Ayala Hirsch, Bruria Hirsh Raccah, Reut Rotem, Jordana H Hyman, Ido Ben-Ami, Avi Tsafrir
BACKGROUND Awareness of the age-related decline in fertility potential has increased the popularity of planned oocyte cryopreservation (POC). However, data regarding outcomes of POC, including rates of women returning to thaw oocytes, as well as pregnancy and live birth rates, are scarce and based mostly on small case series. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE POC was defined as cryopreservation exclusively for prevention of future age-related fertility loss. The primary outcome was live birth rate per patient. The secondary outcomes included the return to thaw rate and laboratory outcomes. A meta-regression analysis examining the association between live birth and age above 40 or below 35 was conducted. SEARCH METHODS We conducted a systematic database search from inception to August 2022. The search included PubMed (MEDLINE) and EMBASE. Our search strategies employed a combination of index terms (Mesh) and free text words to compile relevant concepts. The systematic review and meta-regression were undertaken following registration of systematic review (PROSPERO registration number CRD42022361791) and were reported following guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses 2020 (PRISMA 2020). OUTCOMES The database search yielded 3847 records. After the selection process, 10 studies, conducted from 1999 to 2020, were included. Overall, 8750 women underwent POC, with a mean cryopreservation age of 37.2 (±0.8). Of those, 1517 women returned to use their oocytes with a return rate of 11.1% (± 4.7%). The mean age at the time of cryopreservation for women who returned to use their oocytes was 38.1 (±0.4), with an average of 12.6 (±3.6) cryopreserved oocytes per woman. In a meta-analysis, the oocyte survival rate was 78.5% with a 95% CI of 0.74–0.83 (I2 = 93%). The live birth rate per patient was 28% with a 95% CI of 0.24–0.33 (I2 = 92%). Overall, 447 live births were reported. In a sub-group analysis, women who underwent cryopreservation at age ≥40 achieved a live birth rate per patient of 19% (95% CI 0.13–0.29, I2 = 6%), while women aged ≤35 years old or younger had a higher live birth rate per patient of 52% (95% CI 0.41–0.63, I2 = 7%). WIDER IMPLICATIONS POC emerges as a feasible option for women aiming to improve their chances of conceiving at a later reproductive age. Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged that the overall success rates of POC are limited and that the likelihood of successful live birth declines as the age at cryopreservation rises. With increasing interest in POC, the collation of comprehensive and high-quality data is imperative to clearly define the outcomes for various age groups. REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42022361791.
{"title":"Planned oocyte cryopreservation: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis","authors":"Ayala Hirsch, Bruria Hirsh Raccah, Reut Rotem, Jordana H Hyman, Ido Ben-Ami, Avi Tsafrir","doi":"10.1093/humupd/dmae009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmae009","url":null,"abstract":"BACKGROUND Awareness of the age-related decline in fertility potential has increased the popularity of planned oocyte cryopreservation (POC). However, data regarding outcomes of POC, including rates of women returning to thaw oocytes, as well as pregnancy and live birth rates, are scarce and based mostly on small case series. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE POC was defined as cryopreservation exclusively for prevention of future age-related fertility loss. The primary outcome was live birth rate per patient. The secondary outcomes included the return to thaw rate and laboratory outcomes. A meta-regression analysis examining the association between live birth and age above 40 or below 35 was conducted. SEARCH METHODS We conducted a systematic database search from inception to August 2022. The search included PubMed (MEDLINE) and EMBASE. Our search strategies employed a combination of index terms (Mesh) and free text words to compile relevant concepts. The systematic review and meta-regression were undertaken following registration of systematic review (PROSPERO registration number CRD42022361791) and were reported following guidelines of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses 2020 (PRISMA 2020). OUTCOMES The database search yielded 3847 records. After the selection process, 10 studies, conducted from 1999 to 2020, were included. Overall, 8750 women underwent POC, with a mean cryopreservation age of 37.2 (±0.8). Of those, 1517 women returned to use their oocytes with a return rate of 11.1% (± 4.7%). The mean age at the time of cryopreservation for women who returned to use their oocytes was 38.1 (±0.4), with an average of 12.6 (±3.6) cryopreserved oocytes per woman. In a meta-analysis, the oocyte survival rate was 78.5% with a 95% CI of 0.74–0.83 (I2 = 93%). The live birth rate per patient was 28% with a 95% CI of 0.24–0.33 (I2 = 92%). Overall, 447 live births were reported. In a sub-group analysis, women who underwent cryopreservation at age ≥40 achieved a live birth rate per patient of 19% (95% CI 0.13–0.29, I2 = 6%), while women aged ≤35 years old or younger had a higher live birth rate per patient of 52% (95% CI 0.41–0.63, I2 = 7%). WIDER IMPLICATIONS POC emerges as a feasible option for women aiming to improve their chances of conceiving at a later reproductive age. Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged that the overall success rates of POC are limited and that the likelihood of successful live birth declines as the age at cryopreservation rises. With increasing interest in POC, the collation of comprehensive and high-quality data is imperative to clearly define the outcomes for various age groups. REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42022361791.","PeriodicalId":55045,"journal":{"name":"Human Reproduction Update","volume":"57 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":13.3,"publicationDate":"2024-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140642764","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Reply: Endometrial scratching: the light at the end of the tunnel.","authors":"N E van Hoogenhuijze, F J M Broekmans","doi":"10.1093/humupd/dmad038","DOIUrl":"10.1093/humupd/dmad038","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":55045,"journal":{"name":"Human Reproduction Update","volume":" ","pages":"240-241"},"PeriodicalIF":13.3,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139572142","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Janneke A C van Baar, Elena B Kostova, John Allotey, Shakila Thangaratinam, Javier R Zamora, Mercedes Bonet, Caron Rahn Kim, Lynne M Mofenson, Heinke Kunst, Asma Khalil, Elisabeth van Leeuwen, Julia Keijzer, Marije Strikwerda, Bethany Clark, Maxime Verschuuren, Arri Coomarasamy, Mariëtte Goddijn, Madelon van Wely
<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pregnant women infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are more likely to experience preterm birth and their neonates are more likely to be stillborn or admitted to a neonatal unit. The World Health Organization declared in May 2023 an end to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic as a global health emergency. However, pregnant women are still becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 and there is limited information available regarding the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection in early pregnancy on pregnancy outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objective and rationale: </strong>We conducted this systematic review to determine the prevalence of early pregnancy loss in women with SARS-Cov-2 infection and compare the risk to pregnant women without SARS-CoV-2 infection.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>Our systematic review is based on a prospectively registered protocol. The search of PregCov19 consortium was supplemented with an extra electronic search specifically on pregnancy loss in pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 up to 10 March 2023 in PubMed, Google Scholar, and LitCovid. We included retrospective and prospective studies of pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, provided that they contained information on pregnancy losses in the first and/or second trimester. Primary outcome was miscarriage defined as a pregnancy loss before 20 weeks of gestation, however, studies that reported loss up to 22 or 24 weeks were also included. Additionally, we report on studies that defined the pregnancy loss to occur at the first and/or second trimester of pregnancy without specifying gestational age, and for second trimester miscarriage only when the study presented stillbirths and/or foetal losses separately from miscarriages. Data were stratified into first and second trimester. Secondary outcomes were ectopic pregnancy (any extra-uterine pregnancy), and termination of pregnancy. At least three researchers independently extracted the data and assessed study quality. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and risk differences (RDs) with corresponding 95% CI and pooled the data using random effects meta-analysis. To estimate risk prevalence, we performed meta-analysis on proportions. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>We included 120 studies comprising a total of 168 444 pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection; of which 18 233 women were in their first or second trimester of pregnancy. Evidence level was considered to be of low to moderate certainty, mostly owing to selection bias. We did not find evidence of an association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and miscarriage (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81-1.48; I2 = 0.0%; RD 0.0012, 95% CI -0.0103 to 0.0127; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4439 women). Miscarriage occurred in 9.9% (95% CI 6.2-14.0%; I2 = 68%; 46 studies, 1797 women) of the women with SARS CoV-2 infection in their first trimester and in 1.2% (95% CI 0.3-2.4%; I2 = 34%; 33 studies; 31
背景:感染了严重急性呼吸综合征冠状病毒2 (SARS-CoV-2)的孕妇更容易出现早产，其新生儿更容易死产或住进新生儿病房。世界卫生组织于2023年5月宣布2019冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行结束，这是全球卫生紧急情况。然而，孕妇仍然会感染SARS-CoV-2，并且关于妊娠早期感染SARS-CoV-2对妊娠结局的影响的信息有限。目的和理由:我们进行了本系统综述，以确定感染SARS-Cov-2的妇女早期妊娠流产的发生率，并将其与未感染SARS-Cov-2的孕妇的风险进行比较。检索方法:我们的系统综述基于前瞻性注册方案。在PubMed、Google Scholar和LitCovid中对PregCov19联合体的搜索进行了额外的电子搜索，专门针对截至2023年3月10日感染SARS-CoV-2的孕妇的妊娠损失进行了搜索。我们纳入了SARS-CoV-2感染孕妇的回顾性和前瞻性研究，前提是这些研究包含妊娠早期和/或中期妊娠损失的信息。主要结局是流产，定义为妊娠20周前的流产，然而，报告妊娠22或24周流产的研究也包括在内。此外，我们还报道了一些研究，这些研究将妊娠丢失定义为发生在妊娠的第一个和/或第二个三个月，而没有指定胎龄，并且只有当研究将死产和/或胎儿丢失与流产分开时，才会将妊娠丢失定义为第二个三个月流产。数据分为妊娠早期和中期。次要结局是异位妊娠(任何子宫外妊娠)和终止妊娠。至少有三名研究人员独立提取数据并评估研究质量。我们以相应的95% CI计算优势比(OR)和风险差异(RDs)，并使用随机效应荟萃分析汇总数据。为了估计风险患病率，我们对比例进行了荟萃分析。异质性采用I2评估。结果:我们纳入了120项研究，共包括164844名感染SARS-CoV-2的孕妇;其中18233名妇女处于妊娠早期或中期。证据水平被认为是低到中等确定性，主要是由于选择偏差。我们没有发现SARS-CoV-2感染与流产之间存在关联的证据(OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81-1.48;I2 = 0.0%;RD为0.0012,95% CI为-0.0103 ~ 0.0127;I2 = 0%;9项研究，4439名女性)。流产发生率为9.9% (95% CI 6.2-14.0%;I2 = 68%;46项研究，1797名妇女)在妊娠早期感染SARS - CoV-2的妇女和1.2% (95% CI 0.3-2.4%;i2 = 34%;33个研究;3159名妇女)在妊娠中期。SARS-CoV-2感染妇女宫外孕的比例为1.4% (95% CI 0.02-4.2%;i2 = 66%;14项研究，950名女性)。终止妊娠发生率为0.6% (95% CI 0.01-1.6%;i2 = 79%;39岁的研究;1166名女性)。更广泛的影响:我们的研究发现，没有迹象表明在妊娠早期或中期感染SARS-CoV-2会增加流产的风险。为了提供更好的风险估计，需要设计良好的研究，包括怀孕和妊娠早期感染SARS-CoV-2和未感染SARS-CoV-2的孕妇，并考虑SARS-CoV-2感染的临床表现和严重程度与妊娠丢失的关系，以及潜在的混杂因素，如既往妊娠丢失。在临床实践中，仍应建议孕妇采取预防措施，避免暴露于SARS-CoV-2的风险，并接种SARS-CoV-2疫苗。
{"title":"COVID-19 in pregnant women: a systematic review and meta-analysis on the risk and prevalence of pregnancy loss.","authors":"Janneke A C van Baar, Elena B Kostova, John Allotey, Shakila Thangaratinam, Javier R Zamora, Mercedes Bonet, Caron Rahn Kim, Lynne M Mofenson, Heinke Kunst, Asma Khalil, Elisabeth van Leeuwen, Julia Keijzer, Marije Strikwerda, Bethany Clark, Maxime Verschuuren, Arri Coomarasamy, Mariëtte Goddijn, Madelon van Wely","doi":"10.1093/humupd/dmad030","DOIUrl":"10.1093/humupd/dmad030","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Pregnant women infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) are more likely to experience preterm birth and their neonates are more likely to be stillborn or admitted to a neonatal unit. The World Health Organization declared in May 2023 an end to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic as a global health emergency. However, pregnant women are still becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2 and there is limited information available regarding the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection in early pregnancy on pregnancy outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objective and rationale: </strong>We conducted this systematic review to determine the prevalence of early pregnancy loss in women with SARS-Cov-2 infection and compare the risk to pregnant women without SARS-CoV-2 infection.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>Our systematic review is based on a prospectively registered protocol. The search of PregCov19 consortium was supplemented with an extra electronic search specifically on pregnancy loss in pregnant women infected with SARS-CoV-2 up to 10 March 2023 in PubMed, Google Scholar, and LitCovid. We included retrospective and prospective studies of pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection, provided that they contained information on pregnancy losses in the first and/or second trimester. Primary outcome was miscarriage defined as a pregnancy loss before 20 weeks of gestation, however, studies that reported loss up to 22 or 24 weeks were also included. Additionally, we report on studies that defined the pregnancy loss to occur at the first and/or second trimester of pregnancy without specifying gestational age, and for second trimester miscarriage only when the study presented stillbirths and/or foetal losses separately from miscarriages. Data were stratified into first and second trimester. Secondary outcomes were ectopic pregnancy (any extra-uterine pregnancy), and termination of pregnancy. At least three researchers independently extracted the data and assessed study quality. We calculated odds ratios (OR) and risk differences (RDs) with corresponding 95% CI and pooled the data using random effects meta-analysis. To estimate risk prevalence, we performed meta-analysis on proportions. Heterogeneity was assessed by I2.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>We included 120 studies comprising a total of 168 444 pregnant women with SARS-CoV-2 infection; of which 18 233 women were in their first or second trimester of pregnancy. Evidence level was considered to be of low to moderate certainty, mostly owing to selection bias. We did not find evidence of an association between SARS-CoV-2 infection and miscarriage (OR 1.10, 95% CI 0.81-1.48; I2 = 0.0%; RD 0.0012, 95% CI -0.0103 to 0.0127; I2 = 0%; 9 studies, 4439 women). Miscarriage occurred in 9.9% (95% CI 6.2-14.0%; I2 = 68%; 46 studies, 1797 women) of the women with SARS CoV-2 infection in their first trimester and in 1.2% (95% CI 0.3-2.4%; I2 = 34%; 33 studies; 31","PeriodicalId":55045,"journal":{"name":"Human Reproduction Update","volume":" ","pages":"133-152"},"PeriodicalIF":14.8,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10905512/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138453101","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Bart C J M Fauser, G David Adamson, Jacky Boivin, Georgina M Chambers, Christian de Geyter, Silke Dyer, Marcia C Inhorn, Lone Schmidt, Gamal I Serour, Basil Tarlatzis, Fernando Zegers-Hochschild
<p><strong>Background: </strong>Family-planning policies have focused on contraceptive approaches to avoid unintended pregnancies, postpone, or terminate pregnancies and mitigate population growth. These policies have contributed to significantly slowing world population growth. Presently, half the countries worldwide exhibit a fertility rate below replacement level. Not including the effects of migration, many countries are predicted to have a population decline of >50% from 2017 to 2100, causing demographic changes with profound societal implications. Policies that optimize chances to have a child when desired increase fertility rates and are gaining interest as a family-building method. Increasingly, countries have implemented child-friendly policies (mainly financial incentives in addition to public funding of fertility treatment in a limited number of countries) to mitigate decreasing national populations. However, the extent of public spending on child benefits varies greatly from country to country. To our knowledge, this International Federation of Fertility Societies (IFFS) consensus document represents the first attempt to describe major disparities in access to fertility care in the context of the global trend of decreasing growth in the world population, based on a narrative review of the existing literature.</p><p><strong>Objective and rationale: </strong>The concept of family building, the process by which individuals or couples create or expand their families, has been largely ignored in family-planning paradigms. Family building encompasses various methods and options for individuals or couples who wish to have children. It can involve biological means, such as natural conception, as well as ART, surrogacy, adoption, and foster care. Family-building acknowledges the diverse ways in which individuals or couples can create their desired family and reflects the understanding that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to building a family. Developing education programs for young adults to increase family-building awareness and prevent infertility is urgently needed. Recommendations are provided and important knowledge gaps identified to provide professionals, the public, and policymakers with a comprehensive understanding of the role of child-friendly policies.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>A narrative review of the existing literature was performed by invited global leaders who themselves significantly contributed to this research field. Each section of the review was prepared by two to three experts, each of whom searched the published literature (PubMed) for peer reviewed full papers and reviews. Sections were discussed monthly by all authors and quarterly by the review board. The final document was prepared following discussions among all team members during a hybrid invitational meeting where full consensus was reached.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Major advances in fertility care have dramatically improved family-b
