| 1. |
|
|
| 2. |
- Stormlund, S., et al.
(författare)
-
Freeze-all versus fresh blastocyst transfer strategy during in vitro fertilisation in women with regular menstrual cycles: multicentre randomised controlled trial
- 2020
-
Ingår i: Bmj-British Medical Journal. - : BMJ. - 1756-1833. ; 370
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- OBJECTIVE To compare the ongoing pregnancy rate between a freeze-all strategy and a fresh transfer strategy in assisted reproductive technology treatment. DESIGN Multicentre, randomised controlled superiority trial. SETTING Outpatient fertility clinics at eight public hospitals in Denmark, Sweden, and Spain. PARTICIPANTS 460 women aged 18-39 years with regular menstrual cycles starting their first, second, or third treatment cycle of in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. INTERVENTIONS Women were randomised at baseline on cycle day 2 or 3 to one of two treatment groups: the freeze-all group (elective freezing of all embryos) who received gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist triggering and single frozen-thawed blastocyst transfer in a subsequent modified natural cycle; or the fresh transfer group who received human chorionic gonadotropin triggering and single blastocyst transfer in the fresh cycle. Women in the fresh transfer group with more than 18 follicles larger than 11 mm on the day of triggering had elective freezing of all embryos and postponement of transfer as a safety measure. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The primary outcome was the ongoing pregnancy rate defined as a detