Progestogens for prevention of luteinising hormone (LH) surge in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation as part of an assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycle.

Currently, gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues are used to prevent premature ovulation in ART cycles. However, their costs remain high, the route of administration is invasive and has some adverse effects. Oral progestogens could be cheaper and effective to prevent a premature LH surge. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of using progestogens to avoid spontaneous ovulation in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO in Dec 2021. We contacted study authors and experts to identify additional studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included progestogens for ovulation inhibition in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane, including the risk of bias (RoB) assessment. The primary review outcomes were live birth rate (LBR) and oocyte pick-up cancellation rate (OPCR). Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), cumulative pregnancy, miscarriage rate (MR), multiple pregnancies, LH surge, total and MII oocytes, days of stimulation, dose of gonadotropins, and moderate/severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate. The primary analyses were restricted to studies at overall low and some concerns RoB, and sensitivity analysis included all studies. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence. We included 14 RCTs (2643 subfertile women undergoing ART, 47 women used oocyte freezing for fertility preservation and 534 oocyte donors). Progestogens versus GnRH antagonists We are very uncertain of the effect of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) 10 mg compared with cetrorelix on the LBR in poor responders (odds ratio (OR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 2.13, one RCT, N = 340, very-low-certainty evidence), suggesting that if the chance of live birth following GnRH antagonists is assumed to be 18%, the chance following MPA would be 14% to 32%. There may be little or no difference in OPCR between progestogens and GnRH antagonists, but due to wide Cs (CIs), we are uncertain (OR 0.92, 95%CI 0.42 to 2.01, 3 RCTs, N = 648, I² = 0%, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 4% with progestogens to 2% to 8%. Given the imprecision found, no conclusions can be retrieved on CPR and MR. Low-quality evidence suggested that using micronised progesterone in normo-responders may increase by 2 to 6 the MII oocytes in comparison to GnRH antagonists. There may be little or no differences in gonadotropin doses. Progestogens versus GnRH agonists Results were uncertain for all outcomes comparing progestogens with GnRH agonists. One progestogen versus another progestogen The analyses comparing one progestogen versus another progestogen for LBR did not meet our criteria for primary analyses. The OPCR was probably lower in the MPA 10 mg in comparison to MPA 4 mg (OR 2.27, 95%CI 0.90 to 5.74, one RCT, N = 300, moderate-certainty evidence), and MPA 4 mg may be lower than micronised progesterone 100 mg, but due to wide CI, we are uncertain of the effect (OR 0.81, 95%CI 0.43 to 1.53, one RCT, N = 300, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 5% with MPA 4 mg to 5% to22%, and from 17% with micronised progesterone 100 mg to 8% to 24%. When comparing dydrogesterone 20 mg to MPA, the OPCR is probably lower in the dydrogesterone group in comparison to MPA 10 mg (OR 1.49, 95%CI 0.80 to 2.80, one RCT, N = 520, moderate-certainty evidence), and it may be lower in dydrogesterone group in comparison to MPA 4 mg but due to wide confidence interval, we are uncertain of the effect (OR 1.19, 95%CI 0.61 to 2.34, one RCT, N = 300, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 7% with dydrogesterone 20 to 6-17%, and in MPA 4 mg from 12% to 8% to 24%. When comparing dydrogesterone 20 mg to micronised progesterone 100 mg, the OPCR is probably lower in the dydrogesterone group (OR 1.54, 95%CI 0.94 to 2.52, two RCTs, N=550, I² = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence), changing OPCR from 11% with dydrogesterone to 10% to 24%. We are very uncertain of the effect in normo-responders of micronised progesterone 100 mg compared with micronised progesterone 200 mg on the OPCR (OR 0.35, 95%CI 0.09 to 1.37, one RCT, N = 150, very-low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in CPR and MR between MPA 10 mg and dydrogesterone 20 mg. There may be little or no differences in MII oocytes and gonadotropins doses. No cases of moderate/severe OHSS were reported in most of the groups in any of the comparisons. Little or no differences in LBR may exist when comparing MPA 4 mg with GnRH agonists in normo-responders. OPCR may be slightly increased in the MPA 4 mg group, but MPA 4 mg reduces the doses of gonadotropins in comparison to GnRH agonists. Little or no differences in OPCR may exist between progestogens and GnRH antagonists in normo-responders and donors. However, micronised progesterone could improve by 2 to 6 MII oocytes. When comparing one progestogen to another, dydrogesterone suggested slightly lower OPCR than MPA and micronised progesterone, and MPA suggested slightly lower OPCR than the micronised progesterone 100 mg. Finally, MPA 10 mg suggests a lower OPCR than MPA 4 mg. There is uncertainty regarding the rest of the outcomes due to imprecision and no solid conclusions can be drawn.

