, enhancement of physical activity and motivational counseling prior to IVF improve embryo utilization rate (EUR) and cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) in women with obesity? SUMMARY ANSWER: A 6-month lifestyle intervention preceding IVF improved neither EUR nor CLBR in women with obesity in the first IVF treatment cycle where at least one oocyte was retrieved. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) evaluating the efficacy of a low caloric liquid formula diet (LCD) preceding IVF in women with obesity was unable to demonstrate an effect of LCD on embryo quality and live birth rate: in this study, only one fresh embryo transfer (ET) or, in case of freeze-all strategy, the first transfer with frozen-thawed embryos was reported. We hypothesized that any effect on embryo quality of a lifestyle intervention in women with obesity undergoing IVF treatment is better revealed by EUR and CLBR after transfer of all fresh and frozen-thawed embryos. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This is a nested cohort study within an RCT, the LIFEstyle study. The original study examined whether a 6-month lifestyle intervention prior to infertility treatment in women with obesity improved live birth rate, compared to prompt infertility treatment within 24 months after randomization. In the original study between 2009 and 2012, 577 (three women withdrew informed consent) women with obesity and infertility were assigned to a lifestyle intervention followed by infertility treatment (n = 289) or to prompt infertility treatment (n = 285). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Only participants from the LIFEstyle study who received IVF treatment were eligible for the current analysis. In total, 137 participants (n = 58 in the intervention group and n = 79 in the control group) started the first cycle. In 25 participants, the first cycle was cancelled prior to oocyte retrieval mostly due to poor response. Sixteen participants started a second or third consecutive cycle. The first cycle with successful oocyte retrieval was used for this analysis, resulting in analysis of 51 participants in the intervention group and 72 participants in the control group. Considering differences in embryo scoring methods and ET day strategy between IVF centers, we used EUR as a proxy for embryo quality. EUR was defined as the proportion of inseminated/injected oocytes per cycle that was transferred or cryopreserved as an embryo. Analysis was performed per cycle and per oocyte/embryo. CLBR was defined as the percentage of participants with at least one live birth from the first fresh and subsequent frozen-thawed ET(s). In addition, we calculated the Z-score for singleton neonatal birthweight and compared these outcomes between the two groups. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The overall mean age was 31.6 years and the mean BMI was 35.4 ± 3.2 kg/m2 in the intervention group, and 34.9 ± 2.9 kg/m2 in the control group. The weight change at 6 months was in favor of the intervention group (mean difference in kg vs the control group: -3.14, 95% CI: -5.73 to -0.56). The median (Q25; Q75) number of oocytes retrieved was 4.00 (2.00; 8.00) in the intervention group versus 6.00 (4.00; 9.75) in the control group, and was not significantly different, as was the number of oocytes inseminated/injected (4.00 [2.00; 8.00] vs 6.00 [3.00; 8.75]), normal fertilized embryos (2.00 [0.50; 5.00] vs 3.00 [1.00; 5.00]) and the number of cryopreserved embryos (2.00 [1.25; 4.75] vs 2.00 [1.00; 4.00]). The median (Q25; Q75) EUR was 33.3% (12.5%; 60.0%) in the intervention group and 33.3% (16.7%; 50.0%) in the control group in the per cycle analysis (adjusted B: 2.7%, 95% CI: -8.6% to 14.0%). In the per oocyte/embryo analysis, in total, 280 oocytes were injected or inseminated in the intervention group, 113 were utilized (transferred or cryopreserved, EUR = 40.4%); in the control group, EUR was 30.8% (142/461). The lifestyle intervention did not significantly improve EUR (adjusted odds ratio [OR]: 1.36, 95% CI: 0.94-1.98) in the per oocyte/embryo analysis, taking into account the interdependency of the oocytes per participant. CLBR was not significantly different between the intervention group and the control group after adjusting for type of infertility (male factor and unexplained) and smoking (27.5% vs 22.2%, adjusted OR: 1.03, 95% CI: 0.43-2.47). Singleton neonatal birthweight and Z-score were not significantly different between the two groups. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study is a nested cohort study within an RCT, and no power calculation was performed. The randomization was not stratified for indicated treatment, and although we corrected our analyses for baseline differences, there may be residual confounding. The limited absolute weight loss and the short duration of the lifestyle intervention might be insufficient to affect EUR and CLBR. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our data do not support the hypothesis of a beneficial short-term effect of lifestyle intervention on EUR and CLBR after IVF in women with obesity, although more studies are needed as there may be a potential clinically relevant effect on EUR. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The study was supported by a grant from ZonMw, the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (50-50110-96-518). A.H. has received an unrestricted educational grant from Ferring pharmaceuticals BV, The Netherlands. B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for Guerbet, has been a member of the ObsEva advisory board and holds Stock options for ObsEva. B.W.J.M. has received research funding from Guerbet, Ferring and Merck. F.J.M.B. reports personal fees from membership of the external advisory board for Merck Serono and a research support grant from Merck Serono, outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The LIFEstyle RCT was registered at the Dutch trial registry (NTR 1530). https://www.trialregister.nl/trialreg/admin/rctview.asp?TC=1530.

