Search

Study Question: How does hormonal contraceptive use and menstrual cycle phase affect the female microbiome across different body sites?Summary Answer: The menstrual cycle phase, but not hormonal contraceptive use, is associated with the vaginal and oral but not the gut microbiome composition in healthy young women.What Is Known Already: Women with low vaginal levels of Lactobacillus crispatus are at increased risk of pre-term birth, fertility treatment failure, sexually transmitted infections and gynaecological cancers. Little is known about the effect of hormonal fluctuations on other body site's microbiomes as well as the interplay between them.Study Design, Size, Duration: This study includes a cohort of 160 healthy young Danish women using three different contraceptive regimens: non-hormonal methods (n = 54), combined oral contraceptive (COC, n = 52) or levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS, n = 54). Samples were collected from four body sites during the menstrual cycle (menses, follicular and luteal phases) at Copenhagen University Hospital, Rigshospitalet, Denmark.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: The oral, vaginal, rectal and faecal microbiomes were characterized by shotgun sequencing. Microbial diversity and community distance measures were compared between study groups, menstrual phase timepoints and body sites. All participants answered an extensive questionnaire on current health, lifestyle and sex life. Confounding factors such as smoking, BMI and diet were analysed by PERMANOVA. Plasma oestradiol and progesterone levels are correlated with microbiome composition.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: The use of COC and LNG-IUS was not associated with the microbiome composition or diversity. However, increased diversity in the vaginal microbiome was observed during menses, followed by a subsequent expansion of Lactobacillus spp. during the follicular and luteal phases which correlated with measured serum oestradiol levels (r = 0.11, P < 0.001). During menses, 89 women (58%) had a dysbiotic vaginal microbiome with <60% Lactobacillus spp. This declined to 49 (32%) in the follicular phase (P < 0.001) and 44 (29%) in the luteal phase (P < 0.001). During menses, bacterial richness and diversity in saliva reached its lowest point while no differences were observed in the faecal microbiome. The microbiome in different body sites was on average more similar within the same individual than between individuals, despite phase or hormonal treatment. Only the vagina presented a clear cluster structure with dominance of either L. crispatus, Lactobacillus iners, Gardnerella vaginalis or Prevotella spp.Large Scale Data: The microbiome samples analysed in this study were submitted to the European Nucleotide Archive under project number PRJEB37731, samples ERS4421369-ERS4422941.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: The cohort is homogenous which limits extrapolation of the effects of ethnicity and socio-economic status on the microbiome. We only present three defined timepoints across the menstrual phase and miss potential important day to day fluctuations.Wider Implications Of the Findings: The use of hormonal contraception did not significantly associate with the microbiome composition in the vagina, faeces, rectum or saliva in healthy young women. This is a welcome finding considering the widespread and prolonged use of these highly efficient contraceptive methods. The menstrual cycle is, however, a major confounding factor for the vaginal microbiome. As such, the time point in the menstrual cycle should be considered when analysing the microbiome of women of reproductive age, since stratifying by vaginal dysbiosis status during menstruation could be misleading. This is the first study to confirm by direct measurements of oestradiol, a correlation with the presence of L. crispatus, adding evidence of a possible hormonal mechanism for the maintenance of this desirable microbe.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This work was partly funded by the Ferring Pharmaceuticals through a research collaboration with The Centre for Translational Microbiome Research (CTMR) at the Karolinska Institutet (L.W.H., E.F., G.E. and I.S.-K.). Ferring Pharmaceuticals also funded the infrastructure to obtain the clinical samples at Copenhagen University Hospital ([#MiHSN01], M.C.K., Z.B., and H.S.N.). This work was also supported by funding from Rigshospitalet's Research Funds ([#E-22614-01 and #E-22614-02] to M.C.K.) and Oda and Hans Svenningsen's Foundation ([#F-22614-08] to H.S.N.). M.C.K., L.W.H., E.F., Z.B., G.E., L.E., I.S.-K. and H.S.N., are partially funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals, which also provided funds for the collection and processing of the samples analysed in this study. H.S.N.'s research is further supported by Freya Biosciences and the BioInnovation Institute. H.S.N. has received honoraria from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S, Astra-Zeneca, Cook Medical and Ibsa Nordic. A.N.A. reports no competing interests. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Does letrozole co-treatment during ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophins for IVF reduce the proportion of women with premature progesterone levels above 1.5 ng/ml at the time of triggering final oocyte maturation?Summary Answer: The proportion of women with premature progesterone above 1.5 ng/ml was not significantly affected by letrozole co-treatment.What Is Known Already: IVF creates multiple follicles with supraphysiological levels of sex steroids interrupting the endocrine milieu and affects the window of implantation. Letrozole is an effective aromatase inhibitor, normalizing serum oestradiol, thereby ameliorating some of the detrimental effects of IVF treatment.Study Design, Size, Duration: A randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled trial investigated letrozole intervention during stimulation for IVF with FSH. The trial was conducted at four fertility clinics at University Hospitals in Denmark from August 2016 to November 2018.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: A cohort of 129 women with expected normal ovarian reserve (anti-Müllerian hormone 8-32 nmol/l) completed an IVF cycle with fresh embryo transfer and received co-treatment with either 5 mg/day letrozole (n = 67) or placebo (n = 62), along with the FSH. Progesterone, oestradiol, FSH, LH and androgens were analysed in repeated serum samples collected from the start of the stimulation to the mid-luteal phase. In addition, the effect of letrozole on reproductive outcomes, total FSH consumption and adverse events were assessed.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: The proportion of women with premature progesterone >1.5 ng/ml was similar (6% vs 0% (OR 0.0, 95% CI [0.0; 1.6], P = 0.12) in the letrozole versus placebo groups, respectively), whereas the proportion of women with mid-luteal progesterone >30 ng/ml was significantly increased in the letrozole group: (59% vs 31% (OR 3.3, 95% CI [1.4; 7.1], P = 0.005)). Letrozole versus placebo decreased oestradiol levels on the ovulation trigger day by 68% (95% CI [60%; 75%], P < 0.0001). Other hormonal profiles, measured as AUC, showed the following results. The increase in LH in the letrozole group versus placebo group was 38% (95% CI [21%; 58%], P < 0.0001) and 34% (95% CI [11%; 61%], P = 0.006) in the follicular and luteal phases, respectively. In the letrozole group versus placebo group, testosterone increased by 79% (95% CI [55%; 105%], P < 0.0001) and 49% (95% CI [30%; 72%], P < 0.0001) in the follicular and luteal phases, respectively. In the letrozole group versus placebo group, the increase in androstenedione was by 85% (95% CI [59%; 114%], P < 0.0001) and 69% (95% CI [48%; 94%], P < 0.0001) in the follicular and luteal phases, respectively. The ongoing pregnancy rate was similar between the letrozole and placebo groups (31% vs 39% (risk-difference of 8%, 95% CI [-25%; 11%], P = 0.55)). No serious adverse reactions were recorded in either group. The total duration of exogenous FSH stimulation was 1 day shorter in the intervention group, significantly reducing total FSH consumption (mean difference -100 IU, 95% CI [-192; -21], P = 0.03).Limitations, Reasons For Caution: Late follicular progesterone samples were collected on the day before and day of ovulation triggering for patient logistic considerations, and the recently emerged knowledge about diurnal variation of progesterone was not taken into account. The study was powered to detect hormonal variations but not differences in pregnancy outcomes.Wider Implications Of the Findings: Although the use of letrozole has no effect on the primary outcome, the number of women with a premature increase in progesterone on the day of ovulation triggering, the increased progesterone in the mid-luteal phase due to letrozole may contribute to optimizing the luteal phase endocrinology. The effect of letrozole on increasing androgens and reducing FSH consumption may be used in poor responders. However, the effect of letrozole on implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates should be evaluated in a meta-analysis or larger randomized controlled trial (RCT).Study Funding/competing Interest(s): Funding was received from EU Interreg for ReproUnion and Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics contributed with assays. N.S.M. and A.P. have received grants from Ferring, Merck Serono, Anecova and Gedeon Richter, and/or personal fees from IBSA, Vivoplex, ArtPred and SPD, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have no competing interests.Trial Registration Numbers: NCT02939898 and NCT02946684.Trial Registration Date: 15 August 2016.Date Of First Patient’s Enrolment: 22 August 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]