Glujovsky D ，Pesce R ，Miguens M ，Sueldo C ，Ciapponi A ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Antioxidants for female subfertility.

M.G. Showell, R. Mackenzie‐Proctor, V. Jordan, and R.J. Hart, “Antioxidants for Female Subfertility,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, no. 8 (2020): CD007807, https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD007807.pub4 This Editorial Note is for the above article, published online on August 27, 2020, in Cochrane Library (cochranelibrary.com), and has been issued by the Publisher, John Wiley & Sons Ltd, in agreement with Cochrane. The Editorial note has been agreed due to concerns discovered by the Cochrane managing editor regarding the retraction of six studies in the Review (Badawy et al. 2006, 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.02.097; El Refaeey et al. 2014, 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.03.011; El Sharkwy & Abd El Aziz 2019a, https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.12902; Gerli et al. 2007, https://doi.org/10.26355/eurrev_202309_33752, full text: https://europepmc.org/article/MED/18074942; Ismail et al. 2014, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2014.06.008; Hashemi et al. 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/14767058.2017.1372413). In addition, expressions of concern have been published for two studies (Jamilian et al. 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-1236-3; Zadeh Modarres 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12011-017-1148-2). The retracted studies will be moved to the Excluded Studies table, and their impact on the review findings will be investigated and acted on accordingly in a future update. Initial checks indicate that removal of the six retracted studies did not make an appreciable difference to the results. Likewise, the studies for which Expressions of Concern were issued will be moved to the Awaiting classification table; they did not report any review outcomes, so removal will have no impact on the review findings. A couple may be considered to have fertility problems if they have been trying to conceive for over a year with no success. This may affect up to a quarter of all couples planning a child. It is estimated that for 40% to 50% of couples, subfertility may result from factors affecting women. Antioxidants are thought to reduce the oxidative stress brought on by these conditions. Currently, limited evidence suggests that antioxidants improve fertility, and trials have explored this area with varied results. This review assesses the evidence for the effectiveness of different antioxidants in female subfertility. To determine whether supplementary oral antioxidants compared with placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant improve fertility outcomes for subfertile women. We searched the following databases (from their inception to September 2019), with no language or date restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group (CGFG) specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and AMED. We checked reference lists of relevant studies and searched the trial registers. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared any type, dose or combination of oral antioxidant supplement with placebo, no treatment or treatment with another antioxidant, among women attending a reproductive clinic. We excluded trials comparing antioxidants with fertility drugs alone and trials that only included fertile women attending a fertility clinic because of male partner infertility. We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary review outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy rates and adverse events. We included 63 trials involving 7760 women. Investigators compared oral antioxidants, including: combinations of antioxidants, N-acetylcysteine, melatonin, L-arginine, myo-inositol, carnitine, selenium, vitamin E, vitamin B complex, vitamin C, vitamin D+calcium, CoQ10, and