Explore the vast range of titles available.

In this randomized trial involving infertile women with the polycystic ovary syndrome, frozen-embryo transfer was associated with a higher rate of live birth than was fresh-embryo transfer after the first transfer. In vitro fertilization (IVF) is widely performed as an infertility treatment and has resulted in the births of more than 5 million infants worldwide. 1 However, there are concerns about the safety of the procedures for women and for their infants. 1 , 2 The ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (which is caused by ovarian enlargement, an increase in vascular permeability and abdominal ascites, and intravascular hemoconcentration) is a potentially life-threatening complication of ovarian stimulation. 3 Pregnancies conceived by means of IVF are associated with greater risks of maternal and neonatal complications, including preeclampsia, preterm delivery, low birth weight, and congenital anomalies, than are spontaneous pregnancies. . . .

Use of frozen embryo transfer (FET) in in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) has increased. However, the best endometrial preparation protocol for FET cycles is unclear. We compared natural and modified natural cycle strategies with an artificial cycle strategy for endometrial preparation before FET. In this randomised, open-label study, we recruited ovulatory women aged 18–45 years at a hospital in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam, who were randomly allocated (1:1:1) to natural, modified natural, or artificial cycle endometrial preparation using a computer-generated random list and block randomisation. The trial was not masked due to the nature of the study interventions. In natural cycles, no oestrogen, progesterone, or human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) was used. In modified natural cycles, hCG was used to trigger ovulation. In artificial cycles, oral oestradiol valerate (8 mg/day from day 2–4 of menstruation) and vaginal progesterone (800 mg/day starting when endometrial thickness was ≥7 mm) were used. Embryos were vitrified, and then one or two day-3 embryos or one day-5 embryo were warmed and transferred under ultrasound guidance. If the first FET cycle was cancelled, subsequent cycles were performed with artificial endometrial preparation. The primary endpoint was livebirth after one FET. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04804020. Between March 22, 2021, and March 14, 2023, 4779 women were screened and 1428 were randomly assigned (476 to each group). 99 first FET cycles were cancelled in each of the natural and modified cycle groups, versus none in the artificial cycle group. The livebirth rate after one FET was 174 (37%) of 476 in the natural cycle strategy group, 159 (33%) of 476 in the modified natural cycle strategy group, and 162 (34%) of 476 in the artificial cycle strategy group (relative risk 1·07 [95% CI 0·87–1·33] for natural vs artificial cycle strategy, and 0·98 [0·79–1·22] for modified natural vs artificial cycle strategy). Maternal and neonatal outcomes did not differ significantly between groups, as the power to detect small differences was low. Although the livebirth rate was similar after natural, modified natural, and artificial cycle endometrial preparation strategies in ovulatory women undergoing FET IVF, no definitive conclusions can be made regarding the comparative safety of the three approaches. None.

In a multicenter, randomized trial, live-birth rates did not differ significantly according to fresh- or frozen-embryo transfer among ovulatory women with infertility. Frozen-embryo transfer resulted in a lower risk of the ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

This trial compared letrozole with gonadotropin or clomiphene in women with unexplained infertility. Letrozole resulted in a significantly lower frequency of multiple gestation, but also a lower frequency of live birth, as compared with gonadotropin but not as compared with clomiphene. Therapeutic options for couples with unexplained infertility include assisted reproductive technologies, such as in vitro fertilization (IVF) and embryo transfer, and empirical ovarian stimulation combined with intrauterine insemination. The high cost and limited insurance coverage of IVF in all but a few locales in the United States make it an unattainable option for most infertile couples. 1 Empirical ovarian stimulation has been thought to promote childbearing by increasing the number of ova ovulated, as well as possibly by enhancing implantation, placentation, or both through hormonal effects on the endometrium. 2 – 4 However, empirical ovarian stimulation (with clomiphene or particularly with gonadotropin) is . . .

Abstract Context The impact of vitamin D deficiency on the success of ovarian stimulation according to underlying infertility diagnosis has not been investigated. Objective To evaluate the relationship between vitamin D deficiency and reproductive outcomes after ovarian stimulation in women with either polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) or unexplained infertility. Design Retrospective cohort study. Setting Analysis of randomized controlled trial (RCT) data. Participants Participants from the Pregnancy in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome II (PPCOS II) RCT (n = 607); participants from the Assessment of Multiple Intrauterine Gestations from Ovarian Stimulation (AMIGOS) RCT of unexplained infertility (n = 647). Interventions Serum 25(OH)D levels measured in banked sera. Main Outcome Measures Primary: live birth; secondary: ovulation (PPCOS II), pregnancy, and early pregnancy loss. Results In PPCOS II, subjects with vitamin D deficiency [25(OH)D < 20 ng/mL or 50 nmol/L] were less likely to ovulate (adjusted OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68 to 0.99; P = 0.04) and experienced a 40% lower chance of live birth (adjusted OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.41 to 0.98; P = 0.04) than those not deficient. In AMIGOS, no significant association between vitamin D deficiency and live birth was noted. In pregnant subjects from both studies, vitamin D deficiency was associated with elevated risk of early pregnancy loss (OR, 1.6; 95% CI, 1.0 to 2.6; P = 0.05). Conclusions In this investigation of women pursuing ovarian stimulation, the association between vitamin D deficiency and diminished live birth relied on carrying the diagnosis of PCOS and was not observed in unexplained infertility. Given the generally modest success of ovarian stimulation, addressing vitamin D deficiency may prove an important treatment adjunct for many infertile women. In women with infertility undergoing ovarian stimulation, pretreatment vitamin D deficiency is associated with diminished live birth rates in those with PCOS but not those with unexplained infertility.

