Search

BACKGROUND While there is a recognized role of optimizing lifestyle (diet and physical activity) behaviours in the management of infertility, the best practice remains unknown and factors influencing the lifestyle of people with infertility are not well understood. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE This systematic review evaluated barriers and enablers to a healthy lifestyle in people with infertility, from the perspectives of people with infertility and health professionals, in order to inform optimal behavioural change strategies. SEARCH METHODS Ovid MEDLINE(R), PsycINFO, EMBASE, EBM Reviews, and CINAHL were searched from inception to 28 August 2023. Eligible studies were qualitative and quantitative primary studies that explored barriers and/or enablers to lifestyle for infertility management. Quality assessment was performed using the Centre for Evidence-Based Management Critical Appraisal of a Survey Tool and the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Qualitative Checklist. Data were analysed by thematic analysis with themes mapped to the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation and Behaviour (COM-B) model and Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). OUTCOMES After screening 12 326 abstracts and 99 full-texts, 27 studies were included (12 quantitative, 6 qualitative and 9 mixed-methods) with 22 studies of women with infertility (n = 2524), 11 studies of men with infertility (n = 1407), and 6 studies of health professionals (n = 372). We identified barriers and enablers relating to capability (e.g. strategies for behaviour change), opportunity (e.g. limited time, resources, and money), and motivation (e.g. interplay between lifestyle and emotional state). Based on the identified themes, suggested intervention components to integrate into lifestyle management of infertility include facilitating development of self-management skills to support lifestyle change (e.g. self-monitoring, action planning, and goal setting) and incorporating mental health strategies (e.g. providing information about the benefits of healthy lifestyle behaviours for mental health and encouraging patients to reframe healthy lifestyle behaviours as self-care strategies). WIDER IMPLICATIONS The findings have identified important factors that influence lifestyle management in people with infertility and have suggested relevant intervention components to consider when designing interventions. Given the paucity of qualitative studies identified, more research is needed to further understand the complex and interacting factors that shape lifestyle during the fertility journey. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION Does a purpose-designed Decision Aid for women considering elective egg freezing (EEF) impact decisional conflict and other decision-related outcomes? SUMMARY ANSWER The Decision Aid reduces decisional conflict, prepares women for decision-making, and does not cause distress. WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN Elective egg-freezing decisions are complex, with 78% of women reporting high decisional conflict. Decision Aids are used to support complex health decisions. We developed an online Decision Aid for women considering EEF and demonstrated that it was acceptable and useful in Phase 1 testing. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A single-blind, two-arm parallel group randomized controlled trial was carried out. Target sample size was 286 participants. Randomization was 1:1 to the control (existing website information) or intervention (Decision Aid plus existing website information) group and stratified by Australian state/territory and prior IVF specialist consultation. Participants were recruited between September 2020 and March 2021 with outcomes recorded over 12 months. Data were collected using online surveys and data collection was completed in March 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Females aged ≥18 years, living in Australia, considering EEF, proficient in English, and with internet access were recruited using multiple methods including social media posts, Google advertising, newsletter/noticeboard posts, and fertility clinic promotion. After completing the baseline survey, participants were emailed their allocated website link(s). Follow-up surveys were sent at 6 and 12 months. Primary outcome was decisional conflict (Decisional Conflict Scale). Other outcomes included distress (Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale), knowledge about egg freezing and female age-related infertility (study-specific measure), whether a decision was made, preparedness to decide about egg freezing (Preparation for Decision-Making Scale), informed choice (Multi-Dimensional Measure of Informed Choice), and decision regret (Decision Regret Scale). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Overall, 306 participants (mean age 30 years; SD: 5.2) were randomized (intervention n = 150, control n = 156). Decisional Conflict Scale scores were significantly lower at 12 months (mean score difference: −6.99 [95% CI: −12.96, −1.02], P  = 0.022) for the intervention versus control group after adjusting for baseline decisional conflict. At 6 months, the intervention group felt significantly more prepared to decide about EEF than the control (mean score difference: 9.22 [95% CI: 2.35, 16.08], P  = 0.009). At 12 months, no group differences were observed in distress (mean score difference: 0.61 [95% CI: −3.72, 4.93], P  = 0.783), knowledge (mean score difference: 0.23 [95% CI: −0.21, 0.66], P  = 0.309), or whether a decision was made (relative risk: 1.21 [95% CI: 0.90, 1.64], P  = 0.212). No group differences were found in informed choice (relative risk: 1.00 [95% CI: 0.81, 1.25], P  = 0.983) or decision regret (median score difference: −5.00 [95% CI: −15.30, 5.30], P  = 0.337) amongst participants who had decided about EEF by 12 months (intervention n = 48, control n = 45). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Unknown participant uptake and potential sampling bias due to the recruitment methods used and restrictions caused by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Some outcomes had small sample sizes limiting the inferences made. The use of study-specific or adapted validated measures may impact the reliability of some results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This is the first randomized controlled trial to evaluate a Decision Aid for EEF. The Decision Aid reduced decisional conflict and improved women's preparation for decision making. The tool will be made publicly available and can be tailored for international use. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The Decision Aid was developed with funding from the Royal Women's Hospital Foundation and McBain Family Trust. The study was funded by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Project Grant APP1163202, awarded to M. Hickey, M. Peate, R.J. Norman, and R. Hart (2019–2021). S.S. M.P. D.K. and S.B. were supported by the NHMRC Project Grant APP1163202 to perform this work. R.H. is Medical Director of Fertility Specialists of Western Australia and National Medical Director of City Fertility. He has received grants from MSD, Merck-Serono, and Ferring Pharmaceuticals unrelated to this study and is a shareholder of CHA-SMG. R.L. is Director of Women's Health Melbourne (Medical Practice), ANZSREI Executive Secretary (Honorary), RANZCOG CREI Subspecialty Committee Member (Honorary), and a Fertility Specialist at Life Fertility Clinic Melbourne and Royal Women's Hospital Public Fertility Service. R.A.A. has received grants from Ferring Pharmaceuticals unrelated to this study. M.H. K.H. and R.J.N. have no conflicts to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ACTRN12620001032943 TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 11 August 2020 DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT 29 September 2020 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In recent years, concerns about the financial burdens of health care and growing recognition of the relevance of cost to decision making and patient experience have increasingly focused attention on financial 'transparency' and disclosure of costs to patients. In some jurisdictions, there have been calls not only for timely disclosure of costs information, but also for 'informed financial consent'. However, simply putting the 'financial' into 'informed consent' and invoking an informed consent standard for cost information encounters several ethical, legal, and practical difficulties. This article will examine the viability and desirability of 'informed financial consent', and whether it is possible to derive ideas from traditional informed consent that may improve decision making and the patient experience. We argue that, while there are important legal, ethical, and practical challenges to consider, some of the principles of informed consent to treatment can usefully guide financial communication. We also argue that, while medical practitioners (and their delegates) have an important role to play in bridging the gap between disclosure and enabling informed (financial) decision making, this must be part of a multi-faceted approach to financial communication that acknowledges the influence of non-clinical providers and other structural forces on discharging such obligations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evidence suggests that one reason doctors provide certain interventions in assisted reproductive technologies (ART) is because of patient demand. This is particularly the case when it comes to unproven interventions such as 'add‐ons' to in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles, or providing IVF cycles that are highly unlikely to succeed. Doctors tend to accede to demands for such interventions because patients are willing to do and pay 'whatever it takes' to have a baby. However, there is uncertainty as to what moral weight should be placed on patient‐led demands in ART, including whether it is acceptable for such demands to be invoked as a justification for intervention. We address this issue in this paper. We start by elucidating what we mean by 'patient‐led demand' and synthesise some of the evidence for this phenomenon. We then argue that a doctor's professional role morality (PRM) yields special responsibilities, particularly in commercialised healthcare settings such as ART, because of the nature of professions as social institutions that are distinct from markets. We argue on this basis that, while there may be reasons (consistent with PRM) for doctors to accede to patient demand, this is not always the case. There is often a gap in justification between acceding to patient‐led demands and providing contested interventions, particularly in commercial settings. As a result, acceding to demand in such settings needs a strong justification to be consistent with PRM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundThere is increasing information characterizing menstrual cycle length in women, but less information is available on the potential differences across lifestyle variables. ObjectiveThis study aimed to describe differences in menstrual cycle length, variability, and menstrual phase across women of different ages and BMI among a global cohort of Flo app users. We have also reported on demographic and lifestyle characteristics across median cycle lengths. MethodsThe analysis was run based on the aggregated anonymized dataset from a menstrual cycle tracker and ovulation calendar that covers all phases of the reproductive cycle. Self-reported information is documented, including demographics, menstrual flow and cycle length, ovulation information, and reproductive health and diseases. Data from women aged ≥18 years and who had logged at least three cycles (ie, 2 completed cycles and 1 current cycle) in the Flo app were included (1,579,819 women). ResultsOf the 1.5 million users, approximately half (638,683/1,579,819, 40.42%) were aged between 18 and 24 years. Just over half of those reporting BMIs were in the normal range (18.5-24.9 kg/m2; 202,420/356,598, 56.76%) and one-third were overweight or obese (>25 kg/m2; 120,983/356,598, 33.93%). A total of 16.32% (257,889/1,579,819) of women had a 28-day median cycle length. There was a higher percentage of women aged ≥40 years who had a 27-day median cycle length than those aged between 18 and 24 years (22,294/120,612, 18.48% vs 60,870/637,601, 9.55%), but a lower percentage with a 29-day median cycle length (10,572/120,612, 8.77% vs 79,626/637,601, 12.49%). There were a higher number of cycles with short luteal phases in younger women, whereas women aged ≥40 years had a higher number of cycles with longer luteal phases. Median menstrual cycle length and the length of the follicular and luteal phases were not remarkably different with increasing BMI, except for the heaviest women at a BMI of ≥50 kg/m2. ConclusionsOn a global scale, we have provided extensive evidence on the characteristics of women and their menstrual cycle length and patterns across different age and BMI groups. This information is necessary to support updates of current clinical guidelines around menstrual cycle length and patterns for clinical use in fertility programs.

STUDY QUESTION Does ambient temperature exposure affect outcomes including clinical pregnancy and live birth in women undergoing IVF? SUMMARY ANSWER Both extreme cold and hot ambient temperatures were significantly associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes of IVF cycles. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Heat exposure has been linked to adverse pregnancy outcomes worldwide. However, the effect of ambient temperature on infertile women undergoing IVF treatment is unclear. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A retrospective cohort study was conducted from a database of 3452 infertile women who underwent their first fresh or frozen embryo transfer in the Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital from April 2016 to December 2020. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Daily mean ambient temperature exposure for each patient was obtained based on their residential address. Temperature-stratified multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to investigate associations between temperature exposure and pregnancy outcomes after controlling for confounders. Vulnerable sub-groups were identified using forest plots. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate were 45.7% and 37.1%, respectively. Regarding clinical pregnancy, a higher temperature during cold weather was significantly associated with a higher pregnancy rate in the period about 11 weeks before ovarian stimulation (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 1.102, 95% CI: 1.012–1.201). Regarding live birth, an increased temperature during cold weather was significantly related to a higher live birth rate in the period after confirmation of clinical pregnancy or biochemical pregnancy, with the aORs of 6.299 (95% CI: 3.949–10.047) or 10.486 (95% CI: 5.609–19.620), respectively. However, a higher temperature during hot weather was negatively associated with the live birth rate in the periods after confirmation of clinical pregnancy or biochemical pregnancy, with the aORs at 0.186 (95% CI: 0.121–0.285) or 0.302 (95% CI: 0.224–0.406), respectively. Moreover, the decline in live birth rates during cold and hot weather was accompanied by increased rates of early miscarriage (P  < 0.05). Stratified analyses identified susceptibility characteristics among the participants. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Climate monitoring data were used to represent individual temperature exposure levels according to the patient's residential address in the study. We were not able to obtain information of personal outdoor activity and use of indoor air conditioners in this retrospective study, which may affect actual temperature exposure. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This study highlights that the ambient temperature exposure should be taken into account during IVF treatment and afterwards. There is a need to be alert to extremes in cold and hot ambient temperatures, especially during the period of follicle development and pregnancy. With this knowledge, clinicians can scientifically determine the timing of IVF treatment and reinforce patients' awareness of self-protection to minimize adverse pregnancy outcomes associated with extreme temperatures. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This work was supported by a grant from the Clinical Research Plan of Shanghai Hospital Development Center [SHDC2020CR4080], a grant from the Science and Technology Commission of Shanghai Municipality [19411960500], and two grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China [81871213, 81671468]. B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, and research grants from Merck KGaA, Ferring and Guerbet. The other authors have no conflict of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: What is the recommended assessment and management of those with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), based on the best available evidence, clinical expertise, and consumer preference? Summary Answer: International evidence-based guidelines address prioritized questions and outcomes and include 254 recommendations and practice points, to promote consistent, evidence-based care and improve the experience and health outcomes in PCOS. What is Known Already: The 2018 International PCOS Guideline was independently evaluated as high quality and integrated multidisciplinary and consumer perspectives from six continents; it is now used in 196 countries and is widely cited. It was based on best available, but generally very low to low quality, evidence. It applied robust methodological processes and addressed shared priorities. The guideline transitioned from consensus based to evidence-based diagnostic criteria and enhanced accuracy of diagnosis, whilst promoting consistency of care. However, diagnosis is still delayed, the needs of those with PCOS are not being adequately met, evidence quality was low and evidence-practice gaps persist. Study Design, Size, Duration: The 2023 International Evidence-based Guideline update reengaged the 2018 network across professional societies and consumer organizations with multidisciplinary experts and women with PCOS directly involved at all stages. Extensive evidence synthesis was completed. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-II (AGREEII)-compliant processes were followed. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was applied across evidence quality, feasibility, acceptability, cost, implementation and ultimately recommendation strength and diversity and inclusion were considered throughout. Participants/Materials, Setting, Methods: This summary should be read in conjunction with the full Guideline for detailed participants and methods. Governance included a six-continent international advisory and management committee, five guideline development groups, and paediatric, consumer, and translation committees. Extensive consumer engagement and guideline experts informed the update scope and priorities. Engaged international society-nominated panels included paediatrics, endocrinology, gynaecology, primary care, reproductive endocrinology, obstetrics, psychiatry, psychology, dietetics, exercise physiology, obesity care, public health and other experts, alongside consumers, project management, evidence synthesis, statisticians and translation experts. Thirty-nine professional and consumer organizations covering 71 countries engaged in the process. Twenty meetings and five face-to-face forums over 12 months addressed 58 prioritized clinical questions involving 52 systematic and 3 narrative reviews. Evidence-based recommendations were developed and approved via consensus across five guideline panels, modified based on international feedback and peer review, independently reviewed for methodological rigour, and approved by the Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). Main Results and the Role of Chance: The evidence in the assessment and management of PCOS has generally improved in the past five years, but remains of low to moderate quality. The technical evidence report and analyses (∼6000 pages) underpins 77 evidence-based and 54 consensus recommendations, with 123 practice points. Key updates include: i) further refinement of individual diagnostic criteria, a simplified diagnostic algorithm and inclusion of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels as an alternative to ultrasound in adults only; ii) strengthening recognition of broader features of PCOS including metabolic risk factors, cardiovascular disease, sleep apnea, very high prevalence of psychological features, and high risk status for adverse outcomes during pregnancy; iii) emphasizing the poorly recognized, diverse burden of disease and the need for greater healthcare professional education, evidence-based patient information, improved models of care and shared decision making to improve patient experience, alongside greater research; iv) maintained emphasis on healthy lifestyle, emotional wellbeing and quality of life, with awareness and consideration of weight stigma; and v) emphasizing evidence-based medical therapy and cheaper and safer fertility management. Limitations, Reasons for Caution: Overall, recommendations are strengthened and evidence is improved, but remain generally low to moderate quality. Significantly greater research is now needed in this neglected, yet common condition. Regional health system variation was considered and acknowledged, with a further process for guideline and translation resource adaptation provided. Wider Implications of the Findings: The 2023 International Guideline for the Assessment and Management of PCOS provides clinicians and patients with clear advice on best practice, based on the best available evidence, expert multidisciplinary input and consumer preferences. Research recommendations have been generated and a comprehensive multifaceted dissemination and translation programme supports the Guideline with an integrated evaluation program. Study Funding/Competing Interest(s): This effort was primarily funded by the Australian Government via the National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (APP1171592), supported by a partnership with American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Endocrine Society, European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology, and the European Society for Endocrinology. The Commonwealth Government of Australia also supported Guideline translation through the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFCRI000266). HJT and AM are funded by NHMRC fellowships. JT is funded by a Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) fellowship. Guideline development group members were volunteers. Travel expenses were covered by the sponsoring organizations. Disclosures of interest were strictly managed according to NHMRC policy and are available with the full guideline, technical evidence report, peer review and responses (www.monash.edu/medicine/mchri/pcos). Of named authors HJT, CTT, AD, LM, LR, JBoyle, AM have no conflicts of interest to declare. JL declares grant from Ferring and Merck; consulting fees from Ferring and Titus Health Care; speaker’s fees from Ferring; unpaid consultancy for Ferring, Roche Diagnostics and Ansh Labs; and sits on advisory boards for Ferring, Roche Diagnostics, Ansh Labs, and Gedeon Richter. TP declares a grant from Roche; consulting fees from Gedeon Richter and Organon; speaker’s fees from Gedeon Richter and Exeltis; travel support from Gedeon Richter and Exeltis; unpaid consultancy for Roche Diagnostics; and sits on advisory boards for Roche Diagnostics. MC declares travels support from Merck; and sits on an advisory board for Merck. JBoivin declares grants from Merck Serono Ltd.; consulting fees from Ferring B.V; speaker’s fees from Ferring Arzneimittell GmbH; travel support from Organon; and sits on an advisory board for the Office of Health Economics. RJN has received speaker’s fees from Merck and sits on an advisory board for Ferring. AJoham has received speaker’s fees from Novo Nordisk and Boehringer Ingelheim. The guideline was peer reviewed by special interest groups across our 39 partner and collaborating organizations, was independently methodologically assessed against AGREEII criteria and was approved by all members of the guideline development groups and by the NHMRC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous studies suggest that children conceived via the use of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) are at increased risk for congenital anomalies (CAs). However, underlying infertility was not always accounted for, and fertility treatments have expanded over time. This population-based cohort study examines the risk for CAs in children conceived using various types of fertility treatment, including ARTs, compared with those conceived without the use of fertility treatment among parents with and without a history of infertility. Visual Abstract. The Risk for Congenital Anomalies in Children Conceived With Medically Assisted Fertility Treatment: Previous studies suggest that children conceived via the use of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs) are at increased risk for congenital anomalies (CAs). However, underlying infertility was not always accounted for, and fertility treatments have expanded over time. This population-based cohort study examines the risk for CAs in children conceived using various types of fertility treatment, including ARTs, compared with those conceived without the use of fertility treatment among parents with and without a history of infertility. Background: More than 2 million children are conceived annually using assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs), with a similar number conceived using ovulation induction and intrauterine insemination (OI/IUI). Previous studies suggest that ART-conceived children are at increased risk for congenital anomalies (CAs). However, the role of underlying infertility in this risk remains unclear, and ART clinical and laboratory practices have changed drastically over time, particularly there has been an increase in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and cryopreservation. Objective: To investigate the role of underlying infertility and fertility treatment on CA risks in the first 2 years of life. Design: Propensity score–weighted population-based cohort study. Setting: New South Wales, Australia. Participants: 851 984 infants (828 099 singletons and 23 885 plural children) delivered between 2009 and 2017. Measurements: Adjusted risk difference (aRD) in CAs of infants conceived through fertility treatment compared with 2 naturally conceived (NC) control groups—those with and without a parental history of infertility (NC-infertile and NC-fertile). Results: The overall incidence of CAs was 459 per 10 000 singleton births and 757 per 10 000 plural births. Compared with NC-fertile singleton control infants (n  = 747 018), ART-conceived singleton infants (n  = 31 256) had an elevated risk for major genitourinary abnormalities (aRD, 19.0 cases per 10 000 births [95% CI, 2.3 to 35.6]); the risk remained unchanged (aRD, 22 cases per 10 000 births [CI, 4.6 to 39.4]) when compared with NC-infertile singleton control infants (n  = 36 251) (that is, after accounting for parental infertility), indicating that ART remained an independent risk. After accounting for parental infertility, ICSI in couples without male infertility was associated with an increased risk for major genitourinary abnormalities (aRD, 47.8 cases per 10 000 singleton births [CI, 12.6 to 83.1]). There was some suggestion of increased risk for CAs after fresh embryo transfer, although estimates were imprecise and inconsistent. There were no increased risks for CAs among OI/IUI-conceived infants (n  = 13 574). Limitations: This study measured the risk for CAs only in those children who were born at or after 20 weeks' gestation. Observational study design precludes causal inference. Many estimates were imprecise. Conclusion: Patients should be counseled on the small increased risk for genitourinary abnormalities after ART, particularly after ICSI, which should be avoided in couples without problems of male infertility. Primary Funding Source: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION What is the recommended assessment and management of those with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), based on the best available evidence, clinical expertise, and consumer preference? SUMMARY ANSWER International evidence-based guidelines address prioritized questions and outcomes and include 254 recommendations and practice points, to promote consistent, evidence-based care and improve the experience and health outcomes in PCOS. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The 2018 International PCOS Guideline was independently evaluated as high quality and integrated multidisciplinary and consumer perspectives from six continents; it is now used in 196 countries and is widely cited. It was based on best available, but generally very low to low quality, evidence. It applied robust methodological processes and addressed shared priorities. The guideline transitioned from consensus based to evidence-based diagnostic criteria and enhanced accuracy of diagnosis, whilst promoting consistency of care. However, diagnosis is still delayed, the needs of those with PCOS are not being adequately met, evidence quality was low and evidence-practice gaps persist. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The 2023 International Evidence-based Guideline update reengaged the 2018 network across professional societies and consumer organizations, with multidisciplinary experts and women with PCOS directly involved at all stages. Extensive evidence synthesis was completed. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-II (AGREEII)-compliant processes were followed. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was applied across evidence quality, feasibility, acceptability, cost, implementation and ultimately recommendation strength and diversity and inclusion were considered throughout. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS This summary should be read in conjunction with the full Guideline for detailed participants and methods. Governance included a six-continent international advisory and management committee, five guideline development groups, and paediatric, consumer, and translation committees. Extensive consumer engagement and guideline experts informed the update scope and priorities. Engaged international society-nominated panels included paediatrics, endocrinology, gynaecology, primary care, reproductive endocrinology, obstetrics, psychiatry, psychology, dietetics, exercise physiology, obesity care, public health and other experts, alongside consumers, project management, evidence synthesis, statisticians and translation experts. Thirty-nine professional and consumer organizations covering 71 countries engaged in the process. Twenty meetings and five face-to-face forums over 12 months addressed 58 prioritized clinical questions involving 52 systematic and 3 narrative reviews. Evidence-based recommendations were developed and approved via consensus across five guideline panels, modified based on international feedback and peer review, independently reviewed for methodological rigour, and approved by the Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The evidence in the assessment and management of PCOS has generally improved in the past five years, but remains of low to moderate quality. The technical evidence report and analyses (∼6000 pages) underpins 77 evidence-based and 54 consensus recommendations, with 123 practice points. Key updates include: i) further refinement of individual diagnostic criteria, a simplified diagnostic algorithm and inclusion of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels as an alternative to ultrasound in adults only; ii) strengthening recognition of broader features of PCOS including metabolic risk factors, cardiovascular disease, sleep apnea, very high prevalence of psychological features, and high risk status for adverse outcomes during pregnancy; iii) emphasizing the poorly recognized, diverse burden of disease and the need for greater healthcare professional education, evidence-based patient information, improved models of care and shared decision making to improve patient experience, alongside greater research; iv) maintained emphasis on healthy lifestyle, emotional wellbeing and quality of life, with awareness and consideration of weight stigma; and v) emphasizing evidence-based medical therapy and cheaper and safer fertility management. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Overall, recommendations are strengthened and evidence is improved, but remains generally low to moderate quality. Significantly greater research is now needed in this neglected, yet common condition. Regional health system variation was considered and acknowledged, with a further process for guideline and translation resource adaptation provided. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The 2023 International Guideline for the Assessment and Management of PCOS provides clinicians and patients with clear advice on best practice, based on the best available evidence, expert multidisciplinary input and consumer preferences. Research recommendations have been generated and a comprehensive multifaceted dissemination and translation program supports the Guideline with an integrated evaluation program. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This effort was primarily funded by the Australian Government via the National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (APP1171592), supported by a partnership with American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Endocrine Society, European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology, and European Society for Endocrinology. The Commonwealth Government of Australia also supported Guideline translation through the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFCRI000266). HJT and AM are funded by NHMRC fellowships. JT is funded by a Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) fellowship. Guideline development group members were volunteers. Travel expenses were covered by the partnering organizations. Disclosures of interest were strictly managed according to NHMRC policy and are available with the full guideline, technical evidence report, peer review and responses (www.monash.edu/medicine/mchri/pcos). Of named authors HJT, CTT, AD, LM, LR, JBoyle, AM have no conflicts of interest to declare. JL declares grant from Ferring and Merck; consulting fees from Ferring and Titus Health Care; speaker's fees from Ferring; unpaid consultancy for Ferring, Roche Diagnostics and Ansh Labs; and sits on advisory boards for Ferring, Roche Diagnostics, Ansh Labs, and Gedeon Richter. TP declares a grant from Roche; consulting fees from Gedeon Richter and Organon; speaker's fees from Gedeon Richter and Exeltis; travel support from Gedeon Richter and Exeltis; unpaid consultancy for Roche Diagnostics; and sits on advisory boards for Roche Diagnostics. MC declares travels support from Merck; and sits on an advisory board for Merck. JBoivin declares grants from Merck Serono Ltd.; consulting fees from Ferring B.V; speaker's fees from Ferring Arzneimittell GmbH; travel support from Organon; and sits on an advisory board for the Office of Health Economics. RJN has received speaker's fees from Merck and sits on an advisory board for Ferring. AJoham has received speaker's fees from Novo Nordisk and Boehringer Ingelheim. The guideline was peer reviewed by special interest groups across our 39 partner and collaborating organizations, was independently methodologically assessed against AGREEII criteria and was approved by all members of the guideline development groups and by the NHMRC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Elective egg freezing decisions are complex. We developed a Decision Aid for elective egg freezing and conducted a phase 1 study to evaluate its acceptability and utility for decision-making. Methods: The online Decision Aid was developed according to International Patient Decision Aid Standards and evaluated using a pre/post survey design. Twenty-six Australian women aged 18–45 years, interested in receiving elective egg freezing information, proficient in English, and with access to the internet were recruited using social media and university newsletters. Main outcomes were: acceptability of the Decision Aid; feedback on the Decision Aid design and content; concern raised by the Decision Aid, and; utility of the Decision Aid as measured by scores on the Decisional Conflict Scale and on a study-specific scale assessing knowledge about egg freezing and age-related infertility. Results: Most participants found the Decision Aid acceptable (23/25), balanced (21/26), useful for explaining their options (23/26), and for reaching a decision (18/26). Almost all reported satisfaction with the Decision Aid (25/26) and the level of guidance it provided (25/26). No participant reported serious concerns about the Decision Aid, and most would recommend it to other women considering elective egg freezing (22/26). Median Decisional Conflict Scale score decreased from 65/100 (Interquartile range: 45–80) pre-Decision Aid to 7.5/100 (Interquartile range: 0–37.5) post-Decision Aid review (p < 0.001). Median knowledge score increased from 8.5/14 (Interquartile range: 7–11) pre-Decision Aid to 11/14 (Interquartile range: 10–12) post-Decision Aid review (p = 0.01). Conclusion: This elective egg freezing Decision Aid appears acceptable and useful for decision-making. It improved knowledge, reduced decisional conflict and did not raise serious concerns. The Decision Aid will be further evaluated using a prospective randomised control trial. Study registration: ACTRN12618001685202 (retrospectively registered: 12 October 2018). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Since the birth of the first baby using IVF technology in 1978, over 10 million children have been conceived via ART. Although most aspects of ARTs were developed in animal models, the introduction of these technologies into clinical practice was performed without comprehensive assessment of their long-term safety. The monitoring of these technologies over time has revealed differences in the physiology of babies produced using ARTs, yet due to the pathology of those presenting for treatment, it is challenging to separate the cause of infertility from the effect of treatments offered. The use of systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the impacts of the predominant ART interventions used clinically in human populations on animals produced in healthy fertile populations offers an alternative approach to understanding the long-term safety of reproductive technologies. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to examine the evidence available from animal studies on physiological outcomes in the offspring conceived after IVF, IVM or ICSI, compared to in vivo fertilization, and to provide an overview on the landscape of research in this area. SEARCH METHODS PubMed, Embase and Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux (CAB) Abstracts were searched for relevant studies published until 27 August 2021. Search terms relating to assisted reproductive technology, postnatal outcomes and mammalian animal models were used. Studies that compared postnatal outcomes between in vitro -conceived (IVF, ICSI or IVM) and in vivo -conceived mammalian animal models were included. In vivo conception included mating, artificial insemination, or either of these followed by embryo transfer to a recipient animal with or without in vitro culture. Outcomes included birth weight, gestation length, cardiovascular, metabolic and behavioural characteristics and lifespan. OUTCOMES A total of 61 studies in five different species (bovine, equine, murine, ovine and non-human primate) met the inclusion criteria. The bovine model was the most frequently used in IVM studies (32/40), while the murine model was mostly used in IVF (17/20) and ICSI (6/8) investigations. Despite considerable heterogeneity, these studies suggest that the use of IVF or maturation results in offspring with higher birthweights and a longer length of gestation, with most of this evidence coming from studies in cattle. These techniques may also impair glucose and lipid metabolism in male mice. The findings on cardiovascular outcomes and behaviour outcomes were inconsistent across studies. WIDER IMPLICATIONS Conception via in vitro or in vivo means appears to have an influence on measurable outcomes of offspring physiology, manifesting differently across the species studied. Importantly, it can be noted that these measurable differences are noticeable in healthy, fertile animal populations. Thus, common ART interventions may have long-term consequences for those conceived through these techniques, regardless of the pathology underpinning diagnosed infertility. However, due to heterogeneous methods, results and measured outcomes, highlighted in this review, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions. Optimizing animal and human studies that investigate the safety of new reproductive technologies will provide insight into safeguarding the introduction of novel interventions into the clinical setting. Cautiously prescribing the use of ARTs clinically may also be considered to reduce the chance of promoting adverse outcomes in children conceived before long-term safety is confidently documented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND In many countries, ART service provision is a commercial enterprise. This has benefits, for example, creating efficiencies and economies of scale, but there are also concerns that financial imperatives can negatively impact patient care. The commercialization of ART is often conceptualized as being driven solely by the financial interests of companies and clinicians, but there are in fact many complex and intersecting socio-political demands for ART that have led to, sustain and shape the industry. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE To use the academic and policy discourse on the commercialization of ART to build a theoretical model of factors that influence demand for ART services in high-income countries in order to inform potential policy responses. SEARCH METHODS We searched electronic databases for journal articles (including Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed) and websites for grey literature, carried out reference chaining and searched key journals (including Human Reproduction , Fertility and Sterility). The terms used to guide these searches were 'assisted reproductive technology' OR 'in vitro fertilization' AND 'commerce' OR 'commercialisation' OR 'industry' OR 'market'. The search was limited to the English language and included articles published between 2010 and 2020. We used an established method of critical interpretive synthesis (CIS) to build a theoretical model of factors that influence demand for ART services in high-income countries. We developed initial themes from a broad review of the literature followed by iterative theoretical sampling of academic and grey literatures to further refine these themes. OUTCOMES According to contemporary academic and broader socio-political discourse, the demand for ART has arisen, expanded and evolved in response to a number of intersecting forces. Economic imperatives to create sustainable national workforces, changing gender roles and concerns about the preservation of genetic, national/ethnic and role-related identities have all created demand for ART in both public and private sectors. The prominence given to reproductive autonomy and patient-centred care has created opportunities to (re)define what constitutes appropriate care and, therefore, what services should be offered. All of this is happening in the context of technological developments that provide an increasing range of reproductive choices and entrench the framing of infertility as a disease requiring medical intervention. These socio-political drivers of demand for ART can be broadly organized into four theoretical categories, namely security, identity, individualization and technocratization. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The primary limitation is that the interpretive process is ultimately subjective, and so alternative interpretations of the data are possible. WIDER IMPLICATIONS Development of policy related to commercial activity in ART needs to account for the broad range of factors influencing demand for ART, to which commercial ART clinics are responding and within which they are embedded. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This work was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Ideas Grant (APP1181401). All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest in relation to this work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Is there any difference in developmental outcomes in children born after capacitation IVM (CAPA IVM) compared with conventional IVF?Summary Answer: Overall development up to 24 months of age was comparable in children born after CAPA IVM compared with IVF.What Is Known Already: IVM has been shown to be a feasible alternative to conventional IVF in women with a high antral follicle count (AFC). In addition to live birth rate, childhood development is also a relevant metric to compare between the two approaches to ART and there are currently no data on this.Study Design, Size, Duration: This study was a follow-up of babies born to women who participated in a randomized controlled trial comparing IVM with a pre-maturation step (CAPA IVM) and IVF. Developmental assessments were performed on 231 children over 24 months of follow-up.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Participants in the randomized controlled trial had an indication for ART and a high AFC (≥24 follicles in both ovaries). They were randomized to undergo one cycle of either IVM (n = 273) or IVF (n = 273). Of these, 96 women and 118 women, respectively, had live births. Seventy-six women (94 children, 79.2%) and 104 women (137 children, 88.1%), respectively, completed Ages & Stages Third Edition Questionnaire assessment (ASQ-3), and underwent evaluation of Developmental Red Flags at 6, 12 and 24 months of age.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: Baseline characteristics of participants in the follow-up study between the IVM and IVF groups were comparable. Overall, there were no significant differences in ASQ-3 scores at 6, 12 and 24 months between children born after IVM or IVF. The proportion of children with developmental red flags was low and did not differ between the two groups. Slightly, but significantly, lower ASQ-3 problem solving and personal-social scores in twins from the IVM versus IVF group at 6 months were still within the normal range and had caught up to the IVF group in the 12- and 24-month assessments. The number of children confirmed to have abnormal mental and/or motor development after specialist assessment was four in the IVM group and two in the IVF group (relative risk 2.91, 95% CI 0.54-15.6; P = 0.23).Limitations, Reasons For Caution: This study is an open-label follow-up of participants in a randomized controlled trial, and not all original trial subjects took part in the follow-up. The self-selected nature of the follow-up population could have introduced bias, and the sample size may have been insufficient to detect significant between-group differences in developmental outcomes.Wider Implications Of the Findings: Based on the current findings at 2 years of follow-up, there does not appear to be any significant concern about the effects of IVM on childhood development. These data add to the evidence available to physicians when considering different approaches to fertility treatment, but require validation in larger studies.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This work was funded by the Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED) under grant number FWO.106-YS.2017.02. L.N.V. has received speaker and conference fees from Merck, grant, speaker and conference fees from Merck Sharpe and Dohme, and speaker, conference and scientific board fees from Ferring; T.M.H. has received speaker fees from Merck, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Ferring; R.J.N. has receives grant funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia; B.W.M. has acted as a paid consultant to Merck, ObsEva and Guerbet and is the recipient of grant money from an NHMRC Investigator Grant; J.E.J.S. reports lecture fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Biomérieux and Besins Female Healthcare, grants from Fund for Research Flanders (FWO) and is co-inventor on granted patents on CAPA-IVM methodology in the USA (US10392601B2) and Europe (EP3234112B1); T.D.P., M.H.N.N., N.A.N., T.T.L., V.T.T.T., N.T.N., H.L.T.H. and X.T.H.L. have no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years, and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.Trial Registration Number: NCT04296357 (www.clinicaltrials.gov).Trial Registration Date: 5 March 2020.Date Of First Patient’s Enrolment: 7 March 2020. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]