-
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and... Aug 2022This study aims to assess whether antibiotic therapy for chronic endometritis (CE) could improve subsequent IVF outcomes in patients with recurrent implantation failure... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Does antibiotic therapy for chronic endometritis improve clinical outcomes of patients with recurrent implantation failure in subsequent IVF cycles? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
PURPOSE
This study aims to assess whether antibiotic therapy for chronic endometritis (CE) could improve subsequent IVF outcomes in patients with recurrent implantation failure (RIF).
METHODS
Studies that explore CE treatment in patients with RIF were retrieved from PubMed, EMBASE, Wanfang, and Google Scholar up to Jan 31, 2022. All retrieved studies were selected according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The main outcome measures include implantation rate (IR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), ongoing pregnancy rate/live birth rate (OPR/LBR), and miscarriage rate (MR). Odds ratios (ORs) were analyzed for pregnancy outcomes with a 95% confidence interval (CI).
RESULTS
Nine articles were enrolled in this study. Patients receiving oral antibiotic administration (OAA) did not show any advantage over patients without CE with regard to IR, OPR/LBR, and MR, but they showed a higher CPR. Patients with cured CE after OAA therapy had significantly higher CPR, IR, and OPR/LBR compared with patients without CE. Patients with persistent CE after OAA therapy had significantly lower IR, CPR, and OPR/LBR compared with patients without CE. Patients with cured CE had significantly higher IR, CPR, and OPR/LBR compared with persistent CE patients.
CONCLUSIONS
Antibiotic treatment may improve the pregnancy outcomes of RIF patients in subsequent IVF cycles only if the condition of CE is confirmed cured in a control biopsy afterwards. Otherwise, no sufficient evidence has shown improvements in clinical outcomes in RIF patients with persistent CE.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chronic Disease; Embryo Implantation; Endometritis; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate
PubMed: 35829835
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-022-02558-1 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2020Fibroids are the most common benign tumours of the female genital tract and are associated with numerous clinical problems including a possible negative impact on... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Fibroids are the most common benign tumours of the female genital tract and are associated with numerous clinical problems including a possible negative impact on fertility. In women requesting preservation of fertility, fibroids can be surgically removed (myomectomy) by laparotomy, laparoscopically or hysteroscopically depending on the size, site and type of fibroid. Myomectomy is however a procedure that is not without risk and can result in serious complications. It is therefore essential to determine whether such a procedure can result in an improvement in fertility and, if so, to then determine the ideal surgical approach.
OBJECTIVES
To examine the effect of myomectomy on fertility outcomes and to compare different surgical approaches.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Epistemonikos database, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform search portal, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), LILACS, conference abstracts on the ISI Web of Knowledge, OpenSigle for grey literature from Europe, and reference list of relevant papers. The final search was in February 2019.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) examining the effect of myomectomy compared to no intervention or where different surgical approaches are compared regarding the effect on fertility outcomes in a group of infertile women suffering from uterine fibroids.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data collection and analysis were conducted in accordance with the procedure suggested in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
MAIN RESULTS
This review included four RCTs with 442 participants. The evidence was very low-quality with the main limitations being due to serious imprecision, inconsistency and indirectness. Myomectomy versus no intervention One study examined the effect of myomectomy compared to no intervention on reproductive outcomes. We are uncertain whether myomectomy improves clinical pregnancy rate for intramural (odds ratio (OR) 1.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 6.14; 45 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), submucous (OR 2.04, 95% CI 0.62 to 6.66; 52 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), intramural/subserous (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.40 to 10.09; 31 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence) or intramural/submucous fibroids (OR 3.24, 95% CI 0.72 to 14.57; 42 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Similarly, we are uncertain whether myomectomy reduces miscarriage rate for intramural fibroids (OR 1.33, 95% CI 0.26 to 6.78; 45 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), submucous fibroids (OR 1.27, 95% CI 0.27 to 5.97; 52 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), intramural/subserous fibroids (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.10 to 6.54; 31 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence) or intramural/submucous fibroids (OR 2.00, 95% CI 0.32 to 12.33; 42 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). This study did not report on live birth, preterm delivery, ongoing pregnancy or caesarean section rate. Laparoscopic myomectomy versus myomectomy by laparotomy or mini-laparotomy Two studies compared laparoscopic