Inflammatory and metabolic markers in relation to outcome of in vitro fertilization in a cohort of predominantly overweight and obese women.

For overweight and obese women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) the pregnancy and live birth rates are compromised while the underlying mechanisms and predictors are unclear. The aim was to explore the association between adipose tissue-related inflammatory and metabolic markers and the pregnancy and live birth outcome of IVF in a cohort of predominantly overweight and obese women. Serum samples, fulfilling standardizing criteria, were identified from 195 women having participated in either the control (n = 131) or intervention (n = 64) group of a randomized controlled trial (RCT), seeking to evaluate the effect of a weight reduction intervention on IVF outcome in obese women. Serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hsCRP) and the adipokines leptin and adipocyte fatty acid-binding protein (AFABP) were analyzed for the whole cohort (n = 195) in samples collected shortly before IVF [at randomization (control group), after intervention (intervention group)]. Information on age, anthropometry [BMI, waist circumference, waist-to-height ratio (WHtR)], pregnancy and live birth rates after IVF, as well as the spontaneous pregnancy rate, was extracted or calculated from collected data. The women of the original intervention group were also characterized at randomization regarding all variables. Eight women [n = 3 original control group (2.3%), n = 5 original intervention group (7.8%)] conceived spontaneously before starting IVF. BMI category proportions in the cohort undergoing IVF (n = 187) were 1.6/20.1/78.3% (normal weight/overweight/obese). The pregnancy and live birth rates after IVF for the cohort were 35.8% (n = 67) and 24.6% (n = 46), respectively. Multivariable logistic regression revealed that none of the variables (age, hsCRP, leptin, AFABP, BMI, waist circumference, WHtR) were predictive factors of pregnancy or live birth after IVF. Women of the original intervention group displayed reductions in hsCRP, leptin, and anthropometric variables after intervention while AFABP was unchanged. In this cohort of predominantly overweight and obese women undergoing IVF, neither low-grade inflammation, in terms of hsCRP, other circulating inflammatory and metabolic markers released from adipose tissue (leptin, AFABP), nor anthropometric measures of adiposity or adipose tissue distribution (BMI, waist, WHtR) were identified as predictive factors of pregnancy or live birth rate.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01566929. Trial registration date 30-03-2012, retrospectively registered.

A double-blind randomized controlled trial investigating a time-lapse algorithm for selecting Day 5 blastocysts for transfer.

STUDY QUESTION: Can use of a commercially available time-lapse algorithm for Day 5 blastocyst selection improve pregnancy rates compared with morphology alone? SUMMARY ANSWER: The use of a time-lapse selection model to choose blastocysts for fresh single embryo transfer on Day 5 did not improve ongoing pregnancy rate compared to morphology alone. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Evidence from time-lapse monitoring suggests correlations between timing of key developmental events and embryo viability. No good quality evidence exists to support improved pregnancy rates following time-lapse selection. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A prospective multicenter randomized controlled trial including 776 randomized patients was performed between 2018 and 2021. Patients with at least two good quality blastocysts on Day 5 were allocated by a computer randomization program in a proportion of 1:1 into either the control group, whereby single blastocysts were selected for transfer by morphology alone, or the intervention group whereby final selection was decided by a commercially available time-lapse model. The embryologists at the time of blastocyst morphological scoring were blinded to which study group the patients would be randomized, and the physician and patients were blind to which group they were allocated until after the primary outcome was known. The primary outcome was number of ongoing pregnancies in the two groups. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: From 10 Nordic IVF clinics, 776 patients with a minimum of two good quality blastocysts on Day 5 (D5) were randomized into one of the two study groups. A commercial time-lapse model decided the final selection of blastocysts for 387 patients in the intervention (time-lapse) group, and blastocysts with the highest morphological score were transferred for 389 patients in the control group. Only single embryo transfers in fresh cycles were performed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In the full analysis set, the ongoing pregnancy rate for the time-lapse group was 47.4% (175/369) and 48.1% (181/376) in the control group. No statistically significant difference was found between the two groups: mean difference -0.7% (95% CI -8.2, 6.7, P = 0.90). Pregnancy rate (60.2% versus 59.0%, mean difference 1.1%, 95% CI -6.2, 8.4, P = 0.81) and early pregnancy loss (21.2% versus 18.5%, mean difference 2.7%, 95% CI -5.2, 10.6, P = 0.55) were the same for the time-lapse and the control group. Subgroup analyses showed that patient and treatment characteristics did not significantly affect the commercial time-lapse model D5 performance. In the time-lapse group, the choice of best blastocyst changed on 42% of occasions (154/369, 95% CI 36.9, 47.2) after the algorithm was applied, and this rate was similar for most treatment clinics. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: During 2020, the patient recruitment rate slowed down at participating clinics owing to coronavirus disease-19 restrictions, so the target sample size was not achieved as planned and it was decided to stop the trial prematurely. The study only investigated embryo selection at the blastocyst stage on D5 in fresh IVF transfer cycles. In addition, only blastocysts of good morphological quality were considered for transfer, limiting the number of embryos for selection in both groups: also, it could be argued that this manual preselection of blastocysts limits the theoretical selection power of time-lapse, as well as restricting the results mainly to a good prognosis patient group. Most patients were aimed for blastocyst stage transfer when a minimum of five zygotes were available for extended culture. Finally, the primary clinical outcome evaluated was pregnancy to only 6-8 weeks. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The study suggests that time-lapse selection with a commercially available time-lapse model does not increase chance of ongoing pregnancy after single blastocyst transfer on Day 5 compared to morphology alone. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was financed by a grant from the Swedish state under the ALF-agreement between the Swedish government and the county councils (ALFGBG-723141). Vitrolife supported the study with embryo culture dishes and culture media. During the study period, T.H. changed his employment from Livio AB to Vitrolife AB. All other authors have no conflicts of interests to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov registration number NCT03445923. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 26 February 2018. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 11 June 2018.

Preimplantation genetic testing legislation and accessibility in the Nordic countries.

INTRODUCTION: Assisted reproduction technologies are being rapidly developed and implementation of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) has allowed patients with genetic disorders to initiate pregnancies while minimizing or eliminating the risk of transmitting these disorders to their offspring. Testing for numeric chromosomal anomalies has been proposed as a way to increase efficacy in assisted reproduction; however, this remains disputed. Legislation is lagging behind the rapid developments in this field. MATERIAL AND METHODS: We conducted a structured online survey of legislation and accessibility to preimplantation genetic testing in the Nordic countries to compare the regulation and uptake of this technique. The survey was designed and answered by the authors. RESULTS: Key elements in the regulation of preimplantation testing for monogenic disorders and structural rearrangements are similar in the Nordic countries, although accessibility varies since only Denmark, Finland, and Sweden have national clinics offering treatment. In addition, Denmark and Finland have private clinics offering PGT. Regulation is the most stringent in Norway where a national board evaluates all couples seeking treatment. Treatment volumes vary between the Nordic countries, with Norway and Finland having lowest treatment numbers. Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in the embryo varies between the Nordic countries: Finland and Iceland allow this form of treatment, Denmark and Sweden offer it only in the form of a research protocol, and Norway does not allow it at all. Therefore the number of treatment cycles involving testing for embryo aneuploidy are lower in the Nordic countries than in other countries where this treatment option is more common. CONCLUSIONS: Science needs to inform politics regarding the rapidly evolving field of reproductive medicine and we recommend harmonization of legislation and accessibility between the Nordic countries.

No effect of weight intervention on perinatal outcomes in obese women scheduled for in vitro fertilization treatment.

INTRODUCTION: Large observational studies have shown that obstetric and perinatal outcomes are negatively affected in obese women. In contrast, a recent Dutch randomized trial of infertile women and lifestyle weight intervention found no difference between the weight intervention group and the control group in obstetric or neonatal outcomes. We have recently published a large Nordic randomized trial where obese women scheduled for in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment went through an intensive weight intervention treatment before IVF. No significant effect on live birth rate was found, despite large weight loss in the intervention group. The present study was conducted primarily to find out the effect of weight intervention in obese women scheduled for IVF on mean birthweight and mean deviation from expected birthweight, and secondarily the effect on other perinatal and maternal outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A secondary analysis of a prospective, randomized controlled trial performed between 2010 and 2016 in the Nordic countries was performed. In all, 317 women were randomized either to weight reduction and IVF treatment (n = 160) or IVF only (n = 157) and the primary end-point was live birth. From this study, all births were analyzed for perinatal and maternal outcomes. Nine infertility clinics participated, including women < 38 years of age planning for IVF, and having a body mass index ≥ 30 and < 35 kg/m2 . Data concerning perinatal and maternal outcomes were gathered from maternal health-care and delivery records for mother and child. All analyses were performed on singletons only. RESULTS: There were 87 live births, 45 singletons in the intervention group and 41 singletons and one twin birth in the control group. The maternal characteristics for the women having a live birth were comparable in the two groups. The primary outcomes, mean birthweight, in the weight intervention and IVF group and the IVF only group were; 3486 g (standard deviation [SD] 523) vs 3584 g (SD 509) (P = 0.46), mean difference -98.6 g (95% confidence interval [CI] -320.3 to 123.2); deviation from expected birthweight 0.25% (SD 10.4) vs 0.87% (SD 12.9), mean difference 1.1% (95% CI -6.1 to 3.9). The estimates of the secondary perinatal and maternal outcomes in the 2 groups were: preterm birth < 37 weeks 2 (4.4%) vs 1 (2.4%) (odds ratio [OR] 1.95; 95% CI 0.17-22.36), small-for-gestational-age 0 (0%) vs 1 (2.4%), mean gestational age (days) 278 vs 280 (P = 0.95), preeclampsia 5 (11.1%) vs 4 (9.8%) (OR 1.19; 95% CI 0.30-4.76), cesarean section 13 (28.9%) vs 10 (24.4%) (OR 1.14; 95% CI 0.45-2.94). CONCLUSIONS: The outcomes in both groups were generally good. There are no indications that weight intervention in this setting, in infertile women with obesity WHO class 1 undergoing IVF, has a negative impact on mean birthweight and deviation from expected birthweight. However, the data are not sufficiently robust to draw firm conclusions concerning other outcomes.

Weight reduction intervention for obese infertile women prior to IVF: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does an intensive weight reduction programme prior to IVF increase live birth rates for infertile obese women? SUMMARY ANSWER: An intensive weight reduction programme resulted in a large weight loss but did not substantially affect live birth rates in obese women scheduled for IVF. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN: Among obese women, fertility and obstetric outcomes are influenced negatively with increased risk of miscarriage and a higher risk of maternal and neonatal complications. A recent large randomized controlled trial found no effect of lifestyle intervention on live birth in infertile obese women. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A prospective, multicentre, randomized controlled trial was performed between 2010 and 2016 in the Nordic countries. In total, 962 women were assessed for eligibility and 317 women were randomized. Computerized randomization with concealed allocation was performed in the proportions 1:1 to one of two groups: weight reduction intervention followed by IVF-treatment or IVF-treatment only. One cycle per patient was included. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Nine infertility clinics in Sweden, Denmark and Iceland participated. Women under 38 years of age planning IVF, and having a BMI ≥30 and <35 kg/m2 were randomized to two groups: an intervention group (160 patients) with weight reduction before IVF, starting with 12 weeks of a low calorie liquid formula diet (LCD) of 880 kcal/day and thereafter weight stabilization for 2-5 weeks, or a control group (157 patients) with IVF only. MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE: In the full analysis set (FAS), the live birth rate was 29.6% (45/152) in the weight reduction and IVF group and 27.5% (42/153) in the IVF only group. The difference was not statistically significant (difference 2.2%, 95% CI: 12.9 to -8.6, P = 0.77). The mean weight change was -9.44 (6.57) kg in the weight reduction and IVF group as compared to +1.19 (1.95) kg in the IVF only group, being highly significant (P < 0.0001). Significantly more live births were achieved through spontaneous pregnancies in the weight reduction and IVF group, 10.5% (16) as compared to the IVF only group 2.6% (4) (P = 0.009). Miscarriage rates and gonadotropin dose used for IVF stimulation did not differ between groups. Two subgroup analyses were performed. The first compared women with PCOS in the two randomized groups, and the second compared women in the weight reduction group reaching BMI ≤ 25 kg/m2 or reaching a weight loss of at least five BMI units to the IVF only group. No statistical differences in live birth rates between the groups in either subgroup analysis were found. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION: The study was not powered to detect a small increase in live births due to weight reduction and was not blinded for the patients or physician. Further, the intervention group had a longer time to achieve a spontaneous pregnancy, but were therefore slightly older than the control group at IVF. The study only included women with a BMI lower than 35 kg/m2. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The study suggests that weight loss for obese women (BMI: 30-34.9 kg/m2) may not rectify the outcome in IVF cycles, although a significant higher number of spontaneous conceptions occurred in the weight loss group. Also, the study suggests that intensive weight reduction with LCD treatment does not negatively affects the results. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was funded by Sahlgrenska University Hospital (ALFGBG-70 940), Merck AB, Solna, Sweden (an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), Impolin AB, Hjalmar Svensson Foundation and Jane and Dan Olsson Foundation. Dr Thurin-Kjellberg reports grants from Merck, non-financial support from Impolin AB, during the conduct of the study, and personal fees from Merck outside the submitted work. Dr Friberg reports personal fees from Ferring, Merck, MSD, Finox and personal fees from Studentlitteratur, outside the submitted work. Dr Englund reports personal fees from Ferring, and non-financial support from Merck, outside the submitted work. Dr Bergh reports and has been reimbursed for: writing a newsletter twice a year (Ferring), lectures (Ferring, MSD, Merck), and Nordic working group meetings (Finox). Dr Karlström reports lectures (Ferring, Finox, Merck, MSD) and Nordic working group meetings (Ferring). Ms Kluge, Dr Einarsson, Dr Pinborg, Dr Klajnbard, Dr Stenlöf, Dr Larsson, Dr Loft and Dr Wistrand have nothing to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01566929. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 23-03-2012. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 05-10-2010.

Ovarian tissue cryopreservation and transplantation among alternatives for fertility preservation in the Nordic countries - compilation of 20 years of multicenter experience.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to report the current status of ovarian tissue cryopreservation among alternatives for fertility preservation in the Nordic countries. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to 14 Nordic academic reproductive centers with established fertility preservation programs. It covered fertility preservation cases performed up to December 2014, standard procedures for ovarian tissue cryopreservation and oocyte cryopreservation and reproductive outcomes following ovarian tissue transplantation. RESULTS: Among the Nordic countries, Denmark and Norway practice ovarian tissue cryopreservation as a clinical treatment (822 and 164 cases, respectively) and their programs are centralized. In Sweden (457 cases), ovarian tissue cryopreservation is practiced at five of six centers and in Finland at all five centers (145 cases). Nearly all considered ovarian tissue cryopreservation to be experimental. In Iceland, embryo cryopreservation is the only option for fertility preservation. Most centers use slow-freezing methods for ovarian tissue cryopreservation. Most patients selected for ovarian tissue cryopreservation were newly diagnosed with cancer and the tissue was predominantly retrieved laparoscopically by unilateral oophorectomy. Only minor complications were reported. In total, 46 women have undergone ovarian tissue transplantation aiming at recovering fertility, 17 healthy children have been born and several additional pregnancies are currently ongoing. Whenever patients' clinical condition is permissive, oocyte cryopreservation after hormonal stimulation is preferred for fertility preservation. Between 2012 and 2014, a smaller proportion of females have undergone fertility preservation in the Nordic centers, in comparison to males (1:3). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, ovarian tissue cryopreservation was reported to be safe. Slow freezing methods are still preferred. Promising results of recovery of fertility have been reported in Nordic countries that have initiated ovarian tissue transplantation procedures.