METHODS: This case/control study was conducted in 2017 includes a control (donation oocytes) and two studies (PCO and POR) groups. The ovulation induction drugs were prescribed in all groups. After the oocyte puncture, the follicular fluid was collected and CCs were isolated were cultured. RNA was extracted and cDNA was synthesized and designed the primer for the ADR-α1, 2 and ADR-β2 gene expression. The protein levels were investigated by Western Blot.
RESULTS: The results showed a high level of three adrenergic expressions in PCO women compared to the control group (p-value
DATA SOURCES: We searched studies published between 1980 and 2014 on endometriosis and ART outcome. We searched MEDLINE, PubMed, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane databases and performed a manual search.
METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: A total of 1,346 articles were identified, and 36 studies were eligible to be included for data synthesis. We included published cohort studies and randomized controlled trials.
TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Compared with women without endometriosis, women with endometriosis undertaking in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection have a similar live birth rate per woman (odds ratio [OR] 0.94, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-1.06, 13 studies, 12,682 patients, I=35%), a lower clinical pregnancy rate per woman (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.65-0.94), 24 studies, 20,757 patients, I=66%), a lower mean number of oocyte retrieved per cycle (mean difference -1.98, 95% CI -2.87 to -1.09, 17 studies, 17,593 cycles, I=97%), and a similar miscarriage rate per woman (OR 1.26, 95% CI (0.92-1.70, nine studies, 1,259 patients, I=0%). Women with more severe disease (American Society for Reproductive Medicine III-IV) have a lower live birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and mean number of oocytes retrieved when compared with women with no endometriosis.
CONCLUSION: Women with and without endometriosis have comparable ART outcomes in terms of live births, whereas those with severe endometriosis have inferior outcomes. There is insufficient evidence to recommend surgery routinely before undergoing ART.
Methods: A cost-effectiveness analysis from a societal perspective was conducted for couples seeking assisted reproductive technology services between January and December 2016 in one of the largest private hospitals in Saudi Arabia. Activity-Based Costing and Step-Down Costing methodologies with expert interviews were used to compute the costs of in vitro fertilization and intrauterine insemination. A total of 710 assisted reproductive technology procedures were observed by the embryologist in charge. The costs calculated included direct and indirect costs. A cost-effectiveness analysis and a Monte Carlo simulation probabilistic sensitivity analysis were conducted.
Results: The average cost per in vitro fertilization and intrauterine insemination cycle was SR 27,360 (range: SR 19,541-29,618) and SR 10,143 (range: SR 7568-11,976), respectively, and the live birth rate per initiated in vitro fertilization and intrauterine insemination cycle was 20.7% and 7.9%, respectively, resulting in an average cost per live birth per in vitro fertilization and intrauterine insemination treatment cycle of SR 132,174 (95% confidence interval: 120,802-143,546) and SR 128,392 (95% confidence interval: 124,468-132,316), respectively. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was SR 134,508 per extra live birth implicit in a decision to treat with in vitro fertilization. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis confirms the robustness of the cost-effectiveness results.
Conclusion: This study found that from a societal perspective, one in vitro fertilization treatment cycle was more cost-effective than intrauterine insemination in Saudi Arabia.
METHODS: This was a randomized controlled trial done at the Reproductive Medicine Unit of General Hospital Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. We included women aged between 25 and 40 years who underwent an IUI treatment cycle with follicle-stimulating hormone injections for controlled ovarian stimulation.
RESULTS: A total of 130 patients were recruited for our study. The US-IUI group had 70 patients and the BM-IUI group had 60 patients. The clinical pregnancy rate was 10% in both groups (p> 0.995) and there were no significant difference between the groups for patient tolerability assessed by scores on a pain visual analog scale (p= 0.175) or level of difficulty for the clinician (p> 0.995). The multivariate analysis further showed no significant increase in the clinical pregnancy rate (adjusted odds ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 0.85-1.34; p= 0.558) in the US-IUI group compared to the BM-IUI group even after adjusting for potential covariates.
CONCLUSION: The conventional blind method for intrauterine catheter insemination is recommended for patients undergoing IUI treatment. The use of ultrasound during the insemination procedure increased the need for trained personnel to perform ultrasonography and increased the cost, but added no extra benefits for patients or clinicians.
METHODS: The medical notes of 209 IVF cycles receiving GnRH agonist and hCG as ovulation trigger over 18 months were reviewed in this retrospective study. The number and quality of mature oocytes, the number and quality of embryos, pregnancy rates, and outcomes were compared using Independent T-test or One-way ANOVA for normal distribution. The Mann-Whitney test or Kruskal-Wallis test was used for not normally distributed. p<0.05 was considered statistically significant.
RESULTS: The cycle outcomes of 107 GnRH agonist-trigger and 102 hCG-trigger were compared. The MII oocytes retrieved and 2PN count was significantly higher in the GnRH agonist trigger group (p<0.001). Clinical pregnancy rate and ongoing pregnancy were higher in the GnRH agonist trigger group but were not statistically significant. The GnRH agonist trigger group was associated with low OHSS than the hCG trigger group (n=2(1.9%) and n=12(11.8%) respectively, p=0.004).
CONCLUSION: GnRH agonist trigger is an option as a final maturation trigger in high-responder women undergoing IVF or ICSI cycles.
METHODS: This is a prospective cohort study done in University Hospital Fertility Clinic for one year duration. A total of 88 euthyroid women who underwent COH as part of planned in-vitro fertilization (IVF) were invited to participate in this study. Serum thyroid function of each women will be monitored before stimulation (T1), day 10-13 of cycle (T2), during oocyte retrieval (T3), one week following embryo transfer (T4), and at four weeks after embryo transfer (T5). Reproductive outcome of IVF will be observed and documented.
RESULTS: Nine women had ongoing singleton pregnancy, seven suffered from miscarriage, while the rest had implantation failure. Serum thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) and free thyroxine (fT4) increased throughout stimulation, peaking at 32-36 hours after hCG administration compared to baseline (1.250 vs. 1.740 mIU/L and 13.94 vs. 15.25 pmol/L). It remains elevated until one week following embryo transfer. The increment of serum TSH exceeded the upper limit, acceptable for first trimester (<1.60 mIU/L). However, the evolution of serum TSH and fT4 did not significantly differ with pregnancy outcome.
CONCLUSIONS: In euthyroid women, thyroid function changed significantly during COH, but these changes were not different between the three reproductive outcomes. Thus, we do not suggest continuous thyroid function monitoring during COH.