-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2017Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is an iatrogenic and potentially life threatening condition resulting from excessive ovarian stimulation. Reported incidence of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is an iatrogenic and potentially life threatening condition resulting from excessive ovarian stimulation. Reported incidence of moderate to severe OHSS ranges from 0.6% to 5% of in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles. The factors contributing to OHSS have not been completely explained. The release of vasoactive substances secreted by the ovaries under human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) stimulation may play a key role in triggering this syndrome. This condition is characterised by a massive shift of fluid from the intravascular compartment to the third space, resulting in profound intravascular depletion and haemoconcentration.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effect of withholding gonadotrophins (coasting) on the prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in assisted reproduction cycles.
SEARCH METHODS
For the update of this review, we searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (PubMed), CINHAL, PsycINFO, Embase, Google, and clinicaltrials.gov to 6 July 2016.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in which coasting was used to prevent OHSS.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected trials and extracted data. They resolved disagreements by discussion. They contacted study authors to request additional information or missing data. The intervention comparisons were coasting versus no coasting, coasting versus early unilateral follicular aspiration (EUFA), coasting versus gonadotrophin releasing hormone antagonist (antagonist), coasting versus follicle stimulating hormone administration at the time of hCG trigger (FSH co-trigger), and coasting versus cabergoline. We performed statistical analysis in accordance with Cochrane guidelines. Our primary outcomes were moderate or severe OHSS and live birth.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight RCTs (702 women at high risk of developing OHSS). The quality of evidence was low or very low. The main limitations were failure to report live birth, risk of bias due to lack of information about study methods, and imprecision due to low event rates and lack of data. Four of the studies were published only as abstracts, and provided limited data. Coasting versus no coastingRates of OHSS were lower in the coasting group (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.24; I² = 0%, two RCTs; 207 women; low-quality evidence), suggesting that if 45% of women developed moderate or severe OHSS without coasting, between 4% and 17% of women would develop it with coasting. There were too few data to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in rates of live birth (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.62; one RCT; 68 women; very low-quality evidence), clinical pregnancy (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.44; I² = 0%; two RCTs; 207 women; low-quality evidence), multiple pregnancy (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.81; one RCT; 139 women; low-quality evidence), or miscarriage (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.86; I² = 0%; two RCTs; 207 women; very low-quality evidence). Coasting versus EUFAThere were too few data to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in rates of OHSS (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.34 to 2.85; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs; 83 women; very low-quality evidence), or clinical pregnancy (OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.79; I² = 0%; 2 RCTs; 83 women; very low-quality evidence); no studies reported live birth, multiple pregnancy, or miscarriage. Coasting versus antagonistOne RCT (190 women) reported this comparison, and no events of OHSS occurred in either arm. There were too few data to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.31; one RCT; 190 women; low-quality evidence), or multiple pregnancy rates (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.32; one RCT; 98 women; very low-quality evidence); the study did not report live birth or miscarriage. Coasting versus FSH co-triggerRates of OHSS were higher in the coasting group (OR 43.74, 95% CI 2.54 to 754.58; one RCT; 102 women; very low-quality evidence), with 15 events in the coasting arm and none in the FSH co-trigger arm. There were too few data to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.43 to 2.10; one RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). This study did not report data suitable for analysis on live birth, multiple pregnancy, or miscarriage, but stated that there was no significant difference between the groups. Coasting versus cabergolineThere were too few data to determine whether there was a difference between the groups in rates of OHSS (OR 1.98, 95% CI 0.09 to 5.68; P = 0.20; I² = 72%; two RCTs; 120 women; very low-quality evidence), with 11 events in the coasting arm and six in the cabergoline arm. The evidence suggested that coasting was associated with lower rates of clinical pregnancy (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.88; P = 0.02; I² =0%; two RCTs; 120 women; very low-quality evidence), but there were only 33 events altogether. These studies did not report data suitable for analysis on live birth, multiple pregnancy, or miscarriage.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was low-quality evidence to suggest that coasting reduced rates of moderate or severe OHSS more than no coasting. There was no evidence to suggest that coasting was more beneficial than other interventions, except that there was very low-quality evidence from a single small study to suggest that using FSH co-trigger at the time of HCG administration may be better at reducing the risk of OHSS than coasting. There were too few data to determine clearly whether there was a difference between the groups for any other outcomes.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Cabergoline; Chorionic Gonadotropin; Ergolines; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Follicle Stimulating Hormone; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Live Birth; Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Pregnancy, Multiple; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Withholding Treatment
PubMed: 28535578
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002811.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2017Medical treatment for subfertility principally involves the use of ovary-stimulating agents, including selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), such as... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Medical treatment for subfertility principally involves the use of ovary-stimulating agents, including selective oestrogen receptor modulators (SERMs), such as clomiphene citrate, gonadotropins, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists and antagonists, as well as human chorionic gonadotropin. Ovary-stimulating drugs may act directly or indirectly upon the endometrium (lining of the womb). Nulliparity and some causes of subfertility are recognized as risk factors for endometrial cancer.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the association between the use of ovary-stimulating drugs for the treatment of subfertility and the risk of endometrial cancer.
