Ovarian stimulation strategies for intrauterine insemination in couples with unexplained infertility: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Intrauterine insemination with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) is a first-line treatment for unexplained infertility. Gonadotrophins, letrozole and clomiphene citrate (CC) are commonly used agents during IUI-OS and have been compared in multiple aggregate data meta-analyses, with substantial heterogeneity and no analysis on time-to-event outcomes. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) is considered the gold standard for evidence synthesis as it can offset inadequate reporting of individual studies by obtaining the IPD, and allows analyses on treatment-covariate interactions to identify couples who benefit most from a particular treatment. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: We performed this IPD-MA to compare the effectiveness and safety of ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophins, letrozole and CC and to explore treatment-covariate interactions for important baseline characteristics in couples undergoing IUI. SEARCH METHODS: We searched electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and PsycINFO from their inception to 28 June 2021. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IUI-OS with gonadotrophins, letrozole and CC among couples with unexplained infertility. We contacted the authors of eligible RCTs to share the IPD and established the IUI IPD-MA Collaboration. The primary effectiveness outcome was live birth and the primary safety outcome was multiple pregnancy. Secondary outcomes were other reproductive outcomes, including time to conception leading to live birth. We performed a one-stage random effects IPD-MA. OUTCOMES: Seven of 22 (31.8%) eligible RCTs provided IPD of 2495 couples (62.4% of the 3997 couples participating in 22 RCTs), of which 2411 had unexplained infertility and were included in this IPD-MA. Six RCTs (n = 1511) compared gonadotrophins with CC, and one (n = 900) compared gonadotrophins, letrozole and CC. Moderate-certainty evidence showed that gonadotrophins increased the live birth rate compared to CC (6 RCTs, 2058 women, RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.12-1.51, I2 = 26%). Low-certainty evidence showed that gonadotrophins may also increase the multiple pregnancy rate compared to CC (6 RCTs, 2058 women, RR 2.17, 95% CI 1.33-3.54, I2 = 69%). Heterogeneity on multiple pregnancy could be explained by differences in gonadotrophin starting dose and choice of cancellation criteria. Post-hoc sensitivity analysis on RCTs with a low starting dose of gonadotrophins (≤75 IU) confirmed increased live birth rates compared to CC (5 RCTs, 1457 women, RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05-1.51), but analysis on only RCTs with stricter cancellation criteria showed inconclusive evidence on live birth (4 RCTs, 1238 women, RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.94-1.41). For multiple pregnancy, both sensitivity analyses showed inconclusive findings between gonadotrophins and CC (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.45-1.96; RR 0.81, 95% CI 0.32-2.03, respectively). Moderate certainty evidence showed that gonadotrophins reduced the time to conception leading to a live birth when compared to CC (6 RCTs, 2058 women, HR 1.37, 95% CI 1.15-1.63, I2 = 22%). No strong evidence on the treatment-covariate (female age, BMI or primary versus secondary infertility) interactions was found. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: In couples with unexplained infertility undergoing IUI-OS, gonadotrophins increased the chance of a live birth and reduced the time to conception compared to CC, at the cost of a higher multiple pregnancy rate, when not differentiating strategies on cancellation criteria or the starting dose. The treatment effects did not seem to differ in women of different age, BMI or primary versus secondary infertility. In a modern practice where a lower starting dose and stricter cancellation criteria are in place, effectiveness and safety of different agents seem both acceptable, and therefore intervention availability, cost and patients' preferences should factor in the clinical decision-making. As the evidence for comparisons to letrozole is based on one RCT providing IPD, further RCTs comparing letrozole and other interventions for unexplained infertility are needed.

Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study.

STUDY QUESTION: Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified? SUMMARY ANSWER: The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction, and ethics, access, and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management, and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines, and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction, and ethics, access, and organization of care. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems, and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties were entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities, and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI, and IVF), and ethics, access, and organization of care, were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment, and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings, and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research, and population science. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgement, and arbitrary consensus definitions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems, and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda. STUDY FUNDING/ COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Geoffrey Adamson reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies, and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. Andrew Horne reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist's Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from Abbvie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma, and Roche Diagnostics. M. Louise Hull reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. Neil Johnson reports research sponsorship from Abb-Vie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics, and Vifor Pharma. José Knijnenburg reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Craig Niederberger reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. Jane Stewart reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring, and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Jack Wilkinson reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. Andy Vail reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from HFEA for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. Lan Vuong reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study.