{"title":"Declining global fertility rates and the implications for family planning and family building: an IFFS consensus document based on a narrative review of the literature.","authors":"Bart C J M Fauser, G David Adamson, Jacky Boivin, Georgina M Chambers, Christian de Geyter, Silke Dyer, Marcia C Inhorn, Lone Schmidt, Gamal I Serour, Basil Tarlatzis, Fernando Zegers-Hochschild","doi":"10.1093/humupd/dmad028","DOIUrl":"10.1093/humupd/dmad028","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Family-planning policies have focused on contraceptive approaches to avoid unintended pregnancies, postpone, or terminate pregnancies and mitigate population growth. These policies have contributed to significantly slowing world population growth. Presently, half the countries worldwide exhibit a fertility rate below replacement level. Not including the effects of migration, many countries are predicted to have a population decline of >50% from 2017 to 2100, causing demographic changes with profound societal implications. Policies that optimize chances to have a child when desired increase fertility rates and are gaining interest as a family-building method. Increasingly, countries have implemented child-friendly policies (mainly financial incentives in addition to public funding of fertility treatment in a limited number of countries) to mitigate decreasing national populations. However, the extent of public spending on child benefits varies greatly from country to country. To our knowledge, this International Federation of Fertility Societies (IFFS) consensus document represents the first attempt to describe major disparities in access to fertility care in the context of the global trend of decreasing growth in the world population, based on a narrative review of the existing literature.</p><p><strong>Objective and rationale: </strong>The concept of family building, the process by which individuals or couples create or expand their families, has been largely ignored in family-planning paradigms. Family building encompasses various methods and options for individuals or couples who wish to have children. It can involve biological means, such as natural conception, as well as ART, surrogacy, adoption, and foster care. Family-building acknowledges the diverse ways in which individuals or couples can create their desired family and reflects the understanding that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to building a family. Developing education programs for young adults to increase family-building awareness and prevent infertility is urgently needed. Recommendations are provided and important knowledge gaps identified to provide professionals, the public, and policymakers with a comprehensive understanding of the role of child-friendly policies.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>A narrative review of the existing literature was performed by invited global leaders who themselves significantly contributed to this research field. Each section of the review was prepared by two to three experts, each of whom searched the published literature (PubMed) for peer reviewed full papers and reviews. Sections were discussed monthly by all authors and quarterly by the review board. The final document was prepared following discussions among all team members during a hybrid invitational meeting where full consensus was reached.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Major advances in fertility care have dramatically improved family-b","PeriodicalId":55045,"journal":{"name":"Human Reproduction Update","volume":" ","pages":"153-173"},"PeriodicalIF":14.8,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10905510/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139405351","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Shimona Lai, Rui Wang, Madelon van Wely, Michael Costello, Cindy Farquhar, Alexandra J Bensdorp, Inge M Custers, Angelique J Goverde, Hossam Elzeiny, Ben W Mol, Wentao Li
<p><strong>Background: </strong>IVF and IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) are widely used in managing unexplained infertility. IUI-OS is generally considered first-line therapy, followed by IVF only if IUI-OS is unsuccessful after several attempts. However, there is a growing interest in using IVF for immediate treatment because it is believed to lead to higher live birth rates and shorter time to pregnancy.</p><p><strong>Objective and rationale: </strong>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IVF versus IUI-OS had varied study designs and findings. Some RCTs used complex algorithms to combine IVF and IUI-OS, while others had unequal follow-up time between arms or compared treatments on a per-cycle basis, which introduced biases. Comparing cumulative live birth rates of IVF and IUI-OS within a consistent time frame is necessary for a fair head-to-head comparison. Previous meta-analyses of RCTs did not consider the time it takes to achieve pregnancy, which is not possible using aggregate data. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) allows standardization of follow-up time in different trials and time-to-event analysis methods. We performed this IPD-MA to investigate if IVF increases cumulative live birth rate considering the time leading to pregnancy and reduces multiple pregnancy rate compared to IUI-OS in couples with unexplained infertility.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register to identify RCTs that completed data collection before June 2021. A search update was carried out in January 2023. RCTs that compared IVF/ICSI to IUI-OS in couples with unexplained infertility were eligible. We invited author groups of eligible studies to join the IPD-MA and share the deidentified IPD of their RCTs. IPD were checked and standardized before synthesis. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Of eight potentially eligible RCTs, two were considered awaiting classification. In the other six trials, four shared IPD of 934 women, of which 550 were allocated to IVF and 383 to IUI-OS. Because the interventions were unable to blind, two RCTs had a high risk of bias, one had some concerns, and one had a low risk of bias. Considering the time to pregnancy leading to live birth, the cumulative live birth rate was not significantly higher in IVF compared to that in IUI-OS (4 RCTs, 908 women, 50.3% versus 43.2%, hazard ratio 1.19, 95% CI 0.81-1.74, I2 = 42.4%). For the safety primary outcome, the rate of multiple pregnancy was not significantly lower in IVF than IUI-OS (3 RCTs, 890 women, 3.8% versus 5.2% of all couples randomized, odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.41-1.50, I2 = 0.0%).</p><p><strong>Wider implications: </strong>There is no robust evidence that in couples with unexplained infertility IVF achieves pregnancy leading to live birth faster than IUI-OS. IVF a