omega-3-polyunsaturated fatty acids versus placebo, no treatment/standard treatment or another antioxidant. Only 27 of the 63 included trials reported funding sources. Due to the very low-quality of the evidence we are uncertain whether antioxidants improve live birth rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (odds ratio (OR) 1.81, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36 to 2.43; P < 0.001, I2 = 29%; 13 RCTs, 1227 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live birth rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 24% and 36%. Low-quality evidence suggests that antioxidants may improve clinical pregnancy rate compared with placebo or no treatment/standard treatment (OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.89; P < 0.001, I2 = 63%; 35 RCTs, 5165 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected clinical pregnancy rate of 19%, the rate among women using antioxidants would be between 25% and 30%. Heterogeneity was moderately high. Overall 28 trials reported on various adverse events in the meta-analysis. The evidence suggests that the use of antioxidants makes no difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage (OR 1.13, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.55; P = 0.46, I2 = 0%; 24 RCTs, 3229 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of multiple pregnancy (OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.56; P = 0.99, I2 = 0%; 9 RCTs, 1886 women; low-quality evidence). There was also no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of gastrointestinal disturbances (OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 5.10; P = 0.47, I2 = 0%; 3 RCTs, 343 women; low-quality evidence). Low-quality evidence showed that there was also no difference between the groups in rates of ectopic pregnancy (OR 1.40, 95% CI 0.27 to 7.20; P = 0.69, I2 = 0%; 4 RCTs, 404 women). In the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison, low-quality evidence shows no difference in a lower dose of melatonin being associated with an increased live-birth rate compared with higher-dose melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). This suggests that among subfertile women with an expected live-birth rate of 24%, the rate among women using a lower dose of melatonin compared to a higher dose would be between 12% and 40%. Similarly with clinical pregnancy, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates between a lower and a higher dose of melatonin (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.41 to 2.15; P = 0.89, I2 = 0%; 2 RCTs, 140 women). Three trials reported on miscarriage in the antioxidant versus antioxidant comparison (two used doses of melatonin and one compared N-acetylcysteine versus L-carnitine). There were no miscarriages in either melatonin trial. Multiple pregnancy and gastrointestinal disturbances were not reported, and ectopic pregnancy was reported by only one trial, with no events. The study comparing N-acetylcysteine with L-carnitine did not report live birth rate. Very low-quality evidence shows no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.33 to 2.00; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). Low quality evidence shows no difference in miscarriage (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.42 to 5.67; 1 RCT, 164 women; low-quality evidence). The study did not report multiple pregnancy, gastrointestinal disturbances or ectopic pregnancy. The overall quality of evidence was limited by serious risk of bias associated with poor reporting of methods, imprecision and inconsistency. In this review, there was low- to very low-quality evidence to show that taking an antioxidant may benefit subfertile women. Overall, there is no evidence of increased risk of miscarriage, multiple births, gastrointestinal effects or ectopic pregnancies, but evidence was of very low quality. At this time, there is limited evidence in support of supplemental oral antioxidants for subfertile women.

