Comparison of stimulated versus modified natural cycles for endometrial preparation prior to frozen embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial.

RESEARCH QUESTION: To compare stimulated cycle (STC) versus modified natural cycle (MNC) for endometrial preparation prior to frozen embryo transfer (FET) in terms of convenience and efficacy. DESIGN: Prospective, open-label, randomized controlled study including 119 patients aged 20-38 years, undergoing intra-conjugal IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection, having regular cycles, at least two day 2 or day 3 frozen embryos, for whom it was the first or second FET performed, randomized to either MNC (n = 59) or STC (n = 60). Monitoring consisted of ultrasound and hormonal measurements. The number of monitoring visits required was compared between the two groups. RESULTS: STC required a significantly lower number of monitoring visits compared with MNC (3.6 ± 0.9 versus 4.4 ± 1.1, respectively, P < 0.0001), a lower number of blood tests (2.7 ± 0.8 versus 3.5 ± 1.0, respectively, P < 0.0001) and of ultrasounds (1.2 ± 0.4 versus 1.5 ± 0.6, respectively, P = 0.0039). FET during 'non-opening' hours (22.6% versus 27.5%, respectively, P = 0.32) and cancellation rates (11.7% versus 11.9%, respectively, P = 0.97) were comparable between the STC and MNC groups. No difference concerning HCG-positive rates (34.0% versus 23.1%, respectively, P = 0.22) nor live birth rates (24.5% for STC versus 23.1% for MNC, respectively, P = 0.86) was observed. Quality of life as defined by the FertiQol score was not different (P > 0.05 for each item). CONCLUSION: Altogether, these findings can be used for everyday clinical practice to better inform patients when deciding on the protocol to use for FET. These results suggest that MNC is a good option for patients reluctant to have injections, but requires increased monitoring. STC may offer more flexibility for patients and IVF centres.

Whole Goat Milk-Based Formula versus Whey-Based Cow Milk Formula: What Formula Do Infants Enjoy More?-A Feasibility, Double-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial.

(1) Background: While goat milk formula (GMF) is an alternative to cow milk formula (CMF), infants' preferences for one over the other have not been formally assessed. Specifically, our aim in this study was to determine whether infants experience fewer feeding behavior problems with whole milk-based GMF than with conventional whey-based CMF. (2) Methods: This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized controlled trial with two-arm parallel assignment conducted in six pediatricians' offices in or near Paris, France, between June 2018 and 31 December 2021. Overall, 64 healthy infants (≤4 months old), predominantly formula-fed, were randomly assigned to either the whole milk-based GMF (n = 33) or whey-based CMF (n = 31) arm. Parents completed the Baby Eating Behavior Questionnaire (BEBQ) and the modified QUALIN questionnaire to evaluate infant feeding behavior and quality of life (psychomotor and socioemotional development), respectively, at inclusion (1 to 5 days before milk delivery) and the final visit (day 28 ± 3 after milk delivery). Informed consent was obtained for all recruited patients, and an ethical committee approved the study. (3) Results: Changes in BEBQ Enjoyment of Food and Slowness in Eating subscale scores from inclusion to final visit did not differ between arms. However, there were significant improvements in subscale scores for Food Responsiveness (GMF: 0.15 ± 1; CMF: -0.48 ± 0.81; p = 0.010) and General Appetite (GMF: 0.26 ± 1.2; CMF: -0.48 ± 0.88; p = 0.012), and modified QUALIN (GMF: 4.6 ± 9.4; CMF: -0.40 ± 7.6; p = 0.03) scores in favor of the GMF group. (4) Conclusions: In this double-blind, randomized controlled trial, GMF-fed infants exhibited a greater general appetite than CMF-fed infants, possibly due to differences in the composition of these formulas (i.e., protein and lipid profiles). In addition, GMF-fed infants enjoyed a better quality of life. There was no difference in food enjoyment between groups. These findings suggest that whole-milk-based GMF could be an attractive alternative to whey-based CMF. Clinical trial registration: NCT03488758 (clinicaltrials.gov).