STUDY QUESTION: Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection, and reporting across future infertility research be developed? SUMMARY ANSWER: A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions, and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers, and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin, and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition, and an arbitrary consensus threshold. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection, and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Ferility and Sterility, and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. José Knijnenburg reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Craig Niederberger reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Lan Vuong reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study.

STUDY QUESTION: Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting? SUMMARY ANSWER: Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements, and a standardized reporting table have been developed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers, and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines, and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms, and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Craig Niederberger reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and a financial interest in NexHand. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Jack Wilkinson reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. Andy Vail reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from HFEA for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. Lan Vuong reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study† ‡.

STUDY QUESTION: Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting? SUMMARY ANSWER: Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements and a standardized reporting table have been developed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and a financial interest in NexHand. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study† ‡.

STUDY QUESTION: Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified? SUMMARY ANSWER: The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties was entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI and IVF) and ethics, access and organization of care were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research and population science. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgment and arbitrary consensus definitions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. G.D.A. reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. A.W.H. reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist's Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma and Roche Diagnostics. M.L.H. reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. N.P.J. reports research sponsorship from AbbVie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics and Vifor Pharma. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring and retains a financial interest in NexHand. J.S. reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study† ‡.

STUDY QUESTION: Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection and reporting across future infertility research be developed? SUMMARY ANSWER: A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition and an arbitrary consensus threshold. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study, the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of data, or manuscript preparation. B.W.J.M. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). S.B. was supported by University of Auckland Foundation Seelye Travelling Fellowship. S.B. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

Evidence summaries and recommendations from the international evidence-based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome: assessment and treatment of infertility.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the recommended assessment and management of infertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), based on the best available evidence, clinical expertize and consumer preference? SUMMARY ANSWER: International evidence-based guidelines, including 44 recommendations and practice points, addressed prioritized questions to promote consistent, evidence-based care and improve the experience and health outcomes of infertile women with PCOS. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Previous guidelines on PCOS lacked rigorous evidence-based processes, failed to engage consumer and multidisciplinary perspectives or were outdated. The assessment and management of infertile women with PCOS are inconsistent. The needs of women with PCOS are not being adequately met and evidence practice gaps persist. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Governance included a six continent international advisory and a project board, a multidisciplinary international guideline development group (GDG), consumer and translation committees. Extensive health professional and consumer engagement informed the guideline scope and priorities. The engaged international society-nominated panel included endocrinology, gynaecology, reproductive endocrinology, obstetrics, public health and other experts, alongside consumers, project management, evidence synthesis and translation experts. Thirty-seven societies and organizations covering 71 countries engaged in the process. Extensive online communication and two face-to-face meetings over 15 months addressed 19 prioritized clinical questions involving nine evidence-based reviews and 10 narrative reviews. Evidence-based recommendations (EBRs) were formulated prior to consensus voting within the guideline panel. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: International evidence-based guideline development engaged professional societies and consumer organizations with multidisciplinary experts and women with PCOS directly involved at all stages. A (AGREE) II-compliant processes were followed, with extensive evidence synthesis. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was applied across evidence quality, desirable and undesirable consequences, feasibility, acceptability, cost, implementation and ultimately recommendation strength. The guideline was peer-reviewed by special interest groups across our partner and collaborating societies and consumer organizations, was independently assessed against AGREE II criteria and underwent methodological review. This guideline was approved by all members of the GDG and has been approved by the NHMRC. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The quality of evidence (QOE) for the EBRs in the assessment and management of infertility in PCOS included very low (n = 1), low (n = 9) and moderate (n = 4) quality with no EBRs based on high-quality evidence. The guideline provides 14 EBRs, 10 clinical consensus recommendations (CCRs) and 20 clinical practice points on the assessment and management of infertility in PCOS. Key changes in this guideline include emphasizing evidence-based fertility therapy, including cheaper and safer fertility management. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Overall evidence is generally of low to moderate quality, requiring significantly greater research in this neglected, yet common condition. Regional health systems vary and a process for adaptation of this guideline is provided. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The international guideline for the assessment and management of infertility in PCOS provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice based on the best available evidence, expert multidisciplinary input and consumer preferences. Research recommendations have been generated and a comprehensive multifaceted dissemination and translation program supports the guideline with an integrated evaluation program. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The guideline was primarily funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia (NHMRC) supported by a partnership with ESHRE and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). GDG members did not receive payment. Travel expenses were covered by the sponsoring organizations. Disclosures of conflicts of interest were declared at the outset and updated throughout the guideline process, aligned with NHMRC guideline processes. Dr Costello has declared shares in Virtus Health and past sponsorship from Merck Serono for conference presentations. Prof. Norman has declared a minor shareholder interest in the IVF unit Fertility SA, travel support from Merck and grants from Ferring. Prof. Norman also has scientific advisory board duties for Ferring. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.This article was not externally peer-reviewed by Human Reproduction Open.

