No abstract

ObjectiveThe primary objective of the study was to assess traditional Chinese formula DKP supplementation in terms of efficacy and safety on reproductive outcomes of expected poor ovarian responder (POR, POSEIDON Group 4) undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET).Design, Setting, and ParticipantsWomen eligible for IVF-ET were invited to participate in this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, superiority trial at academic fertility centers of ten public hospitals in Chinese Mainland. A total of 462 patients (35–44 years) equally divided between DKP and placebo groups with antral follicle count (AFC) <5 or anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) <1.2 ng/ml were randomized.InterventionsAll participants were given DKP or 7 g placebo twice daily on the previous menstrual cycle day 5 until oocyte retrieval, which took approximately 5 to 6 weeks.Main Outcome MeasureThe primary outcome was the ongoing pregnancy defined as more than 20 gestational weeks of an intrauterine living fetus confirmed by pelvic ultrasonography.ResultsDemographic characteristics were equally distributed between the study populations. Intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis revealed that ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) was not significantly different between DKP and placebo groups [26.4% (61/231) versus 24.2% (56/231); relative risk (RR) 1.09, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.49, P = 0.593]. No significant differences between groups were observed for the secondary outcomes. The additional per protocol (PP) analysis was in line with ITT results: OPR in DKP group was 27.2% (61/224) versus 24.1% (55/228) in placebo group [RR 1.13, 95%CI (0.82 to 1.55), P = 0.449]. After subgroup analysis the findings concluded that POR population of 35–37 years had a significantly higher OPR after 5–6 weeks of oral DKP (41.8%, 33/79) versus placebo (25.4%, 18/71) [RR 1.65, 95% CI (1.02 to 2.65), P = 0.034, P for interaction = 0.028].ConclusionThis well-designed randomized controlled trial (RCT) offers new high-quality evidence to supplement existing retrospective literature concerning DKP performance in expected PORs. DKP could be recommended as a safe and natural remedy for expected PORs (aged 35–37 years) who fulfill the POSEIDON group 4 criteria. However, additional interventional clinical studies are undoubtedly required to be conducted in the future to validate this hypothesis.Clinical Trial Registrationwww.chictr.org.cn, identifier ChiCTR1900026614.

Objective The principal purpose of this study was to compare reproductive outcomes for stimulated cycles (STC) and hormone replacement cycles (HRC) for endometrial preparation before frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) in young women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Methods We conducted a retrospective study of 1434 FET cycles from January, 2017 to March, 2020 in our reproductive center, in which stimulated and hormone replacement cycles were used for endometrial preparation. Pregnancy outcomes of couples undergoing routine STC-FET or HRC-FET were analyzed by propensity score matching (PSM) and multivariable logistic regression analyses. Results Data on 1234 HRC protocols (86% of the total) and 200 STC protocols (14%) were collected. After PSM, 199 patients were included in both groups, respectively. There was no significant difference in positive pregnancy rate (52.7% vs 54.8%, p=0.763 ), clinical pregnancy rate (51.8% vs 52.8%, p=0.841 ), live birth rate (45.2% vs 43.7%, p=0.762 ), pregnancy loss rate (9.7% vs 16.2%, p=0.164 ) and ectopic pregnancy rate (1.5% vs 0.5%, p=0.615 ) between STC and HRC protocols. Subsequent multivariate logistic regression analysis also yielded similar results. Conclusion STC for endometrial preparation had similar pregnancy outcomes compared with HRC protocols. Evidence is available which shows that for young women with PCOS in preparation for FET, HRC could be a reasonable choice for patients who are unwilling to accept injections. However, STC may reduce unnecessary anxiety and operational costs and offer more flexibility for patients. Eventually, we must embrace the concepts of individualization, securitization, and optimization in the clinic.

Background The optimal time at which to perform a frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) following a failed in-vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) attempt remains elusive to most reproductive experts. Physicians often delay the introduction of FET due to concerns related to potential residual effects of ovarian hyperstimulation which may interfere with the regular menstrual cycle. Moreover, given that most of the published studies on the topic are retrospective and have inconsistent findings, it is crucial to develop evidence-based randomized control guides for clinical practice. Therefore, this well-designed randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to determine whether it is necessary to delay FET for at least one menstrual cycle after the failure of fresh embryo transfer. Methods Infertile women eligible for IVF-ET were invited to participate in this multicenter, randomized, non-inferiority, parallel-group, unblinded, controlled trial at the academic fertility centers of four public hospitals in Chinese Mainland. Infertile women scheduled to receive their first FET cycle after a failed IVF-ET attempt were randomly assigned to either (a) the immediate FET group in which FET was performed in the first menstrual cycle following the failed IVF-ET cycle (n = 366) or (b) the delayed FET group in which FET was performed in the second or subsequent menstrual cycle following the failed IVF-ET cycle (n = 366). All FET cycles were performed during hormone replacement cycles for endometrial preparation. The primary outcome was the ongoing pregnancy, defined as a detectable fetal heart beat beyond twelve weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes were other pregnancy-related outcomes, maternal and neonatal complications. Analysis was performed by both intention-to-treat and per-protocol principles. Results A total of 646 FETs were completed. The frequency of moderate to severe depression and high stress level prior to FET in delayed FET group were significantly higher than that in immediate FET group (10.6% vs 6.1%, p = 0.039; 30.3% vs 22.4%, p = 0.022, respectively). Immediate FET resulted in a higher frequency of clinical pregnancy than did delayed FET (41.7% vs 34.1%), for a relative risk (RR) of 1.23 (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–1.50; p = 0.045). Women who underwent immediate FET also had a lower frequency of biochemical pregnancy loss (11.7% vs. 30.6%), with a RR of 0.28 (95% CI 0.23–0.63, p < 0.001), and a higher frequency of embryo implantation (25.2% vs. 20.2%), with a RR of 1.25 (95% CI 1.01–1.53; p = 0.038). Although the ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates did not differ significantly between the immediate FET and delayed FET groups (37.1% vs 30.3%, RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.99–1.52, p = 0.067; 36.5% vs 30.0%, RR 1.22, 95% CI 0.98–1.52, p = 0.079, respectively), a multivariate logistic regression analysis adjusted for potential confounders such as depression and stress levels revealed that the immediate FET group had a significantly higher ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates than the delayed FET group (odds ratio 0.68, 95% CI 0.47–0.99, p = 0.041; odds ratio 0.67, 95% CI 0.46–0.96, p = 0.031). The risks of maternal and neonatal complications were comparable between the two groups. Conclusions In women with a previous failed IVF-ET attempt, immediate FET resulted in higher ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates than delayed FET. These findings warrant caution in the indiscriminate application of a delayed FET strategy when apparent risk of high stress level is perceived. Trial registration ChiCTR2000033313.

This study identifies that the protective efficacy of Ad-HGF-HIL-6 is more potent than that of Ad-HGF or Ad-HIL-6 in ACLF rats, with no significant side effects.