{"title":"IVF versus IUI with ovarian stimulation for unexplained infertility: a collaborative individual participant data meta-analysis.","authors":"Shimona Lai, Rui Wang, Madelon van Wely, Michael Costello, Cindy Farquhar, Alexandra J Bensdorp, Inge M Custers, Angelique J Goverde, Hossam Elzeiny, Ben W Mol, Wentao Li","doi":"10.1093/humupd/dmad033","DOIUrl":"10.1093/humupd/dmad033","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>IVF and IUI with ovarian stimulation (IUI-OS) are widely used in managing unexplained infertility. IUI-OS is generally considered first-line therapy, followed by IVF only if IUI-OS is unsuccessful after several attempts. However, there is a growing interest in using IVF for immediate treatment because it is believed to lead to higher live birth rates and shorter time to pregnancy.</p><p><strong>Objective and rationale: </strong>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IVF versus IUI-OS had varied study designs and findings. Some RCTs used complex algorithms to combine IVF and IUI-OS, while others had unequal follow-up time between arms or compared treatments on a per-cycle basis, which introduced biases. Comparing cumulative live birth rates of IVF and IUI-OS within a consistent time frame is necessary for a fair head-to-head comparison. Previous meta-analyses of RCTs did not consider the time it takes to achieve pregnancy, which is not possible using aggregate data. Individual participant data meta-analysis (IPD-MA) allows standardization of follow-up time in different trials and time-to-event analysis methods. We performed this IPD-MA to investigate if IVF increases cumulative live birth rate considering the time leading to pregnancy and reduces multiple pregnancy rate compared to IUI-OS in couples with unexplained infertility.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register to identify RCTs that completed data collection before June 2021. A search update was carried out in January 2023. RCTs that compared IVF/ICSI to IUI-OS in couples with unexplained infertility were eligible. We invited author groups of eligible studies to join the IPD-MA and share the deidentified IPD of their RCTs. IPD were checked and standardized before synthesis. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Risk of Bias 2 tool.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>Of eight potentially eligible RCTs, two were considered awaiting classification. In the other six trials, four shared IPD of 934 women, of which 550 were allocated to IVF and 383 to IUI-OS. Because the interventions were unable to blind, two RCTs had a high risk of bias, one had some concerns, and one had a low risk of bias. Considering the time to pregnancy leading to live birth, the cumulative live birth rate was not significantly higher in IVF compared to that in IUI-OS (4 RCTs, 908 women, 50.3% versus 43.2%, hazard ratio 1.19, 95% CI 0.81-1.74, I2 = 42.4%). For the safety primary outcome, the rate of multiple pregnancy was not significantly lower in IVF than IUI-OS (3 RCTs, 890 women, 3.8% versus 5.2% of all couples randomized, odds ratio 0.78, 95% CI 0.41-1.50, I2 = 0.0%).</p><p><strong>Wider implications: </strong>There is no robust evidence that in couples with unexplained infertility IVF achieves pregnancy leading to live birth faster than IUI-OS. IVF a","PeriodicalId":55045,"journal":{"name":"Human Reproduction Update","volume":" ","pages":"174-185"},"PeriodicalIF":14.8,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10905504/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139040958","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Daimin Wei, Yaxin Su, Peter C K Leung, Yan Li, Zi-Jiang Chen
<p><strong>Background: </strong>During the human menstrual cycle and pregnancy, the endometrium undergoes a series of dynamic remodeling processes to adapt to physiological changes. Insufficient endometrial remodeling, characterized by inadequate endometrial proliferation, decidualization and spiral artery remodeling, is associated with infertility, endometriosis, dysfunctional uterine bleeding, and pregnancy-related complications such as preeclampsia and miscarriage. Bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs), a subset of the transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) superfamily, are multifunctional cytokines that regulate diverse cellular activities, such as differentiation, proliferation, apoptosis, and extracellular matrix synthesis, are now understood as integral to multiple reproductive processes in women. Investigations using human biological samples have shown that BMPs are essential for regulating human endometrial remodeling processes, including endometrial proliferation and decidualization.</p><p><strong>Objective and rationale: </strong>This review summarizes our current knowledge on the known pathophysiological roles of BMPs and their underlying molecular mechanisms in regulating human endometrial proliferation and decidualization, with the goal of promoting the development of innovative strategies for diagnosing, treating and preventing infertility and adverse pregnancy complications associated with dysregulated human endometrial remodeling.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>A literature search for original articles published up to June 2023 was conducted in the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar databases, identifying studies on the roles of BMPs in endometrial remodeling during the human menstrual cycle and pregnancy. Articles identified were restricted to English language full-text papers.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>BMP ligands and receptors and their transduction molecules are expressed in the endometrium and at the maternal-fetal interface. Along with emerging technologies such as tissue microarrays, 3D organoid cultures and advanced single-cell transcriptomics, and given the clinical availability of recombinant human proteins and ongoing pharmaceutical development, it is now clear that BMPs exert multiple roles in regulating human endometrial remodeling and that these biomolecules (and their receptors) can be targeted for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Moreover, dysregulation of these ligands, their receptors, or signaling determinants can impact endometrial remodeling, contributing to infertility or pregnancy-related complications (e.g. preeclampsia and miscarriage).</p><p><strong>Wider implications: </strong>Although further clinical trials are needed, recent advancements in the development of recombinant BMP ligands, synthetic BMP inhibitors, receptor antagonists, BMP ligand sequestration tools, and gene therapies have underscored the BMPs as candidate diagnostic biomarkers and positioned the BMP signaling pathway as a