Bidirectional Mendelian randomization to explore the causal relationships between body mass index and polycystic ovary syndrome.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the causal relationships between polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and body mass index (BMI)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Bidirectional Mendelian randomization analyses suggest that increased BMI is causal for PCOS while the reverse is not the case. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The contribution of obesity to the pathogenesis of PCOS is controversial. To date, published genetic studies addressing this question have generated conflicting results and have not utilized the full extent of known single nucleotide polymorphisms associated with body mass index (BMI). STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This cross-sectional Mendelian randomization (MR) and genetic association study was conducted in 750 individuals of European origin and with PCOS and 1567 BMI-matched controls. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Cases and controls were matched for BMI as well as for distribution of weight categories (normal weight, overweight, obese). Two-sample MR using inverse variance weighting (IVW) was conducted using a 92-SNP instrument variable for BMI with PCOS as the outcome, followed by two-sample MR with a 16-SNP instrument variable for PCOS with BMI as the outcome. Sensitivity analyses included MR-Egger and maximum likelihood methods. Secondary analyses assessed associations of genetic risk scores and individual SNPs with PCOS, BMI and quantitative androgen-related and glucose homeostasis-related traits. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Each standard deviation genetically higher BMI was associated with a 4.89 (95% CI 1.46-16.32) higher odds of PCOS. Conversely, genetic risk of PCOS did not influence BMI. Sensitivity analyses yielded directionally consistent results. The genetic risk score of 92 BMI SNPs was associated with the diagnosis of PCOS (OR 1.043, 95% CI 1.009-1.078, P = 0.012). Of the 92 BMI risk variants evaluated, none were associated individually with PCOS after considering multiple testing. The association of FTO SNP rs1421085 with BMI was stronger in women with PCOS (ß = 0.071, P = 0.0006) than in controls (ß = 0.046, P = 0.065). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The current sample size, while providing good power for MR and genetic risk score analyses, had limited power to demonstrate association of individual SNPs with PCOS. Cases and controls were not matched for age; however, this was mitigated by adjusting analyses for age. Dietary and lifestyle data, which could have been used to explore the greater association of the FTO SNP with BMI in women with PCOS, was not available. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Increasing BMI appears to be causal for PCOS but having PCOS does not appear to affect BMI. This study used the most comprehensive set of SNPs for BMI currently available. Prior studies using fewer SNPs had yielded conflicting results and may have been confounded because cases and controls were not matched for weight categories. The current results highlight the potential utility of weight management in the prevention and treatment of PCOS. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): National Institutes of Health Grants R01-HD29364 and K24-HD01346 (to R.A.), Grant R01-DK79888 (to M.O.G.), Grant U54-HD034449 (to R.S.L.), Grant U19-HL069757 (to R.M.K.). The funders had no influence on the data collection, analyses or conclusions of the study. No conflict of interests to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

A protocol developing, disseminating and implementing a core outcome set for infertility.

STUDY QUESTIONS: We aim to produce, disseminate and implement a core outcome set for future infertility research. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating infertility treatments have reported many different outcomes, which are often defined and measured in different ways. Such variation contributes to an inability to compare, contrast and combine results of individual RCTs. The development of a core outcome set will ensure outcomes important to key stakeholders are consistently collected and reported across future infertility research. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This is a consensus study using the modified Delphi method. All stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals, researchers and people with lived experience of infertility will be invited to participate. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: An international steering group, including people with lived experience of infertility, healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals and researchers, has been formed to guide the development of this core outcome set. Potential core outcomes have been identified through a comprehensive literature review of RCTs evaluating treatments for infertility and will be entered into a modified Delphi method. Participants will be asked to score potential core outcomes on a nine-point Likert scale anchored between one (not important) and nine (critical). Repeated reflection and rescoring should promote convergence towards consensus 'core' outcomes. We will establish standardized definitions and recommend high-quality measurement instruments for individual core outcomes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This project is funded by the Royal Society of New Zealand Catalyst Fund (3712235). BWM reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, Merck, and ObsEva. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Fractyl and Ogeda and research sponsorship from Ferring. S.B. is the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

The relationship between oestrogen and executive functioning in ALS females with emerging Frontotemporal Lobar Degeneration (FTLD) supports a neuroendocrine model of FTLD attenuation.

OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of ALS cognitive or behavioural impairment (ci or bi) consistent with Frontotemporal Degeneration (FTLD) approachs 50%, while ∼5-10% progress to dementia. Our goal was to explore ci and bi differencs between bulbar and limb onset, as well as the neuroprotective potential of oestrogen in emerging FTLD. METHODS: We applied Mann Whitney U to evaluate differences in cognitive and behavioural profiles between site of onset in 78 female and 83 male non-demented ALS participants classified by current consensus criteria with ci. For females, we also examined differences by oestrogen level. FINDINGS: Between group analyses found significantly worse Letter Fluency (LF) for bulbar onset, and worse Category Fluency (CF) for bulbar females. Significantly worse performance was found for low oestrogen females for LF and Similarities, with significantly worse LF for low oestrogen bulbar onset. No significant differences were found for behavioural subgroups, while moderate-severe range traits were higher in occurrence for bulbar and low oestrogen bulbar onset. CONCLUSIONS: Findings support our previously published mesocortical pathway associated "bottom-up" model of FTLD emergence in ALSbi, extending it with a hierarchal hypothesis involving ascending cerebellar pathways in ALSci and ALSbi, further suggesting a role for oestrogen in mitigating female FTLD progression.

Evidence for gonadotrophin secretory and steroidogenic abnormalities in brothers of women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

STUDY QUESTION: Are there abnormalities in gonadotrophin secretion, adrenal steroidogenesis and/or testicular steroidogenesis in brothers of women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Brothers of women with PCOS have increased gonadotrophin responses to gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist stimulation and alterations in adrenal and gonadal steroidogenesis. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: PCOS is a complex genetic disease. Male as well as female first-degree relatives have reproductive features of the syndrome. We previously reported that brothers of affected women have elevated circulating dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate levels. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This was a case-control study performed in 29 non-Hispanic white brothers of 22 women with PCOS and 18 control men. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: PCOS brothers and control men were of comparable age, weight and ethnicity. Adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) and GnRH agonist stimulation tests were performed. Gonadotrophin responses to GnRH agonist as well as changes in precursor-product steroid pairs (delta, Δ) across steroidogenic pathways in response to ACTH and GnRH agonist were examined. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Basal total (T) levels did not differ, but dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) levels (0.13 ± 0.08 brothers versus 0.22 ± 0.09 controls, nmol/l, P = 0.03) were lower in brothers compared with control men. ACTH-stimulated Δ17-hydroxypregnenolone (17Preg)/Δ17-hydroxyprogesterone (17Prog) (7.8 ± 24.2 brothers versus 18.9 ± 21.3 controls, P = 0.04) and ΔDHEA/Δandrostenedione (AD) (0.10 ± 0.05 brothers versus 0.14 ± 0.08 controls, P = 0.04) were lower in brothers than in the controls. GnRH agonist-stimulated Δ17Prog/ΔAD (0.28 ± 8.47 brothers versus 4.79 ± 10.28 controls, P = 0.003) was decreased and luteinizing hormone (38.6 ± 20.6 brothers versus 26.0 ± 9.8 controls, IU/l, P = 0.02), follicle-stimulating hormone (10.2 ± 7.5 brothers versus 4.8 ± 4.1 controls, IU/l P = 0.002), AD (1.7 ± 1.4 brothers versus 0.9 ± 1.5 controls, nmol/l, P = 0.02) and ΔAD/ΔT (0.16 ± 0.14 brothers versus 0.08 ± 0.12 controls, P = 0.005) responses were increased in brothers compared with controls. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The modest sample size may have limited our ability to observe other possible differences in steroidogenesis between PCOS brothers and control men. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Decreased ACTH-stimulated Δ17Preg/Δ17Prog and ΔDHEA/ΔAD responses suggested increased adrenal 3ß-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase activity in the brothers. Decreased Δ17Prog/ΔAD and increased ΔAD/ΔT responses to GnRH agonist stimulation suggested increased gonadal 17,20-lyase and decreased gonadal 17ß-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase activity in the brothers. Increased LH and FSH responses to GnRH agonist stimulation suggested neuroendocrine alterations in the regulation of gonadotrophin secretion similar to those in their proband sisters. These changes in PCOS brothers may reflect the impact of PCOS susceptibility genes and/or programming effects of the intrauterine environment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This research was supported by P50 HD044405 (A.D.), K12 HD055884 (L.C.T.), U54 HD034449 (A.D., R.S.L.) from the National Institute of Child Health and Development. Some hormone assays were performed at the University of Virginia Center for Research in Reproduction Ligand Assay and Analysis Core that is supported by U54 HD28934 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Partial support for some of the clinical studies was provided by UL1 RR025741 and UL1 TR000150 (Northwestern University Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute) from the National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health, which is now the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.

Sildenafil citrate in the treatment of pain in primary dysmenorrhea: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is a vaginal preparation of sildenafil citrate capable of alleviating acute menstrual pain in patients with primary dysmenorrhea (PD)? SUMMARY ANSWER: A vaginal preparation of sildenafil citrate is capable of alleviating acute menstrual pain in patients with PD with no observed adverse effects. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Oral preparations of nitric oxide (NO) donor drugs augment relaxant effects of NO on myometrial cells, reverse the vasoconstriction caused by prostaglandins and successfully alleviate pain, but the incidence of side effects is too high for routine clinical use. Sildenafil citrate inhibits type 5-specific phosphodiesterase (PDE5), thus preventing the degradation of cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP) in the muscle and augmenting the vasodilatory effects of NO. Therefore, by inhibiting PDE5, the tissue remains relaxed and more blood can circulate through. It has been used previously in a vaginal form with no observed side effects, and it enhances endometrial blood flow. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A double-blind, randomized, controlled trial comparing vaginal preparation of sildenafil citrate (100 mg single dose) to a placebo in 62 PD patients at the time of painful menstruation was conducted. The primary outcome was total pain relief over 4 consecutive hours (TOPAR4) comparing sildenafil citrate to placebo, where higher TOPAR4 scores represent better pain relief. Secondary outcomes were pain relief as measured by the visual analog scale (VAS) and uterine artery pulsatility index (PI). Subjects were recruited from December 2007 to January 2011. The trial was stopped due to closeout of the funding for the study. PARTICIPANTS, SETTINGS, METHODS: Participants were women in good health, were aged 18-35 years and suffered from moderate to severe PD. They were randomized to either vaginal placebo or 100 mg vaginal sildenafil citrate in a 1:1 ratio using random permuted blocks having a block size of 4. At baseline and 1, 2, 3, and 4 h post-treatment, patients were asked to provide assessment of their degree of pain using two scales: (i) pain on the 5-level ordinal scale used for TOPAR4 calculation and (ii) pain level on the VAS. The study ended 4 h after treatment initiation. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Twenty-five subjects completed the study. Using the TOPAR4 score, the sildenafil citrate group had significantly better pain relief compared with the placebo group [mean (SD): 11.9 (3.2) versus 6.4 (2.1), respectively; difference in means = 5.3; 95% CI: (2.9,7.6); P < 0.001)]. On the VAS, sildenafil citrate provided better pain relief than placebo at each time point. At the 2-h time point, the PI was significantly lower in the sildenafil citrate group compared with the placebo group [mean (SD): 1.6 (0.6) versus 2.3 (0.5), respectively; difference in means = -0.7; 95% CI: (-1.2, -0.1); P = 0.01)]. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Since we did not meet our sample size due to the loss of funding and could not confirm our primary hypothesis, larger studies of longer duration, likely multi-center, are needed to confirm the findings from this study. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: A number of medications have been investigated to improve the treatment options for PD, but most have proven unsuccessful or to have an unfavorable risk/benefit ratio. Since PD is a condition that most women suffer from and seek treatment for at some point in their lives, our study offers hope that vaginal sildenafil citrate is a safe and effective option for patients who do not desire or are unresponsive to treatments now available on the market. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: Funding for this study was provided by National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants RO3 TW007438 and K24 HD01476. The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00123162 (Clinical trials.gov).

Current perspectives of insulin resistance and polycystic ovary syndrome.

AIMS: To review the relationship between insulin resistance and polycystic ovary syndrome. METHODS: A literature review. RESULTS: Insulin resistance likely plays a central pathogenic role in polycystic ovary syndrome and may explain the pleiotropic presentation and involvement of multiple organ systems. Insulin resistance in the skeletal muscle of women with polycystic ovary syndrome involves both intrinsic and acquired defects in insulin signalling. The cellular insulin resistance in polycystic ovary syndrome has been further shown to involve a novel post-binding defect in insulin signal transduction. Treatment of insulin resistance through lifestyle therapy or with a diabetes drug has become mainstream therapy in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. However, effects with current pharmacologic treatment with metformin tend to be modest, with limited benefit as an agent to treat infertility. Insulin resistance contributes to increased risk for pregnancy complications, diabetes and cardiovascular disease risk profile in polycystic ovary syndrome, which is further exacerbated by obesity. While numerous studies demonstrate increased prevalence of cardiovascular disease risk factors in women with polycystic ovary syndrome, there are limited data showing that women with polycystic ovary syndrome are at increased risk for cardiovascular disease events. CONCLUSIONS: Insulin resistance is linked to polycystic ovary syndrome. Further study of lifestyle and pharmacologic interventions that reduce insulin resistance, such as metformin, are needed to demonstrate that they are effective in reducing the risk of diabetes, endometrial abnormalities and cardiovascular disease events in women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

Estrogen and progesterone exposure is reduced in response to energy deficiency in women aged 25-40 years.

BACKGROUND: Alterations in circulating steroids are believed to be important mediators of the impact that diet and exercise have on breast cancer risk and changes in bone density. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that moderate exercise training combined with caloric restriction would produce significant menstrual disturbances and alterations in ovarian steroids in premenopausal women. METHODS: Sedentary premenopausal women (25-40 years; body mass index: 23.6 +/- 0.6 kg/m(2)) assigned to either a light conditioning (LC, n = 9) or an exercise combined with caloric restriction group (EX + CR, n = 24) were studied for one screening, one baseline and four intervention periods equivalent to the length of subjects' menstrual cycles. Exercise consisted of supervised training sessions, i.e. two LC or four EX + CR times per week, 30-60 min at a moderate intensity. The EX + CR group was prescribed a diet representing a caloric restriction of 20-35% below baseline energy requirements, whereas the LC group remained eucaloric. Ovarian steroid exposure was determined with daily urinary estrone-1- and pregnanediol glucuronides (E1G and PdG, respectively) and mid-cycle urinary LH measures. Fitness, body composition, and serum sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) and serum estradiol (E2) were assessed repeatedly. RESULTS: The intervention produced significant increases in VO(2) max and decreases in both body weight (-3.7 +/- 0.5 kg; ranged from -8.8 to +1.8 kg) and percent body fat (-4.5 +/- 0.7%; ranged from -12 to +0.3%), which were attributable primarily to changes in the EX + CR subjects (time x group; P < 0.05). Serum E2 and urinary E1G and PdG concentrations declined significantly across the intervention period (time; P < 0.05), whereas SHBG increased transiently (time; P < 0.05) in the EX + CR subjects, with no significant changes observed in the LC group. The decrease in E1G area under the curve was significantly related to the daily energy deficit (R =0.61; P = 0.003), not the amount of weight lost. There was no significant impact of the intervention on menstrual cyclicity or the incidence of menstrual disturbances in either group. CONCLUSIONS: A moderate aerobic exercise training program combined with modest weight loss in accordance with recommended guidelines produces significant reductions in ovarian steroid exposure without disrupting menstrual cyclicity in premenopausal women aged 25-40 years. Exposure to a daily energy deficit is a stronger predictor of the decline in estrogen exposure than decreases in body weight.