Long-Term Risk of Ovarian Cancer and Borderline Tumors After Assisted Reproductive Technology.

BACKGROUND: Long-term effects of assisted reproductive technology (ART) on ovarian tumor risk are unknown. METHODS: This nationwide cohort study comprises 30 625 women who received ovarian stimulation for ART in 1983-2000 and 9988 subfertile women not treated with ART. Incident invasive and borderline ovarian tumors were ascertained through linkage with the Netherlands Cancer Registry and the Dutch Pathology Registry until July 2018. Ovarian tumor risk in ART-treated women was compared with risks in the general population and the subfertile non-ART group. Statistical tests were 2-sided. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 24 years, 158 invasive and 100 borderline ovarian tumors were observed. Ovarian cancer risk in the ART group was increased compared with the general population (standardized incidence ratio [SIR] = 1.43, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.18 to 1.71) but not when compared with the non-ART group (age- and parity-adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.02, 95% CI = 0.70 to 1.50). Risk decreased with higher parity and with a larger number of successful ART cycles (resulting in childbirth, Ptrend = .001) but was not associated with the number of unsuccessful ART cycles. Borderline ovarian tumor risk was increased in ART-treated women compared with the general population (SIR = 2.20, 95% CI = 1.66 to 2.86) and with non-ART women (HR = 1.84, 95% CI = 1.08 to 3.14). Risk did not increase with more ART cycles or longer follow-up time. CONCLUSIONS: Increased ovarian cancer risk in ART-treated women compared with the general population is likely explained by nulliparity rather than ART treatment. The increased risk of borderline ovarian tumors after ART must be interpreted with caution because no dose-response relationship was observed.

Increased obstetric and neonatal risks in artificial cycles for frozen embryo transfers?

RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the obstetric and neonatal risks for women conceiving via frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) during a modified natural cycle compared with an artificial cycle method. DESIGN: A follow-up study to the ANTARCTICA randomized controlled trial (RCT) (NTR 1586) conducted in the Netherlands, which showed that modified natural cycle FET (NC-FET) was non-inferior to artificial cycle FET (AC-FET) in terms of live birth rates. The current study collected data on obstetric and neonatal outcomes of 98 women who had a singleton live birth. The main outcome was birthweight; additional outcomes included hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, premature birth, gestational diabetes, obstetric haemorrhage and neonatal outcomes including Apgar scores and admission to the neonatal ward or the neonatal intensive care unit and congenital anomalies. RESULTS: Data from 82 out of 98 women were analysed according to the per protocol principle. There was no significant difference in the birthweights of children born between groups (mean difference -124 g [-363 g to 114 g]; P = 0.30). Women who conceived by modified NC-FET have a decreased risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy compared with AC-FET (relative risk 0.27; 95% CI 0.08-0.94; P = 0.031). Other outcomes, such as rates of premature birth, gestational diabetes or obstetric haemorrhage and neonatal outcomes, were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The interpretation is that modified NC-FET is the preferred treatment in women with ovulatory cycles undergoing FET when the increased risk of obstetrical complications and potential neonatal complications in AC-FET are considered.

Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination.