SEARCH METHODS
A search was performed in CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid) and Embase (Ovid) databases up to July 2016, using a predefined search algorithm. A search in OpenGrey, ProQuest, ClinicalTrials.gov, ZETOC and reports of major conferences was also performed. We did not impose language and publication status restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Cohort and case-control studies reporting on the association between endometrial cancer and exposure to ovary-stimulating drugs for subfertility in adult women were deemed eligible.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Study characteristics and findings were extracted by review authors independently working in pairs. Inconsistency between studies was quantified by estimating I. Random-effects (RE) models were used to calculate pooled effect estimates. Separate analyses were performed, comparing treated subfertile women versus general population and/or unexposed subfertile women, to address the superimposition of subfertility as an independent risk factor for endometrial cancer.
MAIN RESULTS
Nineteen studies were eligible for inclusion (1,937,880 participants). Overall, the quality of evidence was very low, due to serious risk of bias and indirectness (non-randomised studies (NRS), which was reflected on the GRADE assessment.Six eligible studies, including subfertile women, without a general population control group, found that exposure to any ovary-stimulating drug was not associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.37; 156,774 participants; very low quality evidence). Fifteen eligible studies, using a general population as the control group, found an increased risk after exposure to any ovary-stimulating drug (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.61; 1,762,829 participants; very low quality evidence).Five eligible studies, confined to subfertile women (92,849 participants), reported on exposure to clomiphene citrate; the pooled studies indicated a positive association ( RR 1.32; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.71; 88,618 participants; very low quality evidence), although only at high dosage (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.07 to 2.68; two studies; 12,073 participants) and at a high number of cycles (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.16 to 2.47; three studies; 13,757 participants). Four studies found an increased risk of endometrial cancer in subfertile women who required clomiphene citrate compared to a general population control group (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.00 to 3.48; four studies, 19,614 participants; very low quality evidence). These data do not tell us whether the association is due to the underlying conditions requiring clomiphene or the treatment itself.Using unexposed subfertile women as controls, exposure to gonadotropins was associated with an increased risk of endometrial cancer (RR 1.55, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.34; four studies; 17,769 participants; very low quality evidence). The respective analysis of two studies (1595 participants) versus the general population found no difference in risk (RR 2.12, 95% CI 0.79 to 5.64: very low quality evidence).Exposure to a combination of clomiphene citrate and gonadotropins, compared to unexposed subfertile women, produced no difference in risk of endometrial cancer (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.57 to 2.44; two studies; 6345 participants; very low quality evidence). However, when compared to the general population, an increased risk was found , suggesting that the key factor might be subfertility, rather than treatment (RR 2.99, 95% CI 1.53 to 5.86; three studies; 7789 participants; very low quality evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The synthesis of the currently available evidence does not allow us to draw robust conclusions, due to the very low quality of evidence. It seems that exposure to clomiphene citrate as an ovary-stimulating drug in subfertile women is associated with increased risk of endometrial cancer, especially at doses greater than 2000 mg and high (more than 7) number of cycles. This may largely be due to underlying risk factors in women who need treatment with clomiphene citrate, such as polycystic ovary syndrome, rather than exposure to the drug itself. The evidence regarding exposure to gonadotropins was inconclusive.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Chorionic Gonadotropin; Clomiphene; Drug Therapy, Combination; Endometrial Neoplasms; Female; Fertility Agents, Female; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Gonadotropins; Humans; Infertility, Female; Ovulation Induction; Retrospective Studies; Risk
PubMed: 28349511
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD010931.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2017Down's syndrome occurs when a person has three copies of chromosome 21 (or the specific area of chromosome 21 implicated in causing Down's syndrome) rather than two. It... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Down's syndrome occurs when a person has three copies of chromosome 21 (or the specific area of chromosome 21 implicated in causing Down's syndrome) rather than two. It is the commonest congenital cause of mental disability. Non-invasive screening based on biochemical analysis of maternal serum or urine, or fetal ultrasound measurements, allows estimates of the risk of a pregnancy being affected and provides information to guide decisions about definitive testing. Before agreeing to screening tests, parents need to be fully informed about the risks, benefits and possible consequences of such a test. This includes subsequent choices for further tests they may face, and the implications of both false positive (i.e. invasive diagnostic testing, and the possibility that a miscarried fetus may be chromosomally normal) and false negative screening tests (i.e. a fetus with Down's syndrome will be missed). The decisions that may be faced by expectant parents inevitably engender a high level of anxiety at all stages of the screening process, and the outcomes of screening can be associated with considerable physical and psychological morbidity. No screening test can predict the severity of problems a person with Down's syndrome will have.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate and compare the accuracy of first and second trimester serum markers with and without first trimester ultrasound markers for the detection of Down's syndrome in the antenatal period, as combinations of markers.