Peripubertal estrogen levels and physical activity affect femur geometry in young adult women.

UNLABELLED: The growing skeleton is particularly responsive to exercise around the time of puberty, suggesting a possible role for estrogen in mechanical adaptation in young women. We assessed femoral neck strength index at age 17 in young women with varying adolescent physical activity levels and E2 levels in the first 3 years after menarche. The results indicate that both E2 levels in the first year after menarche and adolescent physical activity are positively associated with bone strength in young adulthood, such that hormone levels may modify human osteogenic responses to exercise. INTRODUCTION: It is well established that physical activity contributes to bone strength in young females, but less is known about how peripubertal estrogen affects skeletal responses to exercise. METHODS: We used data from 84 participants in the Penn State Young Women's Health Study to test the prediction that young women who (1) had higher E2 levels during the first year after menarche or (2) were more physically active in adolescence will have greater bone strength at the end of adolescence. Subjects were divided into tertiles of physical activity and of E2 level in the first, second, and third postmenarchal years, and femoral strength was calculated from dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry scans of the proximal femur using hip structure analysis. RESULTS: At age 17, subjects with the highest E2 levels in year 1 after menarche had 5-14% greater strength in the narrow neck and intertrochanteric region, and the most active subjects had 10-11% greater strength in the femoral narrow neck vs. less active girls. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that both physical activity and peripubertal estrogen have important influences on young adult bone strength and that hormone levels may be mediators of human osteogenic responses to exercise.

Fine mapping of genetic susceptibility to polycystic ovary syndrome on chromosome 19p13.2 and tests for regulatory activity.

CONTEXT: Little is known about genes that contribute to polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). We previously found linkage and association of PCOS with the dinucleotide marker D19S884 in two independent sets of families; allele 8 of D19S884 confers increased risk. OBJECTIVE/DESIGN: The objectives of the study were: 1) use the transmission/disequilibrium test (TDT) to assess linkage and association between PCOS and D19S884 (and nearby markers) in a third set of families; and 2) test D19S884 and surrounding DNA sequence for in vitro regulatory activity in lymphoblastoid cell lines (LCLs) and granulosa cells. SETTING/SUBJECTS: We studied 98 new families with a PCOS proband, father, mother, and other available offspring. We analyzed data from these families separately and in combination with data obtained previously. INTERVENTIONS: Interventions were venipuncture. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Measures were transmission frequencies and in vitro functional studies. RESULTS: The first result we found was that in the 98 new families, the TDT was significant for allele 8 of D19S884 (P = 0.043). In the total collection of 465 families, the TDT evidence is very strong (nominal P < 7 x 10(-5)). Results for all other genetic markers near D19S884 were nonsignificant after correction for multiple testing. The second result was that an approximately 800-bp fragment containing various alleles of D19S884 showed modest but reproducible promoter activity in LCLs. However, no allelic differences were detected. No activity of this fragment was detected in granulosa cells. CONCLUSIONS: This is the second independent confirmation of linkage and association of D19S884 with PCOS. We found in addition that some sequence in the region of D19S884 confers in vitro promoter activity in LCLs.

Epigenetic modification of the X chromosome influences susceptibility to polycystic ovary syndrome.