myomectomy to myomectomy at laparotomy or mini-laparotomy. We are uncertain whether laparoscopic myomectomy compared to laparotomy or mini-laparotomy improves live birth rate (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.50; 177 participants; two studies; I = 0%; very low-quality evidence), preterm delivery rate (OR 0.70, 95% CI 0.11 to 4.29; participants = 177; two studies; I = 0%, very low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.96, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.78; 177 participants; two studies; I = 0%, very low-quality evidence), ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 1.61, 95% CI 0.26 to 10.04; 115 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), miscarriage rate (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.40 to 3.89; participants = 177; two studies; I = 0%, very low-quality evidence), or caesarean section rate (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.39; participants = 177; two studies; I = 21%, very low-quality evidence). Monopolar resectoscope versus bipolar resectoscope One study evaluated the use of two electrosurgical systems during hysteroscopic myomectomy. We are uncertain whether bipolar resectoscope use compared to monopolar resectoscope use improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.30 to 2.50; 68 participants; one study, very low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.36; 68 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence), or miscarriage rate (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.19 to 5.34; participants = 68; one study; very low-quality evidence). This study did not report on preterm delivery or caesarean section rate.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is limited evidence to determine the role of myomectomy for infertility in women with fibroids as only one trial compared myomectomy with no myomectomy. If the decision is made to have a myomectomy, the current evidence does not indicate a superior method (laparoscopy, laparotomy or different electrosurgical systems) to improve rates of live birth, preterm delivery, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, or caesarean section. Furthermore, the existing evidence needs to be viewed with caution due to the small number of events, minimal number of studies and very low-quality evidence.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Cesarean Section; Female; Humans; Infertility, Female; Leiomyomatosis; Live Birth; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Uterine Myomectomy; Uterine Neoplasms
PubMed: 31995657
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003857.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Feb 2021In vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatments conventionally consist of a fresh embryo transfer, possibly followed by one or more... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatments conventionally consist of a fresh embryo transfer, possibly followed by one or more cryopreserved embryo transfers in subsequent cycles. An alternative option is to freeze all suitable embryos and transfer cryopreserved embryos in subsequent cycles only, which is known as the 'freeze all' strategy. This is the first update of the Cochrane Review on this comparison.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the freeze all strategy compared to the conventional IVF/ICSI strategy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and two registers of ongoing trials from inception until 23 September 2020 for relevant studies, checked references of publications found, and contacted study authors to obtain additional data.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Two review authors (TZ and MZ) independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted study data. We included randomised controlled trials comparing a 'freeze all' strategy with a conventional IVF/ICSI strategy including a fresh embryo transfer in women undergoing IVF or ICSI treatment.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
The primary outcomes were cumulative live birth rate and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Secondary outcomes included effectiveness outcomes (including ongoing pregnancy rate and clinical pregnancy rate), time to pregnancy and obstetric, perinatal and neonatal outcomes.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 studies in the systematic review and eight studies with a total of 4712 women in the meta-analysis. The overall evidence was of moderate to low quality. We graded all the outcomes and downgraded due to serious risk of bias, serious imprecision and serious unexplained heterogeneity. Risk of bias was associated with unclear blinding of investigators for preliminary outcomes of the study during the interim analysis, unit of analysis error, and absence of adequate study termination rules. There was an absence of high-quality evidence according to GRADE assessments for our primary outcomes, which is reflected in the cautious language below. There is probably little or no difference in cumulative live birth rate between the 'freeze all' strategy and the conventional IVF/ICSI strategy (odds ratio (OR) 1.08, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.22; I = 0%; 8 RCTs, 4712 women; moderate-quality evidence). This suggests that for a cumulative live birth rate of 58% following the conventional strategy, the cumulative live birth rate following the 'freeze all' strategy would be between 57% and 63%. Women might develop less OHSS after the 'freeze all' strategy compared to the conventional IVF/ICSI strategy (OR 0.26, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.39; I = 0%; 6 RCTs, 4478 women; low-quality evidence). These data suggest that for an OHSS rate of 3% following the conventional strategy, the rate following the 'freeze all' strategy would be 1%. There is