BACKGROUND: Intentional endometrial injury is being proposed as a technique to improve the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Endometrial injury is often performed by pipelle biopsy and is a common gynaecological procedure with established safety. However, it causes a moderate degree of discomfort/pain and requires an additional pelvic examination. The effectiveness of this procedure outside of ART, in women or couples attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse or with intrauterine insemination (IUI), remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of intentional endometrial injury performed in infertile women or couples attempting to conceive through sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI). SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, ISI Web of Knowledge, and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to 21 May 2020, as were conference abstracts and reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any kind of intentional endometrial injury in women planning to undergo IUI or attempting to conceive spontaneously (with or without ovarian stimulation (OS)) compared to no intervention, a mock intervention, or intentional endometrial injury performed at a different time or to a higher/lower degree. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain experienced during the procedure. Due to high risk of bias associated with many of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 RCTs (4035 women). Most of these studies included women with unexplained infertility. Intentional endometrial injury versus either no intervention or a sham procedure The primary analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias, which left only one study included. We are uncertain whether endometrial injury has an effect on the probability of live birth, as only one study is included in the analysis and the confidence interval is wide (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.59; 1 RCT, 210 participants). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 34%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 27% to 55%. When all studies were included in the sensitivity analysis, we were uncertain whether endometrial injury improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy, as the evidence was of very low quality (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.21; 8 RCTs, 1522 participants; I² = 16%). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth/ongoing pregnancy with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 13%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 17% to 28%. A narrative synthesis conducted for the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure included studies measuring pain on a zero-to-ten visual analogue scale (VAS) or grading pain as mild/moderate/severe, and showed that most often mild to moderate pain was reported (6 RCTs, 911 participants; very low-quality evidence). Higher versus lower degree of intentional endometrial injury Evidence was insufficient to show whether there is a difference in ongoing pregnancy rates (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.35; 1 RCT, 332 participants; low-quality evidence) between hysteroscopy with endometrial injury and hysteroscopy alone. Evidence suggests that if the chance of ongoing pregnancy with hysteroscopy alone is 10%, then the chance with hysteroscopy with endometrial injury would be 7% to 24%. This study did not report the primary outcomes of live birth and pain during the procedure. Timing of intentional endometrial injury Four trials compared endometrial injury performed in the cycle before IUI to that performed in the same cycle as IUI. None of these studies reported the primary outcomes of live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain during the procedure. One study compared endometrial injury in the early follicular phase (EFP; Day 2 to 4) to endometrial injury in the late follicular phase (LFP; Day 7 to 9), both in the same cycle as IUI. The primary outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy was not reported, but the study did report the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure assessed by a zero-to-ten VAS. The average pain score was 3.67 (standard deviation (SD) 0.7) when endometrial injury was performed in the EFP and 3.84 (SD 0.96) when endometrial injury was performed in the LFP. The mean difference was -0.17, suggesting that on average, women undergoing endometrial injury in the EFP scored 0.17 points lower on the VAS as compared to women undergoing endometrial injury in the LFP (95% CI -0.48 to 0.14; 1 RCT, 110 participants; very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is insufficient to show whether there is a difference in live birth/ongoing pregnancy between endometrial injury and no intervention/a sham procedure in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution, as the evidence was of low to very low quality due to high risk of bias present in most included studies and an overall low level of precision. Furthermore, studies investigating the effect of timing of endometrial injury did not report the outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy; therefore no conclusions could be drawn for this outcome. Further well-conducted RCTs that recruit large numbers of participants and minimise bias are required to confirm or refute these findings. Current evidence is insufficient to support routine use of endometrial injury in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse.

Young women's opinions on the use of a blood test to predict the possibility of premature ovarian failure: a qualitative study.

The anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) test is increasingly being used to predict the age when women will enter menopause, signalling the end of their reproductive life. However, the accuracy of the AMH test varies widely. In this qualitative study, we asked young women of three differing education levels about the possibility of predicting premature ovarian failure (POF), defined as menopause that occurs before the age of 40. A total of 15 face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted. The overarching theme was 'considering the possibility of predicting POF', and the three interpretive themes were (i) limited fertility knowledge, (ii) preconditions for pregnancy and (iii) desire to have children. The interview was their first awareness of the concept of POF. All the women who participated in this study wished to have children at some point later in life and tended to think more about fulfilling preconditions before getting pregnant than about their actual fertility. Most participants (n = 8) were interested in the AMH test regardless of their education level. Five participants wanted to take the test in the future. This research provides some insight into young women's current thoughts about the possibility of predicting POF with an AMH test.