CONTEXT: The cause of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is unknown, although genetic and environmental influences are clearly implicated. Some genetic studies have suggested the involvement of X-linked genes in PCOS, but the influence of X chromosome inactivation (XCI) on manifestation of this disorder has not previously been examined. OBJECTIVE: The objective of the study was to test the null hypothesis that XCI has no influence on clinical presentation of PCOS. DESIGN: We examined patterns of XCI between sister pairs with the same genotype at a polymorphic locus on the X chromosome in families with PCOS. SETTING: The study was conducted at a private practice. PARTICIPANTS: PCOS was defined as hyperandrogenemia with chronic anovulation. Forty families were studied in which DNA was obtained from at least one parent, the proband, and one sister that could be accurately diagnosed as being affected or unaffected. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Relative expression of two X-linked alleles was determined, and the ratio of one to the other represented the pattern of XCI. RESULTS: The statistical odds on a different clinical presentation between sisters was approximately 29 times higher in sister pairs with different patterns of XCI, compared with sister pairs with the same pattern of XCI (odds ratio 28.9; 95% confidence interval 4.0-206; P = 0.0008). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence to refute the null hypothesis and propose a closer inspection of X-linked genes in PCOS, one in which both genotype and epigenotype are considered. Environmental determinants of PCOS may alter clinical presentation via epigenetic modifications, which currently remain undetected in traditional genetic analyses.

Candidate gene region for polycystic ovary syndrome on chromosome 19p13.2.

CONTEXT: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common endocrine disorder that is believed to have a genetic basis. However, no specific susceptibility gene or region has been conclusively identified. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to duplicate a previous study that localized a PCOS susceptibility region to chromosome 19p13.2 and to narrow the susceptibility region. DESIGN: This study was designed to test for genetic linkage and association between PCOS and short tandem repeat polymorphisms in 367 families, by analysis of linkage and family-based association. SETTING: The study was conducted at academic medical centers. PATIENTS OR OTHER PARTICIPANTS: We studied 367 families of predominantly European origin with at least one PCOS patient. Families included 107 affected sibling (sister) pairs (ASPs) in 83 families, and 390 trios with both parents and an affected daughter. The data set comprises two independent groups. Set 1 consists of 44 ASPs and 163 trios. Set 2 consists of 63 ASPs and 227 trios. INTERVENTION(S): The intervention was the drawing of blood for DNA extraction. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: We employed measures of evidence for linkage and association between PCOS and 19 STRs. RESULTS: Linkage with PCOS was observed over a broad region of chromosome 19p13.2. The strongest evidence for association was observed with D19S884 (chi2 = 11.85; nominal P < 0.0006; permutation P = 0.034) and duplicated our earlier findings. CONCLUSIONS: The present analysis suggests that a PCOS susceptibility locus maps very close to D19S884. Additional studies that systematically characterize DNA sequence variation in the immediate area of D19S884 are required to identify the PCOS susceptibility variant.

Polycystic ovary syndrome. Long term sequelae and management.

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is one of the most common endocrinopathies in women and is defined by hyperandrogenic chronic anovulation with the exclusion of secondary causes, such as congenital adrenal hyperplasia or an androgen secreting tumor. PCOS women are uniquely insulin resistant. It is estimated that 5% of the female population is affected. The underlying genetic defect in insulin action is unknown. Obesity aggravates the underlying predisposition to insulin resistance. Diagnostic criteria which focus on menstrual irregularity are more likely to identify insulin resistant women. About 40% of PCOS women display glucose intolerance (either impaired glucose tolerance or type 2 diabetes) in response to an oral glucose challenge. Additionally women display multiple other risk factors for cardiovascular disease including dyslipidemia and elevated circulating inflammatory markers. The lack of a clear etiologic mechanism to the syndrome has led in the past to a multitude of symptom-oriented treatments with few therapies improving all aspects of the endocrine syndrome of PCOS. Recently treatments resulting in improved insulin sensitivity, either through weight loss/exercise programs or pharmaceutical, have been shown to improve both the endocrine and metabolic abnormalities in the syndrome. Anti-diabetic agents in PCOS have been examined in a number of randomized studies which have shown a treatment benefit. Further indications for these agents such as the prevention of pregnancy loss or the conversion to type 2 diabetes still need to be investigated in properly designed studies.