Fertility preservation in the female poses several challenges due to the invasive nature of the techniques available to achieve it. The guideline aims to bring together the evidence available for the measures for fertility preservation and their outcome. The guideline addresses fertility preservation for medical reasons and includes both oncological and non-oncological causes. The techniques that the guideline considers are: (i) embryo and oocyte cryopreservation; (ii) ovarian tissue cryopreservation; (iii) GnRH agonist suppression and (iv) ovarian transposition. Although ovarian tissue cryopreservation is still considered experimental, the availability of this technique is gaining momentum as more live births from auto-transplanted tissue are reported. The guideline also highlights use of current treatment modalities for benign and malignant conditions that have a better fertility sparing profile. The guideline recommends a multidisciplinary approach in counselling women and girls about the risk to their fertility and available techniques. The role of psychological support in assisting women and girls with decision-making is highlighted. The guideline also highlights the risks associated with these techniques. Women need to be medically fit to undergo invasive procedures. Fertility preservation techniques are appropriate when treatment has curative intent. Fertility preservation is a subject of on-going research on outcomes of different techniques and at the time of publication, studies are still likely to emerge adding to the available literature.

ObjectiveEvaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on access to contraception and pregnancy intentions.DesignNationwide prospective cohort study.SettingUnited Kingdom.ParticipantsWomen in the UK who were pregnant between 24 May and 31 December 2020.Main outcome measuresAccess to contraception and level of pregnancy intentions, using the London Measure of Unplanned Pregnancy (LMUP) in women whose last menstrual period was before or after 1 April 2020. While the official date of the first UK lockdown was 23 March, we used 1 April to ensure that those in the post-lockdown group would have faced restrictions in the month that they conceived.ResultsA total of 9784 women enrolled in the cohort: 4114 (42.0%) conceived pre-lockdown and 5670 (58.0%) conceived post-lockdown. The proportion of women reporting difficulties accessing contraception was higher in those who conceived after lockdown (n=366, 6.5% vs n=25, 0.6%, p<0.001) and continued to rise from March to September 2020. After adjusting for confounders, women were nine times more likely to report difficulty accessing contraception after lockdown (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 8.96, 95% CI 5.89 to 13.63, p<0.001). There is a significant difference in the levels of pregnancy planning, with higher proportions of unplanned (n=119, 2.1% vs n=55, 1.3%) and ambivalent pregnancies (n=1163, 20.5% vs n=663, 16.1%) and lower proportions of planned pregnancies (n=4388, 77.4% vs n=3396, 82.5%) in the post-lockdown group (p<0.001). After adjusting for confounders, women who conceived after lockdown were still significantly less likely to have a planned pregnancy (aOR 0.88, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.98, p=0.025).ConclusionsAccess to contraception in the UK has become harder during the COVID-19 pandemic and the proportion of unplanned pregnancies has almost doubled.

STUDY QUESTION Does maternal infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) in the first trimester affect the risk of miscarriage before 13 week’s gestation? SUMMARY ANSWER Pregnant women with self-reported diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in the first trimester had a higher risk of early miscarriage. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Viral infections during pregnancy have a broad spectrum of placental and neonatal pathology. Data on the effects of the SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy are still emerging. Two systematic reviews and meta-analyses reported an increased risk of preterm birth, caesarean delivery, maternal morbidity and stillbirth. Data on the impact of first trimester infection on early pregnancy outcomes are scarce. This is the first study, to our knowledge, to investigate the rates of early pregnancy loss during the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak among women with self-reported infection. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This was a nationwide prospective cohort study of pregnant women in the community recruited using social media between 21st May and 31st December, 2020. We recruited 3545 women who conceived during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic who were less than 13 week’s gestation at the time of recruitment. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The COVID-19 Contraception and Pregnancy Study (CAP-COVID) was an on-line survey study collecting longitudinal data from pregnant women in the UK aged 18 years or older. Women who were pregnant during the pandemic were asked to complete on-line surveys at the end of each trimester. We collected data on current and past pregnancy complications, their medical history and whether they or anyone in their household had symptoms or been diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection during each trimester of their pregnancy. RT-PCR–based SARS-CoV-2 RNA detection from respiratory samples (e.g., nasopharynx) is the standard practice for diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 in the UK. We compared rate of self-reported miscarriage in three groups: ‘presumed infected’ i.e those who reported a diagnosis with SARS-CoV-2 infection in the first trimester; ‘uncertain’ i.e those who did not report a diagnosis but had symptoms/household contacts with symptoms/diagnosis; and ‘presumed uninfected’ i.e., those who did not report any symptoms/diagnosis and had no household contacts with symptoms/diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE A total of 3545 women registered for the CAP-COVID study at less than 13 weeks gestation and were eligible for this analysis. Data for the primary outcome were available from 3041 women (86%). In the overall sample, the rate of self-reported miscarriage was 7.8% (238/3041 [95% CI, 7-9]). The median gestational age at miscarriage was 9 weeks (interquartile range 8-11). Seventy-seven women were in the 'presumed infected’ group (77/3041, 2.5% [95% CI 2 – 3]), 295/3041 were in the uncertain group (9.7%, [95% CI 9-11]) and the rest in the ‘presumed uninfected’ (87.8%, 2669/3041, [95% CI 87-89]). The rate of early miscarriage was 14% in the ‘presumed infected’ group, 5% in the ‘uncertain’ and 8% in the ‘presumed uninfected’ (11/77 [95% CI 6-22] versus15/295, [95% CI 3-8] versus 212/2669 [95% CI 7-9], p = 0.02). After adjusting for age, BMI, ethnicity, smoking status, gestational age at registration and the number of previous miscarriages, the risk of early miscarriage appears to be higher in the ‘presumed infected’ group (relative rate 1.7, 95% CI 1.0-3.0, p = 0.06). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION We relied on self-reported data on early pregnancy loss and SARS-CoV-2 infection without any means of checking validity. Some women in the ‘presumed uninfected’ and ‘uncertain’ groups may have had asymptomatic infections. The number of ‘presumed infected’ in our study was low and therefore the study was relatively underpowered. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This was a national study from the UK, where infection rates were one of the highest in the world. Based on the evidence presented here, women who are infected with SARS-CoV-2 in their first trimester may be at an increased risk of a miscarriage. However, the overall rate of miscarriage in our study population was 8%. This is reassuring and suggests that if there is an effect of SARS-CoV-2 on the risk of miscarriage, this may be limited to those with symptoms substantial enough to lead to a diagnostic test. Further studies are warranted to evaluate a causal association between SARS-CoV-2 infection in early pregnancy and miscarriage risk. Although we did not see an overall increase in the risk of miscarriage, the observed comparative increase in the presumed infected group reinforces the message that pregnant women should continue to exercise social distancing measures and good hygiene throughout their pregnancy to limit their risk of infection STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study was supported by a grant from the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital Charity, (G13-559194). The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. JAH is supported by an NIHR Advanced Fellowship. ALD is supported by the National Institute for Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: support to JAH and ALD as above; no financial relationships with any organisations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous 3 years; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER n/a