Search

Vera Christina Berger,1,2 Ronja Fierz,2 Isabel Kolm,3 Brigitte Leeners,2,4 Cornelia Betschart1,2 1Department of Gynecology, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; 2Medical School, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland; 3Department of Pathology, Lucerne Hospital, Lucerne, Switzerland; 4Department of Reproductive Endocrinology, University Hospital of Zurich, Zurich, SwitzerlandCorrespondence: Vera Christina Berger, Department of Gynecology, University Hospital of Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, Zurich, 8091, Switzerland, Tel +41432551111, Email vera.berger@usz.chBackground: Genital pain treatment regimens range from local or systemic pharmacological to non-pharmacological, manual and psychosexual therapies with poor to moderate evidence for their efficiency. The aim of this study was to evaluate the subjective therapeutic response (genital pain relief) of different treatment modalities for vulvodynia and the most prevalent other vulvar pathologies, chronic vulvar eczema and lichen sclerosus by means of a cross-sectional survey.Material and Methods: A questionnaire-based cohort study that included 128 vulvodynia, 116 eczema and 79 lichen sclerosus patients was used. All patients attended the vulvar clinic at the University Hospital of Zurich. The patients who had been treated were surveyed from January to October 2022, using a customized online questionnaire consisting of 37 questions on symptoms and treatment outcomes for guideline-recommended treatment modalities. The study was approved by the Cantonal Ethics Review Board of Zurich.Results: Altogether, 41 patients with vulvodynia, 37 with vulvar eczema and 23 with lichen sclerosus returned the questionnaire. The three groups were similar regarding pain characteristics and comorbidities. All three patient groups reported having benefited from non-pharmacological treatment (improvement rate vulvodynia 54%; eczema 51%; lichen sclerosus 58%), from topical (55%; 55%; 75%) and from locally invasive (46%; 66%; 50%) treatments. Overall, there was no significant difference in subjective treatment outcome between non-pharmacological, locally invasive, and topical treatments for vulvodynia, eczema, and lichen sclerosus. However, the use of oral medication was reported to be significantly less effective (p-value 0.050).Conclusion: In conclusion, we found that in the patients’ perception, topical, invasive and non-pharmacological treatments, but not oral medications, are helpful for genital pain relief in women with vulvodynia, vulvar eczema, and lichen sclerosus. Therefore, we recommend an escalating therapy approach with first-line non-pharmacological treatments together with topical therapies.Keywords: genital pain, vestibulodynia, therapy, patient reported treatment outcome, survey

STUDY QUESTION Does double vitrification and thawing of an embryo compromise the chance of live birth after a single blastocyst transfer? SUMMARY ANSWER The live birth rate (LBR) obtained after double vitrification was comparable to that obtained after single vitrification. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Double vitrification-warming (DVW) is commonly practiced to accommodate surplus viable embryos suitable for transfer, to allow retesting of inconclusively diagnosed blastocysts in preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), and to circumvent limitations associated with national policies on embryo culture in certain countries. Despite its popularity, the evidence concerning the impact of DVW practice on ART outcomes is limited and lacking credibility. This is the first thorough investigation of clinical pregnancy and LBR following DVW in the case where the first round of vitrification occurred at the zygote stage and the second round occurred at the blastocyst stage in the absence of biopsy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This is a retrospective observational analysis of n = 407 single blastocyst transfers whereby embryos created by IVF/ICSI were vitrified-warmed once (single vitrification-warming (SVW) n = 310) or twice (DVW, n = 97) between January 2017 and December 2021. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS In the SVW group, blastocysts were vitrified on Day 5/6 and warmed on the day of embryo transfer (ET). In the DVW group, two pronuclear (2PN) zygotes were first vitrified-warmed and then re-vitrified on Day 5/6 and warmed on the day of ET. Exclusion criteria were ETs from PGT and vitrified-warmed oocyte cycles. All of the ETs were single blastocyst transfers performed at the University Hospital Zurich in Switzerland following natural or artificial endometrial preparation. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), and LBR were all comparable between the DVW and SVW groups. The CPR for DVW was 44.3% and for SVW it was 42.3% (P  = 0.719). The LBR for DVW was 30.9% and for SVW it was 28.7% (P  = 0.675). The miscarriage rate was additionally similar between the groups: 27.9% for DVW and 32.1% for SVW groups (P  = 0.765). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The study is limited by its retrospective nature. Caution should be taken concerning interpretation of these findings in cases where DVW occurs at different stages of embryo development. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The result of the present study on DVW procedure provides a framework for counselling couples on their chance of clinical pregnancy per warming cycle. It additionally provides confidence and reassurance to laboratory professionals in certain countries where national policies limit embryo culture strategies making DVW inevitable. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This work was supported by the University Research Priority Program 'Human Reproduction Reloaded' of the University of Zurich. The authors have no conflict of interest related to this study to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Prolonged amenorrhoea occurs as a consequence of functional hypothalamic amenorrhoea (FHA) which is most often induced by weight loss, vigorous exercise or emotional stress. Unfortunately, removal of these triggers does not always result in the return of menses. The prevalence and conditions underlying the timing of return of menses vary strongly and some women report amenorrhoea several years after having achieved and maintained normal weight and/or energy balance. A better understanding of these factors would also allow improved counselling in the context of infertility. Although BMI, percentage body fat and hormonal parameters are known to be involved in the initiation of the menstrual cycle, their role in the physiology of return of menses is currently poorly understood. We summarise here the current knowledge on the epidemiology and physiology of return of menses.Objective and Rationale: The aim of this review was to provide an overview of (i) factors determining the recovery of menses and its timing, (ii) how such factors may exert their physiological effects and (iii) whether there are useful therapeutic options to induce recovery.Search Methods: We searched articles published in English, French or German language containing keywords related to return of menses after FHA published in PubMed between 1966 and February 2020. Manuscripts reporting data on either the epidemiology or the physiology of recovery of menses were included and bibliographies were reviewed for further relevant literature. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) criteria served to assess quality of observational studies.Outcomes: Few studies investigate return of menses and most of them have serious qualitative and methodological limitations. These include (i) the lack of precise definitions for FHA or resumption of menses, (ii) the use of short observation periods with unsatisfactory descriptions and (iii) the inclusion of poorly characterised small study groups. The comparison of studies is further hampered by very inhomogeneous study designs. Consequently, the exact prevalence of resumption of menses after FHA is unknown. Also, the timepoint of return of menses varies strongly and reliable prediction models are lacking. While weight, body fat and energy availability are associated with the return of menses, psychological factors also have a strong impact on the menstrual cycle and on behaviour known to increase the risk of FHA. Drug therapies with metreleptin or naltrexone might represent further opportunities to increase the chances of return of menses, but these require further evaluation.Wider Implications: Although knowledge on the physiology of return of menses is presently rudimentary, the available data indicate the importance of BMI/weight (gain), energy balance and mental health. The physiological processes and genetics underlying the impact of these factors on the return of menses require further research. Larger prospective studies are necessary to identify clinical parameters for accurate prediction of return of menses as well as reliable therapeutic options. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection and reporting across future infertility research be developed?Summary Answer: A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility.What Is Known Already: Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret.Study Design, Size, Duration: A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries).Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition and an arbitrary consensus threshold.Wider Implications Of the Findings: Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study, the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of data, or manuscript preparation. B.W.J.M. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). S.B. was supported by University of Auckland Foundation Seelye Travelling Fellowship. S.B. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form.Trial Registration Number: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Motivation Model-based approaches to safety and efficacy assessment of pharmacological drugs, treatment strategies or medical devices (In Silico Clinical Trial, ISCT) aim to decrease time and cost for the needed experimentations, reduce animal and human testing, and enable precision medicine. Unfortunately, in presence of non-identifiable models (e.g. reaction networks), parameter estimation is not enough to generate complete populations of Virtual Patients (VPs), i.e. populations guaranteed to show the entire spectrum of model behaviours (phenotypes), thus ensuring representativeness of the trial. Results We present methods and software based on global search driven by statistical model checking that, starting from a (non-identifiable) quantitative model of the human physiology (plus drugs PK/PD) and suitable biological and medical knowledge elicited from experts, compute a population of VPs whose behaviours are representative of the whole spectrum of phenotypes entailed by the model (completeness) and pairwise distinguishable according to user-provided criteria. This enables full granularity control on the size of the population to employ in an ISCT, guaranteeing representativeness while avoiding over-representation of behaviours. We proved the effectiveness of our algorithm on a non-identifiable ODE-based model of the female Hypothalamic-Pituitary-Gonadal axis, by generating a population of 4 830 264 VPs stratified into 7 levels (at different granularity of behaviours), and assessed its representativeness against 86 retrospective health records from Pfizer, Hannover Medical School and University Hospital of Lausanne. The datasets are respectively covered by our VPs within Average Normalized Mean Absolute Error of 15%, 20% and 35% (90% of the latter dataset is covered within 20% error). Availability and implementation. Our open-source software is available at https://bitbucket.org/mclab/vipgenerator Supplementary information Supplementary data are available at Bioinformatics online. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Does follicular flushing increase the number of mature oocytes in monofollicular IVF?Summary Answer: Follicular flushing increases the number of mature oocytes in monofollicular IVF.What Is Known Already: Flushing increases neither the oocyte yield nor the pregnancy rate in polyfollicular IVF or in poor responder patients. In monofollicular IVF, the effect of flushing has so far been addressed by two studies: (i) a prospective study with minimal stimulation IVF demonstrated an increased oocyte yield, and (ii) a retrospective study with natural cycle (NC)-IVF showed an increased oocyte yield and an increased transfer rate.Study Design, Size, Duration: Randomized controlled trial including 164 women who were randomized for either aspiration with or without flushing from 2016 to 2019.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Infertile women 18-42 years of age with an indication for IVF treatment at a university-based infertility unit. Women undergoing monofollicular IVF were randomized to either follicular aspiration only or follicular aspiration directly followed by five follicular flushes at a 1:1 ratio. The intervention was done without anaesthesia, using a gauge 19 single-lumen needle. Flushing volume was calculated (sphere formula) based on the size of the follicle.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: A total of 164 women were included; 81 were allocated to 'aspiration only' and 83 to additional 'flushing'. Primary analysis was based on the intention-to-treat: oocyte yield, defined as the collected mature oocyte rate, was higher (n = 64/83, 77.1%) in the flushing group compared to the aspiration only group (n = 48/81, 59.3%, adjusted risk difference (RD): 18.2% (95% CI 3.9-31.7%), P-value = 0.02). In the flushing group, most oocytes were retrieved within the first three flushes (63/83, 75.8%). Fertilization rate was higher in the flushing group (n = 53/83, 63.9% vs n = 38/81, 46.9%; adjusted RD: 16.8% (96% CI 1.5-31.4%), P = 0.045). Transfer rate was also higher in the flushing group (n = 52/83, 62.7% vs n = 38/81, 46.9%; RD: 15.71 (95% CI 0.3-30.3%)), but the difference was not significant (P = 0.06). The clinical pregnancy rate n = 9/83 versus n = 9/81 (RD: -0.3% (95% CI -9.9% to 9.5%)) and live birth rate n = 7/83 versus n = 8/81 (RD: -1.5% (95% CI -10.4% to 7.1%)) were not significantly different between the flushing and the aspiration group. The median duration of the intervention was significantly longer with flushing (2.38 min; quartiles 2.0, 2.7) versus aspiration only (0.43 min; quartiles 0.3, 0.5) (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the mean (±SD) visual analogue scales pain score between the follicular flushing (3.4 ± 1.8) and the aspiration group (3.1 ± 1.89).Limitations, Reasons For Caution: Blinding of the procedure was not possible.Wider Implications Of the Findings: Our study proved that flushing of single follicles in NC-IVF increases the oocyte yield. In contrast to polyfollicular IVF flushing seems to be beneficial in a monofollicular setting if the technique used in our study (single-lumen needle, 5 flushings with flushing volume adaptation) is applied.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): The study was funded by the financial sources of the division and in part by a research grant provided by NMS Biomedical SA, Switzerland. The company did not have any roles in design or conduct of the study or in the preparation of the manuscript. The authors have no other conflicts of interest.Trial Registration Number: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02641808.Trial Registration Date: 29 December 2015.Date Of First Patient’s Enrolment: 22 August 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]