Background Adequately selecting the initial follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) dose during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) is key for success in assisted reproduction. The objective of COS is to obtain an optimal number of oocytes to increase the chances of achieving a pregnancy, while avoiding complications for the patient. Current clinical protocols do achieve good results for the majority of patients, but further refinements in individualized FSH dosing may reduce the risk of poor ovarian response while also limiting the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) risk. Models to select the first FSH dose in COS have been presented in literature with promising results. However, most have only been developed and tested in normo-ovulatory women under the age of 40 years. Methods This is a randomized, controlled, multicenter, single blinded, clinical trial. This study will be performed in 236 first cycle in vitro fertilization (IVF) and/or ICSI (intracytoplasmic sperm injection) patients, randomized 1:1 in two arms. In the intervention arm, the dose of FSH will be assigned by a machine learning (ML) model called IDoser, while in the control arm, the dose will be determined by the clinician following standard practice. Stratified block randomization will be carried out depending on the patient being classified as expected low responder, high responder, or normo-responder. Patients will complete their participation in the trial once the first embryo transfer result is known. The primary outcome of the study is the number of metaphase II (MII) oocytes retrieved at ovarian pick up (OPU) and the hypothesis of non-inferiority of the intervention arm compared to the control. Secondary outcomes include the number of cycle cancelations (due to low response or no retrieval of mature oocytes), risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), and clinical pregnancy and live birth rates per first transfer. Discussion To our knowledge, this is the first randomized trial to test clinical performance of an all-patient inclusive model to select the first dose of FSH for COS. Prospective trials for machine learning (ML) models in healthcare are scarce but necessary for clinical application. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT05948293 . Registered on 14 July 2023.

The use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection has increased substantially worldwide, primarily in couples with non-male factor infertility. However, there is a paucity of evidence from randomised trials supporting this approach compared with conventional in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). We aimed to investigate whether intracytoplasmic sperm injection would result in a higher livebirth rate compared with conventional IVF. This open-label, multicentre, randomised trial was done at two IVF centres in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam (IVFMD, My Duc Hospital and IVFAS, An Sinh Hospital). Eligible couples were aged at least 18 years and the male partner's sperm count and motility (progressive motility) were normal based on WHO 2010 criteria. Couples had to have undergone two or fewer previous conventional IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection attempts, have used an antagonist protocol for ovarian stimulation, and agree to have two or fewer embryos transferred. Couples were randomly assigned (1:1) to undergo either intracytoplasmic sperm injection or conventional IVF, using block randomisation with variable block size of 2, 4, or 8 and a telephone-based central randomisation method. The computer-generated randomisation list was prepared by an independent statistician who had no other involvement in the study. Embryologists and couples were not masked to study groups because of the type of interventions and differences in hospital fees, but clinicians performing embryo transfer were unaware of study group allocation. The primary outcome was livebirth after the first embryo transfer from the initiated cycle. Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat basis. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03428919. Between March 16, 2018, and Aug 12, 2019, we randomly assigned 1064 couples to intracytoplasmic sperm injection (n=532) or conventional IVF (n=532). Livebirth after the first embryo transfer from the initiated cycle occurred in 184 (35%) of 532 couples randomly assigned to intracytoplasmic sperm injection and in 166 (31%) of 532 couples randomly assigned to conventional IVF (absolute difference 3·4%, 95% CI −2·4 to 9·2; risk ratio [RR] 1·11, 95% CI 0·93 to 1·32; p=0·27). 29 (5%) couples in the intracytoplasmic sperm injection group and 34 (6%) couples in the conventional IVF group had fertilisation failure (absolute difference −0·9%, −4·0 to 2·1, RR 0·85, 95% CI 0·53 to 1·38; p=0·60). In couples with infertility in whom the male partner has a normal total sperm count and motility, intracytoplasmic sperm injection did not improve the livebirth rate compared with conventional IVF. Our results challenge the value of the routine use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection in assisted reproduction techniques for this population. My Duc Hospital and Merck Sharp and Dohme.