{"title":"Roles of bone morphogenetic proteins in endometrial remodeling during the human menstrual cycle and pregnancy.","authors":"Daimin Wei, Yaxin Su, Peter C K Leung, Yan Li, Zi-Jiang Chen","doi":"10.1093/humupd/dmad031","DOIUrl":"10.1093/humupd/dmad031","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>During the human menstrual cycle and pregnancy, the endometrium undergoes a series of dynamic remodeling processes to adapt to physiological changes. Insufficient endometrial remodeling, characterized by inadequate endometrial proliferation, decidualization and spiral artery remodeling, is associated with infertility, endometriosis, dysfunctional uterine bleeding, and pregnancy-related complications such as preeclampsia and miscarriage. Bone morphogenetic proteins (BMPs), a subset of the transforming growth factor-β (TGF-β) superfamily, are multifunctional cytokines that regulate diverse cellular activities, such as differentiation, proliferation, apoptosis, and extracellular matrix synthesis, are now understood as integral to multiple reproductive processes in women. Investigations using human biological samples have shown that BMPs are essential for regulating human endometrial remodeling processes, including endometrial proliferation and decidualization.</p><p><strong>Objective and rationale: </strong>This review summarizes our current knowledge on the known pathophysiological roles of BMPs and their underlying molecular mechanisms in regulating human endometrial proliferation and decidualization, with the goal of promoting the development of innovative strategies for diagnosing, treating and preventing infertility and adverse pregnancy complications associated with dysregulated human endometrial remodeling.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>A literature search for original articles published up to June 2023 was conducted in the PubMed, MEDLINE, and Google Scholar databases, identifying studies on the roles of BMPs in endometrial remodeling during the human menstrual cycle and pregnancy. Articles identified were restricted to English language full-text papers.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>BMP ligands and receptors and their transduction molecules are expressed in the endometrium and at the maternal-fetal interface. Along with emerging technologies such as tissue microarrays, 3D organoid cultures and advanced single-cell transcriptomics, and given the clinical availability of recombinant human proteins and ongoing pharmaceutical development, it is now clear that BMPs exert multiple roles in regulating human endometrial remodeling and that these biomolecules (and their receptors) can be targeted for diagnostic and therapeutic purposes. Moreover, dysregulation of these ligands, their receptors, or signaling determinants can impact endometrial remodeling, contributing to infertility or pregnancy-related complications (e.g. preeclampsia and miscarriage).</p><p><strong>Wider implications: </strong>Although further clinical trials are needed, recent advancements in the development of recombinant BMP ligands, synthetic BMP inhibitors, receptor antagonists, BMP ligand sequestration tools, and gene therapies have underscored the BMPs as candidate diagnostic biomarkers and positioned the BMP signaling pathway as a","PeriodicalId":55045,"journal":{"name":"Human Reproduction Update","volume":" ","pages":"215-237"},"PeriodicalIF":14.8,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138464535","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Amerigo Vitagliano, Ettore Cicinelli, Antonio Simone Laganà, Alessandro Favilli, Salvatore Giovanni Vitale, Marco Noventa, Gianluca Raffaello Damiani, Miriam Dellino, Pierpaolo Nicolì, Antonio D'Amato, Stefano Bettocchi, Maria Matteo, Stefano Palomba
{"title":"Endometrial scratching: the light at the end of the tunnel.","authors":"Amerigo Vitagliano, Ettore Cicinelli, Antonio Simone Laganà, Alessandro Favilli, Salvatore Giovanni Vitale, Marco Noventa, Gianluca Raffaello Damiani, Miriam Dellino, Pierpaolo Nicolì, Antonio D'Amato, Stefano Bettocchi, Maria Matteo, Stefano Palomba","doi":"10.1093/humupd/dmad037","DOIUrl":"10.1093/humupd/dmad037","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":55045,"journal":{"name":"Human Reproduction Update","volume":" ","pages":"238-239"},"PeriodicalIF":14.8,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139572159","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The complicated ART of finding consensus on family-building health policy: a comment on the IFFS consensus document.","authors":"Alexander Weinreb, Artur Ludwin, Hagai Levine","doi":"10.1093/humupd/dmad036","DOIUrl":"10.1093/humupd/dmad036","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":55045,"journal":{"name":"Human Reproduction Update","volume":" ","pages":"131-132"},"PeriodicalIF":14.8,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139405352","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Georgina L Jones, Kirsty Budds, Francesca Taylor, Danielle Musson, Justin Raymer, David Churchman, Stephen H Kennedy, Crispin Jenkinson