Showell MG ，Mackenzie-Proctor R ，Jordan V ，Hart RJ ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Antioxidants for female subfertility.

Showell MG ，Mackenzie-Proctor R ，Jordan V ，Hart RJ ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Treatments for intractable constipation in childhood.

Constipation that is prolonged and does not resolve with conventional therapeutic measures is called intractable constipation. The treatment of intractable constipation is challenging, involving pharmacological or non-pharmacological therapies, as well as surgical approaches. Unresolved constipation can negatively impact quality of life, with additional implications for health systems. Consequently, there is an urgent need to identify treatments that are efficacious and safe. To evaluate the efficacy and safety of treatments used for intractable constipation in children. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trials registers up to 23 June 2023. We also searched reference lists of included studies for relevant studies. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any pharmacological, non-pharmacological, or surgical treatment to placebo or another active comparator, in participants aged between 0 and 18 years with functional constipation who had not responded to conventional medical therapy. We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were symptom resolution, frequency of defecation, treatment success, and adverse events; secondary outcomes were stool consistency, painful defecation, quality of life, faecal incontinence frequency, abdominal pain, hospital admission for disimpaction, and school absence. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence for each primary outcome. This review included 10 RCTs with 1278 children who had intractable constipation. We assessed one study as at low risk of bias across all domains. There were serious concerns about risk of bias in six studies. One study compared the injection of 160 units botulinum toxin A (n = 44) to unspecified oral stool softeners (n = 44). We are very uncertain whether botulinum toxin A injection improves treatment success (risk ratio (RR) 37.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 5.31 to 257.94; very low certainty evidence, downgraded due to serious concerns with risk of bias and imprecision). Frequency of defecation was reported only for the botulinum toxin A injection group (mean interval of 2.6 days). The study reported no data for the other primary outcomes. One study compared erythromycin estolate (n = 6) to placebo (n = 8). The only primary outcome reported was adverse events, which were 0 in both groups. The evidence is of very low certainty due to concerns with risk of bias and serious imprecision. One study compared 12 or 24 μg oral lubiprostone (n = 404) twice a day to placebo (n = 202) over 12 weeks. There may be little to no difference in treatment success (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.92; low certainty evidence). We also found that lubiprostone probably results in little to no difference in adverse events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.21; moderate certainty evidence). The study reported no data for the other primary outcomes. One study compared three-weekly rectal sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate and sorbitol enemas (n = 51) to 0.5 g/kg/day polyethylene glycol laxatives (n = 51) over a 52-week period. We are very uncertain whether rectal sodium dioctyl sulfosuccinate and sorbitol enemas improve treatment success (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.83 to 2.14; very low certainty evidence, downgraded due to serious concerns with risk of bias and imprecision). Results of defecation frequency per week was reported only as modelled means using a linear mixed model. The study reported no data for the other primary outcomes. One study compared biofeedback therapy (n = 12) to no intervention (n = 12). We are very uncertain whether biofeedback therapy improves symptom resolution (RR 2.50, 95% CI 1.08 to 5.79; very low certainty evidence, downgraded due to serious concerns with risk of bias and imprecision). The study reported no data for the other primary outcomes. One study compared 20 minutes of intrarectal electromotive botulinum toxin A using 2800 Hz frequency and botulinum toxin A dose 10 international units/kg (n = 30) to 10 international units/kg botulinum toxin A injection (n = 30). We are very uncertain whether intrarectal electromotive botulinum toxin A improves symptom resolution (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.22; very low certainty evidence) or if it increases the frequency of defecation (mean difference (MD) 0.00, 95% CI -1.87 to 1.87; very low certainty evidence). We are also very uncertain whether intrarectal electromotive botulinum toxin A has an improved safety profile (RR 0.20, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.00; very low certainty evidence). The evidence for these results is of very low certainty due to serious concerns with risk of bias and imprecision. The study did not report data on treatment success. One study compared the injection of 60 units botulinum toxin A (n = 21) to myectomy of the internal anal sphincter (n = 21). We are very uncertain whether botulinum toxin A injection improves treatment success (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.34; very low certainty evidence). No adverse events were recorded. The study reported no data for the other primary outcomes. One study compared 0.04 mg/kg oral prucalopride (n = 107) once daily to placebo (n = 108) over eight weeks. Oral prucalopride probably results in little or no difference in defecation frequency (MD 0.50, 95% CI -0.06 to 1.06; moderate certainty evidence); treatment success (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.72; moderate certainty evidence); and adverse events (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.39; moderate certainty evidence). The study did not report data on symptom resolution. One study compared transcutaneous electrical stimulation to sham stimulation, and another study compared dietitian-prescribed Mediterranean diet with written instructions versus written instructions. These studies did not report any of our predefined primary outcomes. We identified low to moderate certainty evidence that oral lubiprostone may result in little to no difference in treatment success and adverse events compared to placebo. Based on moderate certainty evidence, there is probably little or no difference between oral prucalopride and placebo in defecation frequency, treatment success, or adverse events. For all other comparisons, the certainty of the evidence for our predefined primary outcomes is very low due to serious concerns with study limitations and imprecision. Consequently, no robust conclusions could be drawn.

Gordon M ，Grafton-Clarke C ，Rajindrajith S ，Benninga MA ，Sinopoulou V ，Akobeng AK ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》

Timed intercourse for couples trying to conceive.

Gibbons T ，Reavey J ，Georgiou EX ，Becker CM ... -  《Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews》