Search

STUDY QUESTION Does maternal infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome Coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) in first trimester pregnancy have an impact on the fetal development as measured by nuchal translucency thickness and pregnancy loss? SUMMARY ANSWER Nuchal translucency thickness at the first trimester scan was not significantly different in pregnant women with versus without SARS-CoV-2 infection in early pregnancy and there was no significantly increased risk of pregnancy loss in women with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first trimester. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Pregnant women are more vulnerable to viral infections. Previous coronavirus epidemics have been associated with increased maternal morbidity, mortality and adverse obstetric outcomes. Currently, no evidence exists regarding possible effects of SARS-CoV-2 in first trimester pregnancies. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Cohort study of 1019 women with a double test taken between 17 February and 23 April 2020, as a part of the combined first trimester risk assessment, and 36 women with a first trimester pregnancy loss between 14 April and 21 May 2020, prior to the double test. The study period was during the first SARS-CoV-2 epidemic wave in Denmark. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Cohort 1 included pregnant women with a double test taken within the study period. The excess serum from each double test was analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. Results were correlated to the nuchal translucency thickness and the number of pregnancy losses before or at the time of the first trimester scan. Cohort 2 included women with a pregnancy loss before the gestational age for double test sample. Serum from a blood test taken the day the pregnancy loss was identified was analyzed for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. The study was conducted at a public university hospital serving ∼12% of pregnant women and births in Denmark. All participants in the study provided written informed consent. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Eighteen (1.8%) women had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in the serum from the double test suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection in early pregnancy. There was no significant difference in nuchal translucency thickness for women testing positive for previous SARS-CoV-2 infection (n = 16) versus negative (n = 966) (P  = 0.62). There was no significantly increased risk of pregnancy loss for women with antibodies (n = 1) (OR 3.4, 0.08–24.3 95% CI, P  = 0.27). None of the women had been hospitalized due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. None of the women with pregnancy loss prior to the double test (Cohort 2) had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION These results may only apply to similar populations and to patients who do not require hospitalization due to SARS-CoV-2 infection. A limitation of the study is that only 1.8% of the study population had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies suggestive of previous infection. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS Maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection had no effect on the nuchal translucency thickness and there was no significantly increased risk of pregnancy loss for women with SARS-CoV-2 infection in first trimester pregnancy. Evidence concerning COVID-19 in pregnancy is still limited. These data indicate that infection with SARS-CoV-2 in not hospitalized women does not pose a significant threat in first trimester pregnancies. Follow-up studies are needed to establish any risk to a fetus exposed to maternal SARS-CoV-2 infection. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) Prof. H.S.N. and colleagues received a grant from the Danish Ministry of Research and Education for research of COVID-19 among pregnant women. The Danish government was not involved in the study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report or decision to submit the paper for publication. A.I. J.O.-L. J.B.-R. D.M.S. J.E.-F. and E.R.H. received funding from a Novo Nordisk Foundation (NNF) Young Investigator Grant (NNF15OC0016662) and a Danish National Science Foundation Center Grant (6110-00344B). A.I. received a Novo Scholarship. J.O.-L. is funded by an NNF Pregraduate Fellowship (NNF19OC0058982). D.W. is funded by the NNF (NNF18SA0034956, NNF14CC0001, NNF17OC0027594). A.M.K. is funded by a grant from the Rigshospitalet's research fund. H.S.N. has received speaker's fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck Denmark A/S and Ibsa Nordic (outside the submitted work). N.l.C.F. has received a grant from Gedeon Richter (outside the submitted work). A.M.K. has received speaker's fee from Merck (outside the submitted work). The other authors did not report any potential conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: What are the attitudes towards different aspects of a freeze-all strategy and elective frozen embryo transfer (eFET) in comparison with fresh embryo transfer in assisted reproductive technology treatment among female and male