probably little or no difference between the two strategies in the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.19; I = 31%; 4 RCTs, 1245 women; moderate-quality evidence). We could not analyse time to pregnancy; by design, time to pregnancy is shorter in the conventional strategy than in the 'freeze all' strategy when the cumulative live birth rate is comparable, as embryo transfer is delayed in a 'freeze all' strategy. We are uncertain whether the two strategies differ in cumulative miscarriage rate because the evidence is very low quality (Peto OR 1.06, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.55; I = 55%; 2 RCTs, 986 women; very low-quality evidence) and cumulative multiple-pregnancy rate (Peto OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.25; I = 63%; 2 RCTs, 986 women; very low-quality evidence). The risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (Peto OR 2.15, 95% CI 1.42 to 3.25; I = 29%; 3 RCTs, 3940 women; low-quality evidence), having a large-for-gestational-age baby (Peto OR 1.96, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.55; I = 0%; 3 RCTs, 3940 women; low-quality evidence) and a higher birth weight of the children born (mean difference (MD) 127 g, 95% CI 77.1 to 177.8; I = 0%; 5 RCTs, 1607 singletons; moderate-quality evidence) may be increased following the 'freeze all' strategy. We are uncertain whether the two strategies differ in the risk of having a small-for-gestational-age baby because the evidence is low quality (Peto OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.05; I = 64%; 3 RCTs, 3940 women; low-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We found moderate-quality evidence showing that one strategy is probably not superior to the other in terms of cumulative live birth rate and ongoing pregnancy rate. The risk of OHSS may be decreased in the 'freeze all' strategy. Based on the results of the included studies, we could not analyse time to pregnancy. It is likely to be shorter using a conventional IVF/ICSI strategy with fresh embryo transfer in the case of similar cumulative live birth rate, as embryo transfer is delayed in a 'freeze all' strategy. The risk of maternal hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, of having a large-for-gestational-age baby and a higher birth weight of the children born may be increased following the 'freeze all' strategy. We are uncertain if 'freeze all' strategy reduces the risk of miscarriage, multiple pregnancy rate or having a small-for-gestational-age baby compared to conventional IVF/ICSI.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Bias; Cryopreservation; Embryo Transfer; Embryo, Mammalian; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Live Birth; Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Pregnancy Rate; Pregnancy, Multiple; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic; Time-to-Pregnancy
PubMed: 33539543
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011184.pub3 -
Fertility and Sterility Dec 2021To investigate the association between luteal serum progesterone levels and frozen embryo transfer (FET) outcomes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the association between luteal serum progesterone levels and frozen embryo transfer (FET) outcomes.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
Not applicable.
PATIENT(S)
Women undergoing FET.
INTERVENTION(S)
We conducted electronic searches of MEDLINE, PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and grey literature (not widely available) from inception to March 2021 to identify cohort studies in which the serum luteal progesterone level was measured around the time of FET.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)
Ongoing pregnancy or live birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and miscarriage rate.
RESULT(S)
Among the studies analyzing serum progesterone level thresholds <10 ng/mL, a higher serum progesterone level was associated with increased rates of ongoing pregnancy or live birth (relative risk [RR] 1.47, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28 to 1.70), higher chance of clinical pregnancy (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.49), and lower risk of miscarriage (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.77) in cycles using exclusively vaginal progesterone and blastocyst embryos. There was uncertainty about whether progesterone thresholds ≥10 ng/mL were associated with FET outcomes in sensitivity analyses including all studies, owing to high interstudy heterogeneity and wide CIs.
CONCLUSION(S)
Our findings indicate that there may be a minimum clinically important luteal serum concentration of progesterone required to ensure an optimal endocrine milieu during embryo implantation and early pregnancy after FET treatment. Future clinical trials are required to assess whether administering higher-dose luteal phase support improves outcomes in women with a low serum progesterone level at the time of FET.
PROSPERO NUMBER
CRD42019157071.
Topics: Cryopreservation; Embryo Transfer; Female; Humans; Live Birth; Luteal Phase; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Progesterone; Prospective Studies; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted; Retrospective Studies
PubMed: 34384594
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2021.07.002 -
PloS One 2023The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the safety of the anti-thyroid drugs (ATDs) propylthiouracil (PTU) and methimazole (MMI) in the treatment of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the safety of the anti-thyroid drugs (ATDs) propylthiouracil (PTU) and methimazole (MMI) in the treatment of hyperthyroidism during pregnancy.
METHOD
From inception until June 2, 2022, all available studies were searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane, EBSCO, Embase, Scopus, and CNKI.