<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Endometriosis Health Profiles (EHPs), the EHP-30 and EHP-5, are patient-reported outcome measures that were developed to measure the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of women living with endometriosis. Prior to their development, a systematic review was undertaken which identified that the HRQoL of women living with endometriosis was poorly understood, with only three medical and one surgical study identified.</p><p><strong>Objective and rationale: </strong>The 20-year anniversary of the EHP-30 provided a timely opportunity to assess how the tools have been used and explore what the findings tell us about the impact of endometriosis and its associated treatments upon women's QoL. Applying robust systematic review methodology, following PRISMA guidelines, we sought to answer: How many studies have used the EHP and for what purpose?; What are the demographic characteristics and international context of the studies?; What is the methodological nature and quality of the studies?; Which interventions have been assessed and what are the reported EHP outcomes?; and Can the EHP outcomes of these interventions be analysed using a meta-analysis and, if so, what do the results show?</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>The electronic databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Google Scholar were searched from the year the EHP was first published, in 2001 to 26 February 2020 using the search terms 'EHP30', 'EHP5', 'EHP-30', 'EHP-5', 'endometriosis health profile 30', and 'endometriosis health profile 5'. We updated the searches on 9 April 2021. All included studies were quality assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>The review included 139 papers. In clinical intervention studies, the EHPs were deployed most frequently to measure the outcomes of medical (n = 35) and surgical (n = 21) treatment. The EHPs were also used in 13 other intervention studies, 29 non-interventional studies, 32 psychometric/cross cultural validation studies; six diagnostic studies, and in three other studies to measure outcomes in related conditions. They were mainly deployed in studies undertaken in Europe and North America. Overall, regardless of the nature of the intervention, most women reported improvements in HRQoL after treatment. Surgical interventions generally resulted in significant improvements for the longest amount of time. There was also evidence that when participants stopped taking medication their EHP scores worsened, perhaps reinforcing the temporary impact of medical treatment. Younger patients reported more negative impact upon their HRQoL. Further evidence using classical test theory to support the EHPs' robust psychometric properties, including acceptability, dimensionality, reliability, validity (including cross-cultural), and responsiveness, was demonstrated, particularly for the EHP-30. Strikingly, using anchor-based methods, EHP-30 responsiveness studies demon
{"title":"A systematic review to determine use of the Endometriosis Health Profiles to measure quality of life outcomes in women with endometriosis.","authors":"Georgina L Jones, Kirsty Budds, Francesca Taylor, Danielle Musson, Justin Raymer, David Churchman, Stephen H Kennedy, Crispin Jenkinson","doi":"10.1093/humupd/dmad029","DOIUrl":"10.1093/humupd/dmad029","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Endometriosis Health Profiles (EHPs), the EHP-30 and EHP-5, are patient-reported outcome measures that were developed to measure the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of women living with endometriosis. Prior to their development, a systematic review was undertaken which identified that the HRQoL of women living with endometriosis was poorly understood, with only three medical and one surgical study identified.</p><p><strong>Objective and rationale: </strong>The 20-year anniversary of the EHP-30 provided a timely opportunity to assess how the tools have been used and explore what the findings tell us about the impact of endometriosis and its associated treatments upon women's QoL. Applying robust systematic review methodology, following PRISMA guidelines, we sought to answer: How many studies have used the EHP and for what purpose?; What are the demographic characteristics and international context of the studies?; What is the methodological nature and quality of the studies?; Which interventions have been assessed and what are the reported EHP outcomes?; and Can the EHP outcomes of these interventions be analysed using a meta-analysis and, if so, what do the results show?</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>The electronic databases MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, and Google Scholar were searched from the year the EHP was first published, in 2001 to 26 February 2020 using the search terms 'EHP30', 'EHP5', 'EHP-30', 'EHP-5', 'endometriosis health profile 30', and 'endometriosis health profile 5'. We updated the searches on 9 April 2021. All included studies were quality assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT).</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>The review included 139 papers. In clinical intervention studies, the EHPs were deployed most frequently to measure the outcomes of medical (n = 35) and surgical (n = 21) treatment. The EHPs were also used in 13 other intervention studies, 29 non-interventional studies, 32 psychometric/cross cultural validation studies; six diagnostic studies, and in three other studies to measure outcomes in related conditions. They were mainly deployed in studies undertaken in Europe and North America. Overall, regardless of the nature of the intervention, most women reported improvements in HRQoL after treatment. Surgical interventions generally resulted in significant improvements for the longest amount of time. There was also evidence that when participants stopped taking medication their EHP scores worsened, perhaps reinforcing the temporary impact of medical treatment. Younger patients reported more negative impact upon their HRQoL. Further evidence using classical test theory to support the EHPs' robust psychometric properties, including acceptability, dimensionality, reliability, validity (including cross-cultural), and responsiveness, was demonstrated, particularly for the EHP-30. Strikingly, using anchor-based methods, EHP-30 responsiveness studies demon","PeriodicalId":55045,"journal":{"name":"Human Reproduction Update","volume":" ","pages":"186-214"},"PeriodicalIF":14.8,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10905511/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138441695","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p><strong>Background: </strong>Infertility and pregnancy loss are longstanding problems. Successful fertilization and high-quality embryos are prerequisites for an ongoing pregnancy. Studies have proven that every stage in the human reproductive process is regulated by multiple genes and any problem, at any step, may lead to fertilization failure (FF) or early embryonic arrest (EEA). Doctors can diagnose the pathogenic factors involved in FF and EEA by using genetic methods. With the progress in the development of new genetic technologies, such as single-cell RNA analysis and whole-exome sequencing, a new approach has opened up for us to directly study human germ cells and reproductive development. These findings will help us to identify the unique mechanism(s) that leads to FF and EEA in order to find potential treatments.</p><p><strong>Objective and rationale: </strong>The goal of this review is to compile current genetic knowledge related to FF and EEA, clarifying the mechanisms involved and providing clues for clinical diagnosis and treatment.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>PubMed was used to search for relevant research articles and reviews, primarily focusing on English-language publications from January 1978 to June 2023. The search terms included fertilization failure, early embryonic arrest, genetic, epigenetic, whole-exome sequencing, DNA methylation, chromosome, non-coding RNA, and other related keywords. Additional studies were identified by searching reference lists. This review primarily focuses on research conducted in humans. However, it also incorporates relevant data from animal models when applicable. The results were presented descriptively, and individual study quality was not assessed.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>A total of 233 relevant articles were included in the final review, from 3925 records identified initially. The review provides an overview of genetic factors and mechanisms involved in the human reproductive process. The genetic mutations and other genetic mechanisms of FF and EEA were systematically reviewed, for example, globozoospermia, oocyte activation failure, maternal effect gene mutations, zygotic genome activation abnormalities, chromosome abnormalities, and epigenetic abnormalities. Additionally, the review summarizes progress in treatments for different gene defects, offering new insights for clinical diagnosis and treatment.</p><p><strong>Wider implications: </strong>The information provided in this review will facilitate the development of more accurate molecular screening tools for diagnosing infertility using genetic markers and networks in human reproductive development. The findings will also help guide clinical practice by identifying appropriate interventions based on specific gene mutations. For example, when an individual has obvious gene mutations related to FF, ICSI is recommended instead of IVF. However, in the case of genetic defects such as phospholipase C zeta1 (PLCZ1), acti
{"title":"Genetic mechanisms of fertilization failure and early embryonic arrest: a comprehensive review.","authors":"Yiqiu Wei, Jingxuan Wang, Rui Qu, Weiqian Zhang, Yiling Tan, Yanwei Sha, Lin Li, Tailang Yin","doi":"10.1093/humupd/dmad026","DOIUrl":"10.1093/humupd/dmad026","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Infertility and pregnancy loss are longstanding problems. Successful fertilization and high-quality embryos are prerequisites for an ongoing pregnancy. Studies have proven that every stage in the human reproductive process is regulated by multiple genes and any problem, at any step, may lead to fertilization failure (FF) or early embryonic arrest (EEA). Doctors can diagnose the pathogenic factors involved in FF and EEA by using genetic methods. With the progress in the development of new genetic technologies, such as single-cell RNA analysis and whole-exome sequencing, a new approach has opened up for us to directly study human germ cells and reproductive development. These findings will help us to identify the unique mechanism(s) that leads to FF and EEA in order to find potential treatments.</p><p><strong>Objective and rationale: </strong>The goal of this review is to compile current genetic knowledge related to FF and EEA, clarifying the mechanisms involved and providing clues for clinical diagnosis and treatment.</p><p><strong>Search methods: </strong>PubMed was used to search for relevant research articles and reviews, primarily focusing on English-language publications from January 1978 to June 2023. The search terms included fertilization failure, early embryonic arrest, genetic, epigenetic, whole-exome sequencing, DNA methylation, chromosome, non-coding RNA, and other related keywords. Additional studies were identified by searching reference lists. This review primarily focuses on research conducted in humans. However, it also incorporates relevant data from animal models when applicable. The results were presented descriptively, and individual study quality was not assessed.</p><p><strong>Outcomes: </strong>A total of 233 relevant articles were included in the final review, from 3925 records identified initially. The review provides an overview of genetic factors and mechanisms involved in the human reproductive process. The genetic mutations and other genetic mechanisms of FF and EEA were systematically reviewed, for example, globozoospermia, oocyte activation failure, maternal effect gene mutations, zygotic genome activation abnormalities, chromosome abnormalities, and epigenetic abnormalities. Additionally, the review summarizes progress in treatments for different gene defects, offering new insights for clinical diagnosis and treatment.</p><p><strong>Wider implications: </strong>The information provided in this review will facilitate the development of more accurate molecular screening tools for diagnosing infertility using genetic markers and networks in human reproductive development. The findings will also help guide clinical practice by identifying appropriate interventions based on specific gene mutations. For example, when an individual has obvious gene mutations related to FF, ICSI is recommended instead of IVF. However, in the case of genetic defects such as phospholipase C zeta1 (PLCZ1), acti","PeriodicalId":55045,"journal":{"name":"Human Reproduction Update","volume":" ","pages":"48-80"},"PeriodicalIF":14.8,"publicationDate":"2024-01-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41141146","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：