Maternal social deprivation and preterm birth: The PreCARE cohort study.

Gottardi E ，Lorthe E ，Schmitz T ，Mandelbrot L ，Luton D ，Estellat C ，Azria E ... -  《-》

Erratum: Eyestalk Ablation to Increase Ovarian Maturation in Mud Crabs.

《Jove-Journal of Visualized Experiments》

Preterm birth in assisted reproduction: the mediating role of hypertensive disorders in pregnancy.

To what extent can hypertensive disorders in pregnancy (HDP) explain the higher risk of preterm birth following frozen embryo transfer (frozen-ET) and fresh embryo transfer (fresh-ET) in ART compared with naturally conceived pregnancies? HDP did not contribute to the higher risk of preterm birth in pregnancies after fresh-ET but mediated 20.7% of the association between frozen-ET and preterm birth. Risk of preterm birth is higher after ART compared to natural conception. However, there is also a higher risk of HDP in pregnancies after ART compared to natural conception, in particular after frozen-ET. HDP increases the risk of both spontaneous and medically indicated preterm birth. It is not known to what extent the higher risk of preterm birth in ART-conceived pregnancies is mediated through HDP. This registry-based cohort study included singleton pregnancies from the Committee of Nordic ART and Safety (CoNARTaS) cohort from Denmark (1994-2014), Norway (1988-2015), and Sweden (1988-2015). The analysis included 78 300 singletons born after fresh-ET, 18 037 after frozen-ET, and 4 426 682 after natural conception. The exposure was ART conception with either frozen-ET or fresh-ET versus natural conception. The main mediator of interest was any of the following HDP: gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, eclampsia, or chronic hypertension with superimposed preeclampsia. The main outcome was any preterm birth, defined as delivery <37 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes were spontaneous and medically indicated preterm birth, and different severities of preterm birth based on the gestational age threshold. We linked data from the national Medical Birth Registries, ART registries/databases, and the National Patient Registries in each country using the unique national identity number of the mother. Criteria for inclusion were singleton pregnancies with birth order 1-4 in women aged ≥20 years at delivery. We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs of preterm birth and decomposed the total effect into direct and mediated (indirect) effects to estimate the proportion mediated by HDP. Main models included adjustment for the year of delivery, maternal age, parity, and country. Pregnancies following frozen-ET had a higher risk of any preterm birth compared to natural conception (occurrence 6.6% vs 5.0%, total effect OR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21-1.37) and 20.7% of the association was mediated by HDP (mediated effect OR 1.05, 95% CI 1.04-1.05). The mediation occurred primarily in medically indicated preterm births. Pregnancies following fresh-ET also had a higher risk of any preterm birth compared to naturally conceived pregnancies (occurrence 8.1% vs 5.0%, total effect OR 1.49, 95% CI: 1.45-1.53), but none of this could be mediated by HDP (mediated effect OR 1.00, 95%CI 1.00-1.00, proportion mediated 0.5%). Sensitivity analyses with extra confounder adjustment for body mass index and smoking, and restriction to primiparous women, were consistent with our main findings. Furthermore, the results were not driven by differences in ART procedures (intracytoplasmic sperm injection, culture duration, or the number of embryos transferred). Although we could adjust for some important confounders, we cannot exclude residual confounding, particularly from factors associated with infertility. This population-based mediation analysis suggests that some of the higher risk of preterm birth after ART treatment may be explained by the higher risk of HDP after frozen-ET. If causality is established, investigations into preventive strategies such as prophylactic aspirin in pregnancies after frozen-ET may be warranted. Funding was provided by NordForsk (project number: 71450), the Nordic Federation of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (project numbers NF13041, NF15058, NF16026, and NF17043), the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (project number 81850092), an ESHRE Grant for research in reproductive medicine (grant number 2022-2), and the Research Council of Norway's Centres of Excellence funding scheme (project number 262700). D.A.L.'s and A.E.'s contribution to this work was supported by the European Research Council under the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation program (grant agreements No 101021566) and the UK Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00032/05). D.A.L. has received support from Roche Diagnostics and Medtronic Ltd for research unrelated to that presented here. Pinborg declares grants from Gedeon Richter, Ferring, Cryos, and Merck, consulting fees from IBSA, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Cryos, and Merck, payments from Gedeon Richter, Ferring, Merck, and Organon,travel support from Gedeon Richter. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest related to this work. ISRCTN 35879.

Petersen SH ，Åsvold BO ，Lawlor DA ，Pinborg A ，Spangmose AL ，Romundstad LB ，Bergh C ，Wennerholm UB ，Gissler M ，Tiitinen A ，Elhakeem A ，Opdahl S ... -  《-》

Vitamin D supplementation for women during pregnancy.

Vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy may help improve maternal and neonatal health outcomes (such as fewer preterm birth and low birthweight babies) and reduce the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes (such as severe postpartum haemorrhage). To examine whether vitamin D supplementation alone or in combination with calcium or other vitamins and minerals given to women during pregnancy can safely improve certain maternal and neonatal outcomes. We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trials Register (which includes results of comprehensive searches of CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and relevant conference proceedings) (3 December 2022). We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies. Randomised and quasi-randomised trials evaluating the effect of supplementation with vitamin D alone or in combination with other micronutrients for women during pregnancy in comparison to placebo or no intervention. Two review authors independently i) assessed the eligibility of studies against the inclusion criteria, ii) assessed trustworthiness based on pre-defined criteria of scientific integrity, iii) extracted data from included studies, and iv) assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach. The previous version of this review included 30 studies; in this update, we have removed 20 of these studies to 'awaiting classification' following assessments of trustworthiness, one study has been excluded, and one new study included. This current review has a total of 10 included studies, 117 excluded studies, 34 studies in awaiting assessment, and seven ongoing studies. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence. This removal of the studies resulted in evidence that was downgraded to low-certainty or very low-certainty due to study design limitations, inconsistency between studies, and imprecision. Supplementation with vitamin D compared to no intervention or a placebo A total of eight studies involving 2313 pregnant women were included in this comparison. We assessed four studies as having a low risk of bias for most domains and four studies as having high risk or unclear risk of bias for most domains. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of supplementation with vitamin D during pregnancy compared to placebo or no intervention on pre-eclampsia (risk ratio (RR) 0.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.21 to 1.33; 1 study, 165 women), gestational diabetes (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.03 to 8.28; 1 study, 165 women), preterm birth (< 37 weeks) (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.25 to 2.33; 3 studies, 1368 women), nephritic syndrome (RR 0.17, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.06; 1 study, 135 women), or hypercalcaemia (1 study; no cases reported). Supplementation with vitamin D during pregnancy may reduce the risk of severe postpartum haemorrhage; however, only one study reported this outcome (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.51 to 0.91; 1 study, 1134 women; low-certainty evidence) and may reduce the risk of low birthweight; however, the upper CI suggests that an increase in risk cannot be ruled out (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.08; 3 studies, 371 infants; low-certainty evidence). Supplementation with vitamin D + calcium compared to no intervention or a placebo One study involving 84 pregnant women was included in this comparison. Overall, this study was at moderate to high risk of bias. Pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, and maternal adverse events were not reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of supplementation with vitamin D and calcium on preterm birth (RR not estimable; very low-certainty evidence) or for low birthweight (RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.14 to 14.94; very low-certainty evidence) compared to women who received placebo or no intervention. Supplementation with vitamin D + calcium + other vitamins and minerals versus calcium + other vitamins and minerals (but no vitamin D) One study involving 1298 pregnant women was included in this comparison. We assessed this study as having a low risk of bias in all domains. Pre-eclampsia was not reported. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of supplementation with vitamin D, calcium, and other vitamins and minerals during pregnancy compared to no vitamin D on gestational diabetes (RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.10 to 1.73; very low-certainty evidence), maternal adverse events (hypercalcaemia no events and hypercalciuria RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.02 to 3.97; very low-certainty evidence), preterm birth (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.59; low-certainty evidence), or low birthweight (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.51; low-certainty evidence). This updated review using the trustworthy assessment tool removed 21 studies from the previous update and added one new study for a total of 10 included studies. In this setting, supplementation with vitamin D alone compared to no intervention or a placebo resulted in very uncertain evidence on pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, preterm birth, or nephritic syndrome. It may reduce the risk of severe postpartum haemorrhage; however, only one study reported this outcome. It may also reduce the risk of low birthweight; however, the upper CI suggests that an increase in risk cannot be ruled out. Supplementation with vitamin D and calcium versus placebo or no intervention resulted in very uncertain evidence on preterm birth and low birthweight. Pre-eclampsia, gestational diabetes, and maternal adverse events were not reported in the only study included in this comparison. Supplementation with vitamin D + calcium + other vitamins and minerals versus calcium + other vitamins and minerals (but no vitamin D) resulted in very uncertain evidence on gestational diabetes and maternal adverse events (hypercalciuria) and uncertain evidence on preterm birth and low birthweight. Pre-eclampsia was not reported in the only study included in this comparison. All findings warrant further research. Additional rigorous, high-quality, and larger randomised trials are required to evaluate the effects of vitamin D supplementation in pregnancy, particularly in relation to the risk of maternal adverse events.

Palacios C ，Kostiuk LL ，Cuthbert A ，Weeks J ... -  《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》