Search

STUDY QUESTION Are there any differences in physical and psychosocial well-being among women undergoing modified natural cycle frozen embryo transfer (mNC-FET) with or without vaginal progesterone as luteal phase support (LPS)? SUMMARY ANSWER Women undergoing mNC-FET with vaginal progesterone supplementation were more likely to experience physical discomfort but there was no difference in psychosocial well-being between the two groups. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY mNC-FET can be carried out with or without vaginal progesterone as LPS, which has several side-effects. It is commonly known that fertility treatment can cause stress and psychosocial strain, however, most studies on this subject are conducted in fresh cycle regimes, which differ from NC-FET and results may not be comparable. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This is a sub-study of an ongoing RCT investigating whether progesterone supplementation has a positive effect on live birth rate in mNC-FET. The RCT is conducted at eight fertility clinics in Denmark from 2019 and is planned to end primo 2024. The sub-study is based on two questionnaires on physical and psychosocial well-being added to the RCT in August 2019. On the time of data extraction 286 women had answered both questionnaires. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Women who had answered both questionnaires were included in the sub-study. Participants were equally distributed, with 143 in each of the two groups. Participants in both groups received the same questionnaires at two time-points: on cycle day 2–5 (baseline) and after blastocyst transfer. Participants in the progesterone group had administered progesterone for 7 days upon answering the second questionnaire. All items in the questionnaires were validated. Items on psychosocial well-being originate from the Copenhagen Multi-Centre Psychosocial Infertility—Fertility Problem Stress Scale (COMPI-FPSS) and from the Mental Health Inventory-5. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Women receiving progesterone experienced more vaginal itching and/or burning than women in the non-progesterone group (P  < 0.001). Women in the progesterone group also experienced more self-reported vaginal yeast infection, this was, however, not significant after adjustment for multiple testing (P/adjusted P  =   0.049/0.881). No differences regarding psychosocial well-being were found between the two groups. Within the progesterone group, a shift toward feeling less 'downhearted and blue' was found when comparing response distribution at baseline and after blastocyst transfer (P  < 0.001). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION All items on physical symptoms were self-reported. The item on vaginal yeast infection was therefore not diagnosed by a doctor. Inclusion in the study required a few extra visits to the clinic, participants who felt more burdened by fertility treatment might have been more likely to decline participation. Women who experienced a lot of side-effects to progesterone prior to this FET cycle, might be less likely to participate. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Our results are in line with previous known side-effects to progesterone. Physical side-effects of progesterone should be considered before administration. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The RCT is fully supported by Rigshospitalet's Research Foundation and a grant from Gedeon Richter. Gedeon Richter were not involved in the design of protocol nor in the conduction of the study or analysis of results. A.P. L.P. and N.I.-C.F. report grants from Gedeon Richter, Ferring and Merck with no relations to this study. N.I.-C.F. has received travel support from Ferring, Merck A/S, & Gideon Richter, and is the head of the steering committee for the Danish Fertility Guidelines made by the members of from the Danish Fertility Society. A.P. reports consulting fees from Preglem, Novo Nordisk, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Cryos, & Merck A/S, honoraria from Gedeon Richter, Ferring, Merck A/S, Theramex, and Organon, has received travel support from Gedeon Richter (payment to institution), participated on an advisory board for Preglem and was loaned an embryoscope from Gedeon Richter to their institution. A.L.S. has stock options for Novo Nordisk B A/S. B.A. have received unrestricted grant from Gedeon Richter Nordic and Merck and honoraria for lectures from Gedeon Richter, Merck, IBSA, and Marckyrl Pharma. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER The RCT is registered on ClinicalTrials. gov (NCT03795220) and in EudraCT (2018-002207-34). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Does diet-induced weight loss improve semen parameters, and are these possible improvements maintained with sustained weight loss?Summary Answer: An 8-week low-calorie diet-induced weight loss was associated with improved sperm concentration and sperm count, which were maintained after 1 year in men who maintained weight loss.What Is Known Already: Obesity is associated with impaired semen quality. Weight loss improves metabolic health in obesity, but there is a lack of knowledge on the acute and long-term effects of weight loss on semen parameters.Study Design, Size, Duration: This is a substudy of men with obesity enrolled in a randomized, controlled, double-blinded trial (the S-LITE trial). The trial was conducted between August 2016 and November 2019. A total of 56 men were included in the study and assigned to an initial 8-week low-calorie diet (800 kcal/day) followed by randomization to 52 weeks of either: placebo and habitual activity (placebo), exercise training and placebo (exercise), the Glucagon Like Peptide 1 (GLP-1) analogue liraglutide and habitual activity (liraglutide) or liraglutide in combination with exercise training (combination).Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Inclusion criteria were men who delivered semen samples, 18 to 65 years of age, and a body mass index between 32 and 43 kg/m2, but otherwise healthy. The study was carried out at Hvidovre Hospital and at the University of Copenhagen, and the participants were from the Greater Copenhagen Area. We assessed semen parameters and anthropometrics and collected blood samples before (T0), after the 8-week low-calorie dietary intervention (T1), and after 52 weeks (T2).Main Results and the Role Of Chance: The men lost on average 16.5 kg (95% CI: 15.2-17.8) body weight during the low-calorie diet, which increased sperm concentration 1.49-fold (95% CI: 1.18-1.88, P < 0.01) and sperm count 1.41-fold (95% CI: 1.07-1.87, P < 0.01). These improvements were maintained for 52 weeks in men who maintained the weight loss, but not in men who regained weight. Semen volume, sperm motility and motile sperm count did not change.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: The S-LITE trial was a randomized controlled trial of weight loss maintenance. Analysis of semen was preregistered to explore the effects of weight loss and weight loss maintenance on semen parameters, but definite inferences cannot be made.Wider Implications Of the Findings: This study shows that sperm concentration and sperm count were improved after a diet-induced weight loss in men with obesity. Our findings indicate that either or both liraglutide and exercise as weight maintenance strategies may be used to maintain the improvements in sperm concentration and count.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This work is supported by an excellence grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF16OC0019968), a Challenge Programme Grant from the Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF18OC0033754) and a grant from Helsefonden. The Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research is an independent research centre at the University of Copenhagen, partially funded by an unrestricted donation from the Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF18CC0034900). Saxenda (liraglutide) and placebo pens were provided by Novo Nordisk. Cambridge Weight Plan diet products for the 8-week low-calorie diet were provided by Cambridge Weight Plan. E.A.: shareholder, employee of ExSeed Health Ltd. Grant Recipient from ExSeed Health Ltd and listed on Patents planned, issued or pending with ExSeed Health Ltd; J.J.H.: consultant for Eli Lilly A/S and Novo Nordisk A/S. Lecture fees for Novo Nordisk A/S. Listed on Patents planned, issued or pending with the University of Copenhagen, Advocacy group for Antag Therapeutics and Bainan Biotech; S.M.: lecture fees for Novo Nordisk A/S. Recipient of Support for attending meetings from Novo Nordisk A/S. Advisory boards of Novo Nordisk A/S; Sanofi Aventis and Merck Sharp & Dohme. S.S.T.: research grant recipient Novo Nordisk. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.Trial Registration Number: The trial was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Capital Region of Denmark (H-16027082) and the Danish Medicines Agency (EudraCT Number: 2015-005585-32). ClinicalTrials.gov identifier (NCT number): NCT04122716.Trial Registration Date: 11 May 2016.Date Of First Patient’s Enrolment: August 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In Europe, the number of frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles is steadily increasing, now accounting for more than 190 000 cycles per year. It is standard clinical practice to postpone FET for at least one menstrual cycle following a failed fresh transfer or after a freeze-all cycle. The purpose of this practice is to minimise the possible residual negative effect of ovarian stimulation on the resumption of a normal ovulatory cycle and receptivity of the endometrium. Although elective deferral of FET may unnecessarily delay time to pregnancy, immediate FET may be inefficient in a clinical setting, following an increased risk of irregular ovulatory cycles and the presence of functional cysts, increasing the risk of cycle cancellation.Objective and Rationale: This review explores the impact of timing of FET in the first cycle (immediate FET) versus the second or subsequent cycle (postponed FET) following a failed fresh transfer or a freeze-all cycle on live birth rate (LBR). Secondary endpoints were implantation, pregnancy and clinical pregnancy rates (CPR) as well as miscarriage rate (MR).Search Methods: We searched PubMed (MEDLINE) and EMBASE databases for MeSH and Emtree terms, as well as text words related to timing of FET, up to March 2020, in English language. There were no limitations regarding year of publication or duration of follow-up. Inclusion criteria were subfertile women aged 18-46 years with any indication for treatment with IVF/ICSI. Studies on oocyte donation were excluded. All original studies were included, except for case reports, study protocols and abstracts only. Covidence, a Cochrane-tool, was used for sorting and screening of literature. Risk of bias was assessed using the Robins-I tool and the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework.Outcomes: Out of 4124 search results, 15 studies were included in the review. Studies reporting adjusted odds ratios (aOR) for LBR, CPR and MR were included in meta-analyses. All studies (n = 15) were retrospective cohort studies involving a total of 6,304 immediate FET cycles and 13,851 postponed FET cycles including 8,019 matched controls. Twelve studies of very low to moderate quality reported no difference in LBR with immediate versus postponed FET. Two studies of moderate quality reported a statistically significant increase in LBR with immediate FET and one small study of very low quality reported better LBR with postponed FET. Trends in rates of secondary outcomes followed trends in LBR regarding timing of FET. The meta-analyses showed a significant advantage of immediate FET (n =2,076) compared to postponed FET (n =3,833), with a pooled aOR of 1.20 (95% CI 1.01-1.44) for LBR and a pooled aOR of 1.22 (95% CI 1.07-1.39) for CPR.Wider Implications: The results of this review indicate a slightly higher LBR and CPR in immediate versus postponed FET. Thus, the standard clinical practice of postponing FET for at least one menstrual cycle following a failed fresh transfer or a freeze-all cycle may not be best clinical practice. However, as only retrospective cohort studies were assessed, the presence of selection bias is apparent, and the quality of evidence thus seems low. Randomised controlled trials including data on cancellation rates and reasons for cancellation are highly needed to provide high-grade evidence regarding clinical practice and patient counselling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Despite the high number of frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles being conducted (190 000 cycles/ year) in Europe, the timing of blastocyst transfer and the use of luteal phase progesterone support in modified natural cycle FET (mNC-FET) in assisted reproductive technologies are controversial. In mNC-FET, the timing of blastocyst warming and transfer is determined according to the time of implantation in a natural cycle, aiming to reach blastocyst endometrial synchronicity. However, the optimal day of blastocyst transfer following ovulation trigger is not determined. In addition, the value of luteal phase support to maintain the endometrium remains uncertain. Thus, there is a need to identify the optimal timing of blastocyst warming and transfer and the effect of luteal phase support in a randomised controlled trial design. The aim of this randomised controlled trial is to investigate if progesterone supplementation from the early luteal phase until gestational age 8 weeks is superior to no progesterone supplementation and to assess if blastocyst warming and transfer 6 days after ovulation trigger is superior to 7 days after ovulation trigger in mNC-FET with live birth rates as the primary outcome. Methods and analysis Multicentre, randomised, controlled, single-blinded trial including 604 normo-ovulatory women aged 18–41 years undergoing mNC-FET with a high-quality blastocyst originating from their first to third in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle. Participants are randomised (1:1:1:1) to either luteal phase progesterone or no luteal phase progesterone and to blastocyst warming and transfer on day 6 or 7 after human chorionic gonadotropin trigger. Only single blastocyst transfers will be performed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]