SEARCH METHODS
We conducted a sensitive and comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE (1980 to 25 August 2011), Embase (1980 to 25 August 2011), BIOSIS via EDINA (1985 to 25 August 2011), CINAHL via OVID (1982 to 25 August 2011), the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (the Cochrane Library 25 August 2011), MEDION (25 August 2011), the Database of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Laboratory Medicine (25 August 2011), the National Research Register (Archived 2007), and Health Services Research Projects in Progress database (25 August 2011). We did not apply a diagnostic test search filter. We did forward citation searching in ISI citation indices, Google Scholar and PubMed 'related articles'. We also searched reference lists of retrieved articles SELECTION CRITERIA: Studies evaluating tests of combining first and second trimester maternal serum markers in women up to 24 weeks of gestation for Down's syndrome, with or without first trimester ultrasound markers, compared with a reference standard, either chromosomal verification or macroscopic postnatal inspection.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were extracted as test positive/test negative results for Down's and non-Down's pregnancies allowing estimation of detection rates (sensitivity) and false positive rates (1-specificity). We performed quality assessment according to QUADAS criteria. We used hierarchical summary ROC meta-analytical methods to analyse test performance and compare test accuracy. Analysis of studies allowing direct comparison between tests was undertaken. We investigated the impact of maternal age on test performance in subgroup analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
Twenty-two studies (reported in 25 publications) involving 228,615 pregnancies (including 1067 with Down's syndrome) were included. Studies were generally high quality, although differential verification was common with invasive testing of only high risk pregnancies. Ten studies made direct comparisons between tests. Thirty-two different test combinations were evaluated formed from combinations of eight different tests and maternal age; first trimester nuchal translucency (NT) and the serum markers AFP, uE3, total hCG, free βhCG, Inhibin A, PAPP-A and ADAM 12. We looked at tests combining first and second trimester markers with or without ultrasound as complete tests, and we also examined stepwise and contingent strategies.Meta-analysis of the six most frequently evaluated test combinations showed that a test strategy involving maternal age and a combination of first trimester NT and PAPP-A, and second trimester total hCG, uE3, AFP and Inhibin A significantly outperformed other test combinations that involved only one serum marker or NT in the first trimester, detecting about nine out of every 10 Down's syndrome pregnancies at a 5% false positive rate. However, the evidence was limited in terms of the number of studies evaluating this strategy, and we therefore cannot recommend one single screening strategy.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Tests involving first trimester ultrasound with first and second trimester serum markers in combination with maternal age are significantly better than those without ultrasound, or those evaluating first trimester ultrasound in combination with second trimester serum markers, without first trimester serum markers. We cannot make recommendations about a specific strategy on the basis of the small number of studies available.
Topics: Biomarkers; Chorionic Gonadotropin; Down Syndrome; Estriol; False Positive Reactions; Female; Humans; Inhibins; Maternal Age; Nuchal Translucency Measurement; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Pregnancy Trimester, Second; Pregnancy-Associated Plasma Protein-A; Sensitivity and Specificity; alpha-Fetoproteins
PubMed: 28295159
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012599 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2017Down's syndrome occurs when a person has three, rather than two copies of chromosome 21; or the specific area of chromosome 21 implicated in causing Down's syndrome. It... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Down's syndrome occurs when a person has three, rather than two copies of chromosome 21; or the specific area of chromosome 21 implicated in causing Down's syndrome. It is the commonest congenital cause of mental disability and also leads to numerous metabolic and structural problems. It can be life-threatening, or lead to considerable ill health, although some individuals have only mild problems and can lead relatively normal lives. Having a baby with Down's syndrome is likely to have a significant impact on family life.Non-invasive screening based on biochemical analysis of maternal serum or urine, or fetal ultrasound measurements, allows estimates of the risk of a pregnancy being affected and provides information to guide decisions about definitive testing.Before agreeing to screening tests, parents need to be fully informed about the risks, benefits and possible consequences of such a test. This includes subsequent choices for further tests they may face, and the implications of both false positive and false negative screening tests (i.e. invasive diagnostic testing, and the possibility that a miscarried fetus may be chromosomally normal). The decisions that may be faced by expectant parents inevitably engender a high level of anxiety at all stages of the screening process, and the outcomes of screening can be associated with considerable physical and psychological morbidity. No screening test can predict the severity of problems a person with Down's syndrome will have.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate and compare the accuracy of first trimester ultrasound markers alone, and in combination with first trimester serum tests for the detection of Down's syndrome.
SEARCH METHODS
We carried out extensive literature searches including MEDLINE (1980 to 25 August 2011), Embase (1980 to 25 August 2011), BIOSIS via EDINA (1985 to 25 August 2011), CINAHL via OVID (1982 to 25 August 2011), and The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (the Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 7). We checked reference lists and published review articles for additional potentially relevant studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies evaluating tests of first trimester ultrasound screening, alone or in combination with first trimester serum tests (up to 14 weeks' gestation) for Down's syndrome, compared with a reference standard, either chromosomal verification or macroscopic postnatal inspection.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Data were extracted as test positive/test negative results for Down's and non-Down's pregnancies allowing estimation of detection rates (sensitivity) and false positive rates (1-specificity). We performed quality assessment according to QUADAS criteria. We used hierarchical summary ROC meta-analytical methods to analyse test performance and compare test accuracy. Analysis of studies allowing direct comparison between tests was undertaken. We investigated the impact of maternal age on test performance in subgroup analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 126 studies (152 publications) involving 1,604,040 fetuses (including 8454 Down's syndrome cases). Studies were generally good quality, although differential verification was common with invasive testing of only high-risk pregnancies. Sixty test combinations were evaluated formed from combinations of 11 different ultrasound markers (nuchal translucency (NT), nasal bone, ductus venosus Doppler, maxillary bone length, fetal heart rate, aberrant right subclavian artery, frontomaxillary facial angle, presence of mitral gap, tricuspid regurgitation, tricuspid blood flow and iliac angle 90 degrees); 12 serum tests (inhibin A, alpha-fetoprotein (AFP), free beta human chorionic gonadotrophin (ßhCG), total hCG, pregnancy-associated plasma protein A (PAPP-A), unconjugated oestriol (uE3), disintegrin and metalloprotease 12 (ADAM 12), placental growth factor (PlGF), placental growth hormone (PGH), invasive trophoblast antigen (ITA) (synonymous with hyperglycosylated hCG), growth hormone binding protein (GHBP) and placental protein 13 (PP13)); and maternal age. The most frequently evaluated serum markers in combination with ultrasound markers were PAPP-A and free ßhCG.Comparisons of the 10 most frequently evaluated test strategies showed that a combined NT, PAPP-A, free ßhCG and maternal age test strategy significantly outperformed ultrasound markers alone (with or without maternal age) except nasal bone, detecting about nine out of every 10 Down's syndrome pregnancies at a 5% false positive rate (FPR). In both direct and indirect comparisons, the combined NT, PAPP-A, free ßhCG and maternal age test strategy showed superior diagnostic accuracy to an NT and maternal age test strategy (P < 0.0001). Based on the indirect comparison of all available studies for the two tests, the sensitivity (95% confidence interval) estimated at a 5% FPR for the combined NT, PAPP-A, free ßhCG and maternal age test strategy (69 studies; 1,173,853 fetuses including 6010 with Down's syndrome) was 87% (86 to 89) and for the NT and maternal age test strategy (50 studies; 530,874 fetuses including 2701 Down's syndrome pregnancies) was 71% (66 to 75). Combinations of NT with other ultrasound markers, PAPP-A and free ßhCG were evaluated in one or two studies and showed sensitivities of more than 90% and specificities of more than 95%.High-risk populations (defined before screening was done, mainly due to advanced maternal age of 35 years or more, or previous pregnancies affected with Down's syndrome) showed lower detection rates compared to routine screening populations at a 5% FPR. Women who miscarried in the over 35 group were more likely to have been offered an invasive test to verify a negative screening results, whereas those under 35 were usually not offered invasive testing for a negative screening result. Pregnancy loss in women under 35 therefore leads to under-ascertainment of screening results, potentially missing a proportion of affected pregnancies and affecting test sensitivity. Conversely, for the NT, PAPP-A, free ßhCG and maternal age test strategy, detection rates and false positive rates increased with maternal age in the five studies that provided data separately for the subset of women aged 35 years or more.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Test strategies that combine ultrasound markers with serum markers, especially PAPP-A and free ßhCG, and maternal age were significantly better than those involving only ultrasound markers (with or without maternal age) except nasal bone. They detect about nine out of 10 Down's affected pregnancies for a fixed 5% FPR. Although the absence of nasal bone appeared to have a high diagnostic accuracy, only five out of 10 affected Down's pregnancies were detected at a 1% FPR.
Topics: Biomarkers; Chorionic Gonadotropin; Chorionic Gonadotropin, beta Subunit, Human; Down Syndrome; False Positive Reactions; Female; Humans; Maternal Age; Nasal Bone; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Pregnancy-Associated Plasma Protein-A; Sensitivity and Specificity; Ultrasonography, Prenatal
PubMed: 28295158
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012600 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2016In vitro maturation (IVM) is a fertility treatment that involves the transvaginal retrieval of immature oocytes, and their subsequent maturation and fertilisation.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
In vitro maturation (IVM) is a fertility treatment that involves the transvaginal retrieval of immature oocytes, and their subsequent maturation and fertilisation. Although the live birth rate is lower than conventional in vitro fertilisation (IVF) with ovarian stimulation, it is a useful treatment, as it avoids the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Women with polycystic ovaries (PCO) or polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) are at an increased risk of OHSS. Thus, IVM may be a more useful treatment in this patient group.Strategies to maximise the maturation rates of the immature oocytes are important. This review focuses on the administration of human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) prior to immature oocyte retrieval.
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effectiveness and safety of hCG priming in subfertile women who are undergoing IVM treatment in the context of assisted reproduction.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases up to 29 August 2016: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also searched the trial registries ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTPR to identify ongoing and registered trials. We sought recently published papers not yet indexed in the major databases, and reviewed the reference lists of reviews and retrieved studies as sources of potentially relevant studies. There were no language restrictions.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared hCG priming with placebo or no priming in women undergoing IVM. We also included RCTs that compared different doses of hCG, or the timing of oocyte retrieval. The primary outcomes were live birth rate and miscarriage rate per woman randomised.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies for inclusion, and with a third author, assessed risk of bias and extracted data. We contacted the original authors where data were missing. For dichotomous outcomes, we used the Mantel-Haenszel method to calculate odds ratios (OR). For continuous outcomes, we calculated the mean differences (MD) between treatment groups. We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four studies, with a total of 522 women, in the review. One of these studies did not report outcomes per woman randomised, and so was not included in formal analysis. Three studies investigated 10,000 units hCG priming compared to no priming. One study investigated 20,000 units hCG compared to 10,000 units hCG priming. Three studies only included women with PCOS (N = 122), while this was an exclusion criteria in the fourth study (N = 400).We rated all four studies as having an unclear risk of bias in more than one of the seven domains assessed. The quality of the evidence was low, the main limitations being lack of blinding and imprecision.When 10,000 units hCG priming was compared to no priming, we found no evidence of a difference in the live birth rates per woman randomised (OR 0.65, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.24 to 1.74; one RCT; N = 82; low quality evidence); miscarriage rate (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.72; two RCTs; N = 282; I² statistic = 21%; low quality evidence), or clinical pregnancy rate (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.26 to 1.03; two RCTs, N = 282, I² statistic = 0%, low quality evidence). Though inconclusive, our findings suggested that hCG may be associated with a reduction in clinical pregnancy rates; 22% of women who received no priming achieved pregnancy, while between 7% and 23% of women who received hCG priming did so.The study comparing 20,000 units hCG with 10,000 units hCG did not report sufficient data to enable us to calculate odds ratios.No studies reported on adverse events (other than miscarriage) or drug reactions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
This review found no conclusive evidence that hCG priming had an effect on live birth, pregnancy, or miscarriage rates in IVM. There was low quality evidence that suggested that hCG priming may reduce clinical pregnancy rates, however, these findings were limited by the small number of data included. As no data were available on adverse events (other than miscarriage) or on drug reactions, we could not adequately assess the safety of hCG priming. We need further evidence from well-designed RCTs before we can come to definitive conclusions about the role of hCG priming, and the optimal dose and timing.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Adult; Chorionic Gonadotropin; Female; Humans; In Vitro Oocyte Maturation Techniques; Infertility, Female; Live Birth; Oocyte Retrieval; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Reproductive Control Agents
PubMed: 27852101
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008720.pub2 -
Fertility and Sterility Nov 2016To study the current literature on the association between IVF treatment and maternal serum screening marker levels and nuchal translucency thickness. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To study the current literature on the association between IVF treatment and maternal serum screening marker levels and nuchal translucency thickness.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
SETTINGS
Not applicable.
PATIENT(S)
Eligible studies included those with an exposed group of pregnant women that used IVF with or without intracytoplasmic sperm injection to conceive and a control group of pregnant women who conceived spontaneously.
INTERVENTION(S)
IVF treatment to conceive.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)
Outcomes evaluated included maternal serum screening markers (pregnancy-associated plasma protein A [PAPP-A], alpha-fetoprotein, hCG, unconjugated estriol, dimeric inhibin-A) and nuchal translucency thickness.
RESULT(S)
Database searches identified 4,118 titles and abstracts that were independently screened, which resulted in 76 articles that were assessed for eligibility. Additionally, one study was added for consideration based on expert knowledge. There were 29 cohort and 11 case-control studies in the descriptive review. The most commonly reported markers were PAPP-A and free β-hCG, which were reported in 28 and 26 studies, respectively. The studies that reported effect sizes for PAPP-A and free β-hCG were not statistically significant.
CONCLUSION(S)
A decrease in PAPP-A and an increase in total hCG was consistently reported among the included studies. However, owing to the variability in the levels of the other maternal serum screening markers reported and the inability to conduct a meta-analysis, we were unable to generalize about the differences between prenatal screening results in the IVF population.
Topics: Biomarkers; Chorionic Gonadotropin; Chromosome Disorders; Estriol; Female; Fertility; Fertilization in Vitro; Humans; Infertility; Inhibins; Nuchal Translucency Measurement; Predictive Value of Tests; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Pregnancy-Associated Plasma Protein-A; Reproducibility of Results; Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic; Treatment Outcome; alpha-Fetoproteins
PubMed: 27530061
DOI: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.07.1120 -
Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases Mar 2017Develop recommendations for women's health issues and family planning in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and/or antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).
EULAR recommendations for women's health and the management of family planning, assisted reproduction, pregnancy and menopause in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus and/or antiphospholipid syndrome.
OBJECTIVES
Develop recommendations for women's health issues and family planning in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and/or antiphospholipid syndrome (APS).
METHODS
Systematic review of evidence followed by modified Delphi method to compile questions, elicit expert opinions and reach consensus.
RESULTS
Family planning should be discussed as early as possible after diagnosis. Most women can have successful pregnancies and measures can be taken to reduce the risks of adverse maternal or fetal outcomes. Risk stratification includes disease activity, autoantibody profile, previous vascular and pregnancy morbidity, hypertension and the use of drugs (emphasis on benefits from hydroxychloroquine and antiplatelets/anticoagulants). Hormonal contraception and menopause replacement therapy can be used in patients with stable/inactive disease and low risk of thrombosis. Fertility preservation with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues should be considered prior to the use of alkylating agents. Assisted reproduction techniques can be safely used in patients with stable/inactive disease; patients with positive antiphospholipid antibodies/APS should receive anticoagulation and/or low-dose aspirin. Assessment of disease activity, renal function and serological markers is important for diagnosing disease flares and monitoring for obstetrical adverse outcomes. Fetal monitoring includes Doppler ultrasonography and fetal biometry, particularly in the third trimester, to screen for placental insufficiency and small for gestational age fetuses. Screening for gynaecological malignancies is similar to the general population, with increased vigilance for cervical premalignant lesions if exposed to immunosuppressive drugs. Human papillomavirus immunisation can be used in women with stable/inactive disease.
CONCLUSIONS
Recommendations for women's health issues in SLE and/or APS were developed using an evidence-based approach followed by expert consensus.
Topics: Antiphospholipid Syndrome; Contraceptives, Oral, Hormonal; Delphi Technique; Early Detection of Cancer; Estrogen Replacement Therapy; Family Planning Services; Female; Fertility Preservation; Fetal Monitoring; Genital Neoplasms, Female; Humans; Lupus Erythematosus, Systemic; Menopause; Preconception Care; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Complications; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 27457513
DOI: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2016-209770 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2016Subfertility affects 15% of couples and represents the inability to conceive naturally following 12 months of regular unprotected sexual intercourse. Assisted... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Subfertility affects 15% of couples and represents the inability to conceive naturally following 12 months of regular unprotected sexual intercourse. Assisted reproduction refers to procedures involving the in vitro handling of both human gametes and represents a key option for many subfertile couples. Most women undergoing assisted reproduction treatment will reach the stage of embryo transfer (ET) but the proportion of embryos that successfully implant following ET has remained small since the mid-1990s. Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) is a hormone synthesised and released by the syncytiotrophoblast and has a fundamental role in embryo implantation and the early stages of pregnancy. Intrauterine administration of synthetic or natural hCG via an ET catheter during a mock procedure around the time of ET is a novel approach that has recently been suggested to improve the outcomes of assisted reproduction.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate whether the intrauterine administration of hCG around the time of ET improves the clinical outcomes in subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction.
SEARCH METHODS
We performed a comprehensive literature search of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, registers of ongoing trials andreference lists of all included studies and relevant reviews (from inception to 10 November 2015), in consultation with the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Search Co-ordinator.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating intrauterine administration of hCG around the time of ET in this review irrespective of language and country of origin.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, extracted data from studies and attempted to contact the authors where data were missing. We performed statistical analysis using Review Manager 5 in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We assessed evidence quality using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
Twelve RCTs investigated the effect of intrauterine administration of hCG for 4038 subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction. The intra-cavity hCG (IC-hCG) was administered in variable doses at different timings before the ET. The source of hCG was from the urine of pregnant women or from cell cultures using recombinant DNA technology.Most of the studies (9/12) were at high risk of bias in at least one of the seven domains assessed. Common problems were unclear reporting of study methods and lack of blinding. The main limitations in the overall quality of the evidence were high risk of bias and serious imprecision.For the analyses of live birth and clinical pregnancy, there was considerable heterogeneity (I(2) greater than 75%) and we did not undertake a meta-analysis. Exploration for the sources of heterogeneity identified two key pre-specified variables as important determinants: stage of ET (cleavage versus blastocyst stage) and dose of IC-hCG (less than 500 international units (IU) versus 500 IU or greater). We then performed meta-analysis for these analyses within the subgroups defined by stage of embryo and dose of IC-hCG.There was an increase in live birth rate in the subgroup of women having cleavage-stage ETs with an IC-hCG dose of 500 IU or greater compared to women having cleavage-stage ETs with no IC-hCG (risk ratio (RR) 1.57, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.32 to 1.87, three RCTs, n = 914, I(2) = 0%, moderate quality evidence). In a clinic with a live birth rate of 25% per cycle then the use of IC-hCG -500 IU or greater would be associated with a live birth rate that varies from 33% to 46%. We did not observe a significant effect on live birth in any of the other subgroups.The was an increase in clinical pregnancy rate in the subgroup of women having cleavage-stage ETs with an IC-hCG dose of 500 IU or greater compared to women having cleavage-stage ETs with no IC-hCG (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.58, seven RCTs, n = 1414, I(2) = 0%, moderate quality evidence). We did not observe a significant effect on clinical pregnancy in either of the other subgroups.There was no evidence that miscarriage was influenced by intrauterine hCG administration (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.43, seven RCTs, n = 3395, I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence).Other complications reported in the included studies were ectopic pregnancy (three RCTs, n = 915, three events overall), heterotopic pregnancy (one RCT, n = 495, one event), intrauterine death (two RCTs, n = 978, 21 events) and triplets (one RCT, n = 48, three events). There was no evidence of a difference between the groups, but there were too few events to allow any conclusions to be drawn and the evidence was very low quality.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The pregnancy outcome for cleavage-stage ETs using an IC-hCG dose of 500 IU or greater is promising. However, given the small size and the variable quality of the trials and the fact that the positive finding was from a subgroup analysis, the current evidence for IC-hCG treatment does not support its use in assisted reproduction cycles. A definitive large clinical trial with live birth as the primary outcome is recommended. There was no evidence that miscarriage was influenced by intrauterine hCG administration, irrespective of embryo stage at transfer or dose of IC-hCG. There were too few events to allow any conclusions to be drawn with regard to other complications.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Adult; Chorionic Gonadotropin; Embryo Transfer; Female; Humans; Infertility, Female; Live Birth; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Reproductive Control Agents; Uterus
PubMed: 27195724
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011537.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2016For the last few decades urinary human chorionic gonadotrophin (uhCG) has been used to trigger final oocyte maturation in cycles of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
For the last few decades urinary human chorionic gonadotrophin (uhCG) has been used to trigger final oocyte maturation in cycles of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Recombinant technology has allowed the production of two drugs, recombinant human chorionic gonadotrophin (rhCG) and recombinant luteinising hormone (rLH), that can be used for the same purpose, to mimic the endogenous luteinising hormone (LH) surge. This allows commercial manufacturers to adjust production according to market requirements and to remove all urinary contaminants, facilitating the safe subcutaneous administration of a compound with less batch-to-batch variation. However, prior to a change in practice, it is necessary to compare the effectiveness of the recombinant drugs to the currently used urinary human chorionic gonadotrophin (uhCG).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of subcutaneous rhCG and high dose rLH versus uhCG for inducing final oocyte maturation in subfertile women undergoing IVF and ICSI cycles.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (April 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE (1946 to April 2015), EMBASE (1980 to April 2015) and PsycINFO (1806 to April 2015) as well as trial registers at ClinicalTrials.gov on 13 May 2015 and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) search portal on 14 May 2015.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Two review authors independently scanned titles and abstracts and selected those that appeared relevant for collection of the full paper. We included randomised controlled trials comparing rhCG and rLH with urinary hCG for final oocyte maturation triggering in IVF and ICSI cycles for treatment of infertility in normogonadotropic women.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors independently performed assessment for inclusion or exclusion, quality assessment and data extraction. We discussed any discrepancies in the presence of a third author to reach a consensus. The primary review outcomes were ongoing pregnancy/live birth and incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Clinical pregnancy, miscarriage rate, number of oocytes retrieved and adverse events were secondary outcomes. We combined data to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I(2) statistic. We evaluated the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 18 RCTs involving 2952 participants; 15 compared rhCG with uhCG, and 3 compared rhLH with uhCG. The evidence for different comparisons ranged from very low to high quality: limitations were poor reporting of study methods and imprecision. Pharmaceutical companies funded 9 of the 18 studies, and 5 studies did not clearly report funding source. Ongoing pregnancy/live birthThere was no conclusive evidence of a difference between rhCG and uhCG (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.49; 7 RCTs, N = 1136, I(2) = 0%, moderate quality evidence) or between rhLH and uhCG (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.78, 2 RCTs, N = 289, I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence) for ongoing pregnancy/live birth rates. OHSS There was no evidence of a difference between rhCG and uhCG in the incidence of OHSS: moderate to severe OHSS (OR 1.76, 95% CI 0.37 to 8.45; 3 RCTs, N = 417, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence), moderate OHSS (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.27 to 2.27; 1 RCT, N = 243, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence), mild to moderate OHSS (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.38; 2 RCTs, N = 320, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence) or undefined OHSS (OR 1.18, 95% CI 0.50 to 2.78; 3 RCTs, N = 495, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence). Likewise, there was no evidence of a difference between rhLH and uhCG in OHSS rates for moderate OHSS (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.69, 2 RCTs, N = 280, I(2) = 5%, very low quality evidence). Other adverse events There was no evidence of a difference in miscarriage rates between rhCG and uhCG (OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.41 to 1.25; 8 RCTs, N = 1196, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence) or between rhLH and uhCG (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.40; 2 RCTs, N = 289, I(2) = 0%, very low quality evidence). For other adverse effects (most commonly injection-site reactions) rhCG was associated with a lower number of adverse events than uhCG (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.76; 5 RCTS, N = 561; I(2) = 67%, moderate quality evidence). However, when we used a random-effects model due to substantial statistical heterogeneity, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups (OR 0.56, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.13). Only one study comparing rLH and uhCG reported other adverse events, and it was impossible to draw conclusions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that there is no evidence of a difference between rhCG or rhLH and uhCG for live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates or rates of OHSS.
Topics: Chorionic Gonadotropin; Female; Fertilization in Vitro; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Luteinizing Hormone; Ovulation Induction; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Recombinant Proteins; Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic
PubMed: 27106604
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003719.pub4 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2015Down's syndrome occurs when a person has three copies of chromosome 21, or the specific area of chromosome 21 implicated in causing Down's syndrome, rather than two. It... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Down's syndrome occurs when a person has three copies of chromosome 21, or the specific area of chromosome 21 implicated in causing Down's syndrome, rather than two. It is the commonest congenital cause of mental disability and also leads to numerous metabolic and structural problems. It can be life-threatening, or lead to considerable ill health, although some individuals have only mild problems and can lead relatively normal lives. Having a baby with Down's syndrome is likely to have a significant impact on family life. The risk of a Down's syndrome affected pregnancy increases with advancing maternal age.Noninvasive screening based on biochemical analysis of maternal serum or urine, or fetal ultrasound measurements, allows estimates of the risk of a pregnancy being affected and provides information to guide decisions about definitive testing. Before agreeing to screening tests, parents need to be fully informed about the risks, benefits and possible consequences of such a test. This includes subsequent choices for further tests they may face, and the implications of both false positive and false negative screening tests (i.e. invasive diagnostic testing, and the possibility that a miscarried fetus may be chromosomally normal). The decisions that may be faced by expectant parents inevitably engender a high level of anxiety at all stages of the screening process, and the outcomes of screening can be associated with considerable physical and psychological morbidity. No screening test can predict the severity of problems a person with Down's syndrome will have.
OBJECTIVES
To estimate and compare the accuracy of first and second trimester urine markers for the detection of Down's syndrome.
SEARCH METHODS
We carried out a sensitive and comprehensive literature search of MEDLINE (1980 to 25 August 2011), EMBASE (1980 to 25 August 2011), BIOSIS via EDINA (1985 to 25 August 2011), CINAHL via OVID (1982 to 25 August 2011), The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 7), MEDION (25 August 2011), The Database of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Laboratory Medicine (25 August 2011), The National Research Register (archived 2007), Health Services Research Projects in Progress database (25 August 2011). We studied reference lists and published review articles.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Studies evaluating tests of maternal urine in women up to 24 weeks of gestation for Down's syndrome, compared with a reference standard, either chromosomal verification or macroscopic postnatal inspection.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We extracted data as test positive or test negative results for Down's and non-Down's pregnancies allowing estimation of detection rates (sensitivity) and false positive rates (1-specificity). We performed quality assessment according to QUADAS (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies) criteria. We used hierarchical summary ROC (receiver operating characteristic) meta-analytical methods to analyse test performance and compare test accuracy. We performed analysis of studies allowing direct comparison between tests. We investigated the impact of maternal age on test performance in subgroup analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 studies involving 18,013 pregnancies (including 527 with Down's syndrome). Studies were generally of high quality, although differential verification was common with invasive testing of only high-risk pregnancies. Twenty-four test combinations were evaluated formed from combinations of the following seven different markers with and without maternal age: AFP (alpha-fetoprotein), ITA (invasive trophoblast antigen), ß-core fragment, free ßhCG (beta human chorionic gonadotrophin), total hCG, oestriol, gonadotropin peptide and various marker ratios. The strategies evaluated included three double tests and seven single tests in combination with maternal age, and one triple test, two double tests and 11 single tests without maternal age. Twelve of the 19 studies only evaluated the performance of a single test strategy while the remaining seven evaluated at least two test strategies. Two marker combinations were evaluated in more than four studies; second trimester ß-core fragment (six studies), and second trimester ß-core fragment with maternal age (five studies).In direct test comparisons, for a 5% false positive rate (FPR), the diagnostic accuracy of the double marker second trimester ß-core fragment and oestriol with maternal age test combination was significantly better (ratio of diagnostic odds ratio (RDOR): 2.2 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.1 to 4.5), P = 0.02) (summary sensitivity of 73% (CI 57 to 85) at a cut-point of 5% FPR) than that of the single marker test strategy of second trimester ß-core fragment and maternal age (summary sensitivity of 56% (CI 45 to 66) at a cut-point of 5% FPR), but was not significantly better (RDOR: 1.5 (0.8 to 2.8), P = 0.21) than that of the second trimester ß-core fragment to oestriol ratio and maternal age test strategy (summary sensitivity of 71% (CI 51 to 86) at a cut-point of 5% FPR).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Tests involving second trimester ß-core fragment and oestriol with maternal age are significantly more sensitive than the single marker second trimester ß-core fragment and maternal age, however, there were few studies. There is a paucity of evidence available to support the use of urine testing for Down's syndrome screening in clinical practice where alternatives are available.
Topics: Biomarkers; Chorionic Gonadotropin; Down Syndrome; Estriol; False Positive Reactions; Female; Gonadotropins; Humans; Maternal Age; Predictive Value of Tests; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Trimester, First; Pregnancy Trimester, Second; Sensitivity and Specificity; alpha-Fetoproteins
PubMed: 26662198
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011984