patients before and after their first ART treatment cycle in a public health care setting?Summary Answer: Despite concerns about the delay in embryo transfer associated with eFET, nearly 60% of the participants were in favor of eFET compared with fresh embryo transfer assuming that the clinical pregnancy rate was equivalent.What Is Known Already: Vitrification and blastocyst transfer have considerably improved success rates after FET with ongoing pregnancy rates in frozen cycles approaching those seen in fresh treatment cycles. Furthermore, the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is essentially eliminated in FET cycles, and FET may be beneficial to the endometrial and fetal development because a hormonal environment mirroring the natural cycle is enabled. However, the freeze-all strategy is not yet implemented as standard care. One reason is the presumption of negative patient attitudes towards a freeze-all embryo strategy. So far, no data regarding patients' attitudes on a freeze-all strategy have been published.Study Design, Size, Duration: This study was designed as a descriptive cross-sectional study including 165 fertility patients referred for their first ART treatment from December 2014 to June 2016.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: All newly referred patients participating in a mandatory meeting before initiating ART treatment at the Fertility Clinic, Hvidovre Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark were requested to fill in an online web-based questionnaire separately for men and women covering attitudes towards a freeze-all strategy, socio-demographic data and reproductive history. The patients were informed about both conventional fresh embryo transfer strategy and the freeze-all strategy prior to answering the questionnaire.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: The total response rate was 77.1% (n = 165), and for women and men respectively 85.8 versus 66.0%. The female respondents were significantly more likely to consider the postponement of embryo transfer difficult compared to the male population (78.6 versus 35.5%; P < 0.001) and they were significantly more willing to accept a risk in treatment on own health to achieve a pregnancy than were the male respondents on their partners health (82.5 versus 96.8%; P = 0.025). However, 59.2% of the women and 59.7% of the men agreed that they would choose eFET over fresh embryo transfer if the chance of pregnancy were the same. Most of the patients furthermore agreed that the health of the mother and their baby was of highest importance. In the adjusted analyses we found no significant predictive factors for preferences towards a freeze-all strategy apart from a negative attitude towards delay of transfer in case of previous unsuccessful ART attempts.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: Selection bias cannot be excluded, as the total response rate was 77.1%. The hypothetical nature of the items may furthermore limit the validity of the results. In addition, the participants were from a single Fertility Clinic in the Capital Region of Denmark and may therefore not be representative for all fertility patients.Wider Implications Of the Findings: In a clinical setting with similar pregnancy rates for eFET and fresh embryo transfer, these results indicate that patients, when given access to information on advantages and disadvantages of both fresh embryo transfer and eFET, are less prone to opt for fresh embryo transfer. This may be ground breaking for a patient-centered paradigm shift in routine ART treatment with a wider implementation of a freeze-all and eFET-strategy eliminating the risk of OHSS.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The Danish Council for Independent Research and Merck Serono supported the study. The study is part of the Reprounion Collaborative study, co-financed by the European Union, Interreg V ÖKS. No competing interests exist. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Are cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) similar in GnRH-antagonist and GnRH-agonist protocols for the first ART cycle including all subsequent frozen-thaw cycles from the same oocyte retrieval?Summary Answer: The chances of at least one live birth following utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos after the first ART cycle are similar in GnRH-antagonist and GnRH-agonist protocols.What Is Known Already: Reproductive outcomes of ART treatment are traditionally reported as pregnancies per cycle or per embryo transfer. However, the primary concern is the overall chance of a live birth. After the first ART cycle with fresh embryo transfer, we found live birth rates (LBRs) of 22.8% and 23.8% (P = 0.70) for the GnRH-antagonist and GnRH-agonist protocols, respectively. But with CLBRs including both fresh and frozen embryos from the first oocyte retrieval, chances of at least one live birth increases. There are no previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CLBRs in GnRH-antagonist versus GnRH-agonist protocols. Previous studies on CLBR are either retrospective cohort studies including multiple fresh cycles or RCTs comparing single embryo transfer (SET) with double embryo transfer (DET).Study Design, Size, Duration: CLBR was a secondary outcome in a Phase IV, dual-center, open-label, RCT including 1050 women allocated to a short GnRH-antagonist or a long GnRH-agonist protocol in a 1:1 ratio over a 5-year period using a web-based concealed randomization code. The minimum follow-up time from the first IVF cycle was 2 years. The aim was to compare CLBR between the two groups following utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos from the first ART cycle.