RESULT
Thirteen articles satisfying the inclusion criteria were examined. Our meta-analysis indicated that pregnant women treated with MMI had a higher risk of congenital anomalies than those treated with PTU (OR 0.80, 95%CI 0.69-0.92, P = 0.002, I2 = 41.9%). Shifting between MMI and PTU during pregnancy did not reduce the risk of birth defects compared to PTU alone (OR 1.18, CI 1.00 to 1.40, P = 0.061, I2 = 0.0%). There were no statistically significant differences in hepatotoxicity (OR 1.54, 95%CI 0.77-3.09, P = 0.221, I2 = 0.0%) or miscarriage (OR 0.89, 95%CI 0.72-1.11, P = 0.310, I2 = 0.0%) between PTU and MMI exposure.
CONCLUSION
The study confirmed propylthiouracil is a safer alternative to methimazole for treating hyperthyroidism in pregnant women, and it is appropriate to treat maternal thyroid disease with PTU during the first trimester of pregnancy. However, it is not clear whether switching between propylthiouracil and methimazole is a better option than treating PTU alone during pregnancy. Further studies on this matter may be needed to develop new evidence-based guidelines for the treatment of pregnant women with hyperthyroidism.
Topics: Female; Pregnancy; Humans; Methimazole; Propylthiouracil; Antithyroid Agents; Hyperthyroidism; Abortion, Spontaneous; Pregnancy Complications
PubMed: 37205692
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286097 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2020In in vitro fertilisation (IVF) with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), selection of the most competent embryo(s) for transfer is based on morphological... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
In in vitro fertilisation (IVF) with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), selection of the most competent embryo(s) for transfer is based on morphological criteria. However, many women do not achieve a pregnancy even after 'good quality' embryo transfer. One of the presumed causes is that such morphologically normal embryos have an abnormal number of chromosomes (aneuploidies). Preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A), formerly known as preimplantation genetic screening (PGS), was therefore developed as an alternative method to select embryos for transfer in IVF. In PGT-A, the polar body or one or a few cells of the embryo are obtained by biopsy and tested. Only polar bodies and embryos that show a normal number of chromosomes are transferred. The first generation of PGT-A, using cleavage-stage biopsy and fluorescence in situ hybridisation (FISH) for the genetic analysis, was demonstrated to be ineffective in improving live birth rates. Since then, new PGT-A methodologies have been developed that perform the biopsy procedure at other stages of development and use different methods for genetic analysis. Whether or not PGT-A improves IVF outcomes and is beneficial to patients has remained controversial.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of PGT-A in women undergoing an IVF treatment.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and two trials registers in September 2019 and checked the references of appropriate papers.
SELECTION CRITERIA
All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) reporting data on clinical outcomes in participants undergoing IVF with PGT-A versus IVF without PGT-A were eligible for inclusion.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted study data. The primary outcome was the cumulative live birth rate (cLBR). Secondary outcomes were live birth rate (LBR) after the first embryo transfer, miscarriage rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, proportion of women reaching an embryo transfer, and mean number of embryos per transfer.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 13 trials involving 2794 women. The quality of the evidence ranged from low to moderate. The main limitations were imprecision, inconsistency, and risk of publication bias. IVF with PGT-A versus IVF without PGT-A with the use of genome-wide analyses Polar body biopsy One trial used polar body biopsy with array comparative genomic hybridisation (aCGH). It is uncertain whether the addition of PGT-A by polar body biopsy increases the cLBR compared to IVF without PGT-A (odds ratio (OR) 1.05, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.66 to 1.66, 1 RCT, N = 396, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that for the observed cLBR of 24% in the control group, the chance of live birth following the results of one IVF cycle with PGT-A is between 17% and 34%. It is uncertain whether the LBR after the first embryo transfer improves with PGT-A by polar body biopsy (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.79, 1 RCT, N = 396, low-quality evidence). PGT-A with polar body biopsy may reduce miscarriage rate (OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.88, 1 RCT, N = 396, low-quality evidence). No data on ongoing pregnancy rate were available. The effect of PGT-A by polar body biopsy on improving clinical pregnancy rate is uncertain (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.16, 1 RCT, N = 396, low-quality evidence). Blastocyst stage biopsy One trial used blastocyst stage biopsy with next-generation sequencing. It is uncertain whether IVF with the addition of PGT-A by blastocyst