Women with unexplained infertility are often offered intrauterine insemination (IUI) with ovarian stimulation as an alternative to in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). However, little evidence exists that IUI is an effective treatment. In 2013, the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence recommended that IUI should not be routinely offered for couples with unexplained infertility. For this pragmatic, open-label, randomised, controlled, two-centre study, we enrolled women attending two fertility clinics in New Zealand with unexplained infertility and an unfavourable prognosis of natural conception. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) using a computer-generated randomisation sequence, prepared by an independent statistician, to either three cycles of IUI with ovarian stimulation (with either oral clomifene citrate [50–150 mg, days 2–6] or oral letrozole [2·5–7·5 mg, days 2–6], with choice of ovarian stimulation made by the clinic) or three cycles of expectant management (couples advised to be sexually active around the likely time of ovulation and provided with a diary to record the first day of each menstrual cycle and dates of sexual activity) in blocks of four, six, and ten, without stratification. The participating couple and the clinicians were informed of treatment allocation. The primary outcome was cumulative livebirth rate in the intention-to-treat population. The safety analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. This study was prospectively registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Register, number ACTRN12612001025820. Between March 12, 2013, and May 12, 2016, we randomly assigned 101 women to IUI with ovarian stimulation and 100 to expectant management, all of whom were included in the primary efficacy analysis and safety analyses. Women assigned to IUI had a higher cumulative livebirth rate than women assigned to expectant management (31 [31%] livebirths among 101 women vs nine [9%] livebirths among 100 women; risk ratio [RR] 3·41, 95% CI 1·71–6·79; p=0·0003). Of 31 livebirths in the IUI group, 23 resulted from IUI cycles and eight were conceived without assistance before or between IUI cycles. Of nine livebirths in the expectant management group, one patient was pregnant from IUI with ovarian stimulation at study entry and one had received off-protocol treatment (IVF). Two sets of twins were born, both in the IUI group (one from a cancelled cycle for over-response). IUI with ovarian stimulation is a safe and effective treatment for women with unexplained infertility and an unfavourable prognosis for natural conception. Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Evelyn Bond Fund of Auckland District Health Board, Mercia Barnes Trust of Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust, and The Nurture Foundation for Reproductive Research.

Background The use of progestin (P) during ovarian stimulation is effective in blocking the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge in women with normal ovarian reserve, however, its effects have not been determined in poor responders. This study aimed to explore the follicular dynamics in P-primed minimal stimulation in poor responders. Methods A total of 204 infertile women with diminished ovarian reserve were allocated into the medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) group or the natural-cycle control group in an alternating order. MPA (10 mg) was administered daily beginning from the early follicular phase and a low dose of hMG was added in the late follicular phase if the serum FSH level was lower than 8.0mIU/ml. When a dominant follicle reached maturity, triptorelin 100 μg and hCG 1000 IU were used for trigger, and oocytes were retrieved 34-36 h later.All viable embryos were cryopreserved for subsequent frozen embryo transfer. Natural cycle IVF was used as controls. Results Compared with the natural cycle group, the MPA group exhibited a larger pre-ovulatory follicle (18.7 ± 1.8 mm vs 17.2 ± 2.2 mm), a longer follicular phase (13.6 ± 3.6 days vs 12.3 ± 3.2 days), and higher peak oestradiol values (403.88 ± 167.16 vs 265.26 ± 122.16 pg/ml), while maintaining lower LH values ( P  < 0.05). The incidences of spontaneous LH surge and premature ovulation decreased significantly (1.0% vs 50%; 2% vs. 10.8%, respectively; P  < 0.05). A greater number of oocytes and viable embryos were harvested from the MPA group than from the natural cycle group ( P  < 0.05). Moreover,the clinical pregnancy rate was slightly higher in the MPA group than in the natural cycle controls, but the difference was not significant (11.8% vs 5.9%, P  > 0.05). Conclusion This study supported the hypothesis that P-primed minimal stimulation achieved ovulation control of the dominant follicle and did not adversely affect the quality of oocytes in poor responders. Therefore, P-priming is a promising approach to overcome premature ovulation in minimal stimulation for poor responders. Trial registration ChiCTR-OCH-14004176 . Registered on January 8, 2014.

Background This study compared the effectiveness of cabergoline and hydroxychloroquine in preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation. Materials and methods This double-blind, parallel, and randomized clinical trial was performed from April to June 2024. Forty-two patients with PCOS who were candidates for assisted reproductive techniques were randomized into two groups. The first group received 0.5 mg of cabergoline, and the second group received 400 mg of hydroxychloroquine for 8 days. Then, ultrasounds were conducted on days 3 and 5 after oocyte retrieval to assess for OHSS. Results Three and five days after oocyte retrieval, laboratory findings, and clinical outcomes were similar between the cabergoline and hydroxychloroquine groups. Key laboratory parameters, including hemoglobin, hematocrit, sodium, potassium, blood urea nitrogen, and creatinine, did not show significant differences between the groups. On day three, OHSS incidence didn’t have a significant difference between the hydroxychloroquine and cabergoline groups, both for the mild (31.58% vs. 42.86%) and moderate (15.79% vs. 9.52%) groups. Mild cases were observed in one of the patients in both groups 5 days after pickup ( p  = 0.942). No patients in the cabergoline group required hospitalization or treatment, compared to one in the hydroxychloroquine group ( p  = 0.127). Conclusion The incidence of OHSS was similar between cabergoline and hydroxychloroquine, with no significant differences observed in laboratory parameters or clinical outcomes after oocyte retrieval. However, given the study’s sample size, further research is needed before these findings can be generalized to a larger population. Clinical trial number http://www.irct.ir ; Registration number: IRCT20240305061171N1; Registration date: 2024 June 29.