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: All women referred for their first ART cycle at two public fertility clinics, <40 years of age were approached. A total of 1050 subjects were allocated to treatment and 1023 women started standardized ART protocols with recombinant human follitropin-β (rFSH) stimulation. Day-2 SET was planned and additional embryos were frozen and used in subsequent frozen-thawed cycles. All pregnancies generated from oocyte retrieval during the first IVF cycle including fresh and frozen-thaw cycles were registered. Ongoing pregnancy was determined by ultrasonography at gestational week 7-9 and live birth was irrespective of the duration of gestation. CLBR was defined as at least one live birth per allocated woman after fresh and frozen cycles. Subjects were censored out after the first live birth. Cox proportional hazard model was used to evaluate the relative prognostic significance of female age, BMI, the number of retrieved oocytes and the diagnosis of infertility in relation to the CLBR.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: Baseline characteristics were similar and equal proportions of patients continued with frozen-thaw (frozen embryo transfer, FET) cycles after their fresh ART cycle in the GnRH-antagonist and GnRH-agonist arms. When combining all fresh and frozen-thaw embryo transfers from first oocyte retrieval with a minimum of 2-year follow-up, the CLBR was 34.1% (182/534) in the GnRH-antagonist group versus 31.2% (161/516) in the GnRH-agonist group (odds ratio (OR):1.14; 95% CI: 0.88-1.48, P = 0.32). Mean time to the first live birth was 11.0 months in the GnRH-antagonist group compared to 11.5 months in the GnRH-agonist group (P < 0.01). The total number of deliveries from all FET cycles where embryos were thawed were higher in the antagonist group 64/330 (19.4%) compared to the agonist group 43/355 (12.1%) ((OR): 1.74; 95% CI: 1.14-2.66, P = 0.01). The evaluation of prognostic factors showed that more retrieved oocytes were associated with a significantly higher CLBR in both treatment groups. For the subgroup of obese women (BMI >30 kg/m2), the CLBR was significantly higher in the GnRH-antagonist group (P = 0.02).Limitations, Reasons For Caution: The duration of the trial is a possible limitation with introduction of new methods as 'Freeze all' and 'GnRH-agonist triggering', but as these treatments were used in only few women, a systematic bias is not likely. Blastocyst culture of surplus embryos for freezing was introduced to both groups simultaneously, thereby minimizing the risk of bias. Furthermore, with a minimum of 2-year follow-up, a minority (<1%) still had cryopreserved embryos and no live birth at the end of the trial. The post hoc prognostic covariate analyses with multiple strata should be interpreted with caution. Finally, the physicians were not blinded to GnRH treatment group after randomization.Wider Implications Of the Findings: With the improvement of embryo culture, freezing and thawing methods as well as a strategy of elective SET, CLBR until first live birth provides an all-inclusive success rate for ART. When comparing GnRH-antagonist and GnRH-agonist protocols, we find similar CLBRs, despite more oocytes being retrieved in the GnRH-agonist protocol.Study Funding/competing Interests: An unrestricted research grant is funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA (MSD). The funders had no influence on the data collection, analyses or conclusions of the study. No conflict of interests to declare.Trial Registration Number: EudraCT #: 2008-005452-24. ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT00756028.Trial Registration Date: 18 September 2008.Date Of First Patient's Enrollment: 14 January 2009. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Is the risk of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) similar in a short GnRH antagonist and long GnRH agonist protocol in first cycle IVF/ICSI patients less than 40 years of age?.Summary Answer: There is an increased risk of severe OHSS in the long GnRH agonist group compared with the short GnRH antagonist protocol. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY?: In the most recent Cochrane review, the GnRH antagonist protocol was associated with a similar live birth rate (LBR), a similar on-going pregnancy rate (OPR), and a lower incidence of OHSS (odds ratio (OR) = 0.43 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-0.57) compared with the traditional GnRH agonist protocol. Previous trials comparing the two protocols mainly included selected patient populations, a limited number of patients and the applied OHSS criteria differed, making direct comparisons difficult. In two recent large meta-analyses, no significant differences in LBR (OR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.72-1.02) or in the incidence of severe OHSS were reported, while others found a lower LBR (OR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.68-0.97) and a reduced risk of severe OHSS using the GnRH antagonist protocol (OR = 0.60; 95% CI: 0.40-0.88).Study Design, Size, Duration: Phase IV, dual-centre, open-label, RCT including 1050 women allocated to either short GnRH antagonist or long GnRH agonist protocol in a 1:1 ratio and enrolled over a 5-year period using a web-based concealed randomization code. This is a superiority study designed to detect a difference in severe OHSS, the primary outcome, between the two groups with a power of 80% and stratified for age, assisted reproductive technology (ART) clinic and planned fertilization procedure (IVF/ICSI). The secondary aims were to compare rates of mild and moderate OHSS, positive plasma (p)-hCG, on-going pregnancy and live birth between the two arms. None of the women had undergone previous ART treatment.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: All infertile women referred for their first IVF/ICSI at two public fertility clinics, less than 40 years of age and with no uterine malformations were asked to participate. A total of 1099 subjects were randomized, including women with poor ovarian reserve, polycystic ovary syndrome and irregular cycles. A total of 49 women withdrew their consent, thus 1050 subjects were allocated to the GnRH antagonist (n = 534) and agonist protocol (n = 516), respectively. In total 1023 women started recombinant human follitropin-β (rFSH) stimulation, 528 in the GnRH antagonist group and 495 in the GnRH agonist group. All subjects were given a fixed rFSH dose of 150 IU or 225 IU according to age ≤36 years or >36 years, with the option to adjust dose at stimulation day 6. Clinical OHSS parameters were collected at oocyte retrieval, and Days 3 and 14 post-transfer. On-going pregnancy was determined by transvaginal ultrasonography at gestational weeks 7-9. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis for reproductive outcomes, 1050 subjects were included. For the ITT analyses on OHSS 1023 subjects who started gonadotrophin stimulation were included.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: The incidence of severe OHSS [5.1% (27/528) versus 8.9% (44/495) (difference in proportion percentage point (Δpp) = -3.8pp; 95% CI: -7.1 to -0.4; P = 0.02)] and moderate OHSS [10.2% (54/528) versus 15.6% (77/495) (Δpp = -5.3pp; 95% CI: -9.6 to -1.0; P = 0.01) ] was significantly lower in the GnRH antagonist group compared with the agonist group, respectively. In the GnRH antagonist and agonist group, respectively, 4.7% (25/528) versus 8.5% (42/495) women were seen by a physician due to OHSS (P = 0.01), and 1.7% (9/528) versus 3.6% (18/495) were admitted to hospital due to OHSS (P = 0.06). No women had ascites-puncture in the GnRH antagonist group versus 2.0% (10/495) in the GnRH agonist group (P < 0.01). LBRs were 22.8% (122/534) versus 23.8% (123/516) (Δpp = -1.0pp; 95% CI: -6.3 to 4.3; P = 0.70) and OPRs were 24.9% (133/528) versus 26.2% (135/516) (Δpp = -1.3pp; 95% CI: -6.7 to 4.2; P = 0.64) per randomized subject in the GnRH antagonist versus agonist group, with a mean number of 1.1 versus 1.2 embryos transferred in the two groups. Pregnancy rates (PR) per randomized subject, per started gonadotrophin stimulation and per embryo transfer were all similar in the two groups.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: A possible limitation is the duration of the trial, with new methods, such as 'freeze all' and 'GnRH agonist triggering', being developed during the trial, the new methods were sought avoided, however a total number of 32 women had 'freeze all' and 'GnRH agonist triggering' was performed in three cases. Ultrasonic measurements were performed by different physicians and inter-observer bias may be present. Measures of anti-Mullerian hormone and antral follicle count, to estimate ovarian reserve and thus predict risk of OHSS, were not performed. Finally, the physicians were not blinded to GnRH treatment group after randomization.Wider Implications Of the Findings: The short GnRH antagonist protocol should be the protocol of choice for patients undergoing their first ART cycle in females <40 years of age including both low and high responders when an age-dependent initially fixed gonadotrophin dose is used, as an increased risk of severe OHSS and the associated complications is seen in the long GnRH agonist group and as PRs and LBRs are similar in the two groups. Patients at risk of OHSS particularly benefit from the short GnRH antagonist treatment as GnRH agonist triggering can be used.Study Funding/competing Interests: An unrestricted research grant is funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA (MSD). The funders had no influence on the data collection, analyses or conclusions of the study. No conflict of interests to declare.Trial Registration Number: EudraCT #: 2008-005452-24. ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT00756028. Trial registration date: 18 September 2008. Date of first patient's enrolment: 14 January 2009. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]