stage biopsy increases cLBR compared to IVF without PGT-A, since no data were available. It is uncertain if LBR after the first embryo transfer improves with PGT-A with blastocyst stage biopsy (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.27, 1 RCT, N = 661, low-quality evidence). It is uncertain whether PGT-A with blastocyst stage biopsy reduces miscarriage rate (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.54, 1 RCT, N = 661, low-quality evidence). No data on ongoing pregnancy rate or clinical pregnancy rate were available. IVF with PGT-A versus IVF without PGT-A with the use of FISH for the genetic analysis Eleven trials were included in this comparison. It is uncertain whether IVF with addition of PGT-A increases cLBR (OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.01, 1 RCT, N = 408, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that for the observed average cLBR of 29% in the control group, the chance of live birth following the results of one IVF cycle with PGT-A is between 12% and 29%. PGT-A performed with FISH probably reduces live births after the first transfer compared to the control group (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.91, 10 RCTs, N = 1680, I² = 54%, moderate-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that for the observed average LBR per first transfer of 31% in the control group, the chance of live birth after the first embryo transfer with PGT-A is between 16% and 29%. There is probably little or no difference in miscarriage rate between PGT-A and the control group (OR 1.03, 95%, CI 0.75 to 1.41; 10 RCTs, N = 1680, I² = 16%; moderate-quality evidence). The addition of PGT-A may reduce ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.90, 5 RCTs, N = 1121, I² = 60%, low-quality evidence) and probably reduces clinical pregnancies (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.81, 5 RCTs, N = 1131; I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient good-quality evidence of a difference in cumulative live birth rate, live birth rate after the first embryo transfer, or miscarriage rate between IVF with and IVF without PGT-A as currently performed. No data were available on ongoing pregnancy rates. The effect of PGT-A on clinical pregnancy rate is uncertain. Women need to be aware that it is uncertain whether PGT-A with the use of genome-wide analyses is an effective addition to IVF, especially in view of the invasiveness and costs involved in PGT-A. PGT-A using FISH for the genetic analysis is probably harmful. The currently available evidence is insufficient to support PGT-A in routine clinical practice.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Aneuploidy; Bias; Biopsy; Birth Rate; Blastocyst; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Genetic Testing; Humans; Live Birth; Maternal Age; Polar Bodies; Pregnancy; Preimplantation Diagnosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic
PubMed: 32898291
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD005291.pub3 -
Human Reproduction Update Apr 2020Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) occurs in 1-3% of all couples trying to conceive. No consensus exists regarding when to perform testing for risk factors in couples with... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) occurs in 1-3% of all couples trying to conceive. No consensus exists regarding when to perform testing for risk factors in couples with RPL. Some guidelines recommend testing if a patient has had two pregnancy losses whereas others advise to test after three losses.
OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE
The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the current evidence on the prevalence of abnormal test results for RPL amongst patients with two versus three or more pregnancy losses. We also aimed to contribute to the debate regarding whether the investigations for RPL should take place after two or three or more pregnancy losses.
SEARCH METHODS
Relevant studies were identified by a systematic search in OVID Medline and EMBASE from inception to March 2019. A search for RPL was combined with a broad search for terms indicative of number of pregnancy losses, screening/testing for pregnancy loss or the prevalence of known risk factors. Meta-analyses were performed in case of adequate clinical and statistical homogeneity. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
OUTCOMES
From a total of 1985 identified publications, 21 were included in this systematic review and 19 were suitable for meta-analyses. For uterine abnormalities (seven studies, odds ratio (OR) 1.00, 95% CI 0.79-1.27, I2 = 0%) and for antiphospholipid syndrome (three studies, OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.86-1.25, I2 = 0%) we found low quality evidence for a lack of a difference in prevalence of abnormal test results between couples with two versus three or more pregnancy losses. We found insufficient evidence of a difference in prevalence of abnormal test results between couples with two versus three or more pregnancy losses for chromosomal abnormalities (10 studies, OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.55-1.10), inherited thrombophilia (five studies) and thyroid disorders (two studies, OR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.06-4.56).
WIDER IMPLICATIONS
A difference in prevalence in uterine abnormalities and antiphospholipid syndrome is unlikely in women with two versus three pregnancy losses. We cannot exclude a difference in prevalence of chromosomal abnormalities, inherited thrombophilia and thyroid disorders following testing after two versus three pregnancy losses. The results of this systematic review may support investigations after two pregnancy losses in couples with RPL, but it should be stressed that additional studies of the prognostic value of test results used in the RPL population are urgently needed. An evidenced-based treatment is not currently available in the majority of cases when abnormal test results are present.
Topics: Abortion, Habitual; Antiphospholipid Syndrome; Chromosome Aberrations; Female; Fertilization; Humans; Pregnancy; Risk Factors; Thrombophilia; Thyroid Diseases; Urogenital Abnormalities; Uterus
PubMed: 32103270
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmz048 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2020The use of insulin-sensitising agents, such as metformin, in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who are undergoing ovulation induction or in vitro fertilisation... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The use of insulin-sensitising agents, such as metformin, in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who are undergoing ovulation induction or in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles has been widely studied. Metformin reduces hyperinsulinaemia and suppresses the excessive ovarian production of androgens. It is suggested that as a consequence metformin could improve assisted reproductive techniques (ART) outcomes, such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), pregnancy, and live birth rates.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of metformin as a co-treatment during IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in achieving pregnancy or live birth in women with PCOS.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL via the Cochrane Register of Studies Online (CRSO), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, the trial registries for ongoing trials, and reference lists of articles (from inception to 13 February 2020).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Types of studies: randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing metformin treatment with placebo or no treatment in women with PCOS who underwent IVF or ICSI treatment.
TYPES OF PARTICIPANTS
women of reproductive age with anovulation due to PCOS with or without co-existing infertility factors. Types of interventions: metformin administered before and during IVF or ICSI treatment.
PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES
live birth rate, incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected the studies, extracted the data according to the protocol, and assessed study quality. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
This updated review includes 13 RCTs involving a total of 1132 women with PCOS undergoing IVF/ICSI treatments. We stratified the analysis by type of ovarian stimulation protocol used (long gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-agonist) or short gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-antagonist)) to determine whether the type of stimulation used influenced the outcomes. We did not perform meta-analysis on the overall (both ovarian stimulation protocols combined) data for the outcomes of live birth and clinical pregnancy rates per woman because of substantial heterogeneity. In the long protocol GnRH-agonist subgroup, the pooled evidence showed that we are uncertain of the effect of metformin on live birth rate per woman when compared with placebo/no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.94 to 1.79; 6 RCTs; 651 women; I = 47%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance for live birth following placebo/no treatment is 28%, the chance following metformin would be between 27% and 51%. Only one study used short protocol GnRH-antagonist and reported live birth rate. Metformin may reduce live birth rate compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 0.48, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.79; 1 RCT; 153 women; low-quality evidence). This suggests that if the chance for live birth following placebo/no treatment is 43%, the chance following metformin would be between 13% and 34% (short GnRH-antagonist protocol). We found that metformin may reduce the incidence of OHSS (RR 0.46, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.72; 11 RCTs; 1091 women; I = 38%; low-quality evidence). This suggests that for a woman with a 20% risk of OHSS without metformin, the corresponding risk using metformin would be between 6% and 14%. Using long protocol GnRH-agonist stimulation, metformin may increase clinical pregnancy rate per woman compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.63; 10 RCTs; 915 women; I = 13%; low-quality evidence). Using short protocol GnRH-antagonist, we are uncertain of the effect of metformin on clinical pregnancy rate per woman compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 1.38, 95% CI 0.21 to 9.14; 2 RCTs; 177 women; I = 87%; very low-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of metformin on miscarriage rate per woman when compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.32; 8 RCTs; 821 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). Metformin may result in an increase in side effects compared with placebo/no treatment (RR 3.35, 95% CI 2.34 to 4.79; 8 RCTs; 748 women; I = 0%; low-quality evidence). The overall quality of evidence ranged from very low to low. The main limitations were inconsistency, risk of bias, and imprecision.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This updated review on metformin versus placebo/no treatment before or during IVF/ICSI treatment in women with PCOS found no conclusive evidence that metformin improves live birth rates. In a long GnRH-agonist protocol, we are uncertain whether metformin improves live birth rates, but metformin may increase the clinical pregnancy rate. In a short GnRH-antagonist protocol, metformin may reduce live birth rates, although we are uncertain about the effect of metformin on clinical pregnancy rate. Metformin may reduce the incidence of OHSS but may result in a higher incidence of side effects. We are uncertain of the effect of metformin on miscarriage rate per woman.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Bias; Confidence Intervals; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Hyperandrogenism; Hyperinsulinism; Hypoglycemic Agents; Live Birth; Metformin; Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome; Ovulation Induction; Placebos; Polycystic Ovary Syndrome; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic
PubMed: 33347618
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006105.pub4 -
Cureus Apr 2022The estimated frequency of spontaneous miscarriage is about a quarter of all clinically identified pregnancies in the United States. Women typically go to the emergency... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The estimated frequency of spontaneous miscarriage is about a quarter of all clinically identified pregnancies in the United States. Women typically go to the emergency department (ED) or outpatient clinic when they experience symptoms, including but not limited to vaginal bleeding, abdominal pain, and contractions. The care that is provided varies from place to place.
METHODS
Researchers searched articles from 2010 to 2021 for reports mentioning treatment for spontaneous abortion. Search terms included "miscarriage aftercare" and "spontaneous abortion care," seeking articles addressing the psychological effects of miscarriage and reporting patient experiences in different clinical settings. Data were independently reviewed, graded for evidence quality, and assessed for risk bias using the AMSTAR checklist.
RESULTS
The search strategy yielded 2,275 articles, six of which met the inclusion criteria. Conservative, medical, and surgical management were provided, with surgical management being more common among women with higher education and socioeconomic status. All qualitative studies reported dissatisfaction with care provided in the emergency department, partially due to a lack of emotional support. Structured bereavement intervention was beneficial for women experiencing early pregnancy loss and led to fewer reports of despair. The quantitative studies referenced interventions that aided patients in coping with pregnancy loss and identified several factors influencing the type of treatment received as well as the patient's ability to cope with feeling depressed following a miscarriage.
CONCLUSION
Psychological management is not regularly addressed in the emergency department, and protocols including bereavement education for healthcare providers as well as patient involvement in management would improve the overall patient experience with spontaneous miscarriage care.
PubMed: 35602780
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.24269 -
Fertility and Sterility Aug 2023The evidence on the association between diet and miscarriage risk is scant and conflicting. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
IMPORTANCE
The evidence on the association between diet and miscarriage risk is scant and conflicting.
OBJECTIVE
To summarize the evidence on the association between periconceptual diet and miscarriage risk in healthy women of reproductive age.
DATA SOURCES
Electronic databases were searched from inception to August 2022 without restriction of regions, publication types, or languages.
STUDY SELECTION AND SYNTHESIS
Experimental or observational studies were considered for inclusion. The population was healthy women of reproductive age. Exposure was periconception diet. Study quality was assessed using the modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Summary effect sizes (odds ratio [OR] with 95% confidence interval [CI]) were calculated for each food category.
MAIN OUTCOMES
Miscarriage rate (as defined by primary studies).
RESULTS
We included 20 studies (11 cohort and 9 case-control), of which 6 presented data suitable for meta-analysis (2 cohort and 4 case-control, n = 13,183 women). Our primary analyses suggest a reduction in miscarriage odds with high intake of the following food groups: fruit (OR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.33-0.46), vegetables (OR, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.46-0.76), fruit and vegetables (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.50-0.81), seafood (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.71-0.92), dairy products (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.54-0.73), eggs (OR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.72-0.90), and cereal (grains) (OR, 0.67; 95% CI, 0.52-0.87). The evidence was uncertain for meat, red meat, white meat, fat and oil, and sugar substitutes. We did not find evidence of an association between adherence to predefined dietary patterns and miscarriage risk. However, a whole diet containing healthy foods as perceived by the trialists, or with a high Dietary Antioxidant Index score (OR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.20-0.91) may be associated with a reduction in miscarriage risk. In contrast, a diet rich in processed food was demonstrated to be associated with increased miscarriage risk (OR, 1.97; 95% CI, 1.36-3.34).
CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE
A diet abundant in fruit, vegetables, seafood, dairy, eggs, and grain may be associated with lower miscarriage odds. Further interventional studies are required to accurately assess the effectiveness of periconception dietary modifications on miscarriage risk.
PROSPERO REGISTRATION
CRD42020218133.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Abortion, Spontaneous; Diet; Fruit; Vegetables; Meat
PubMed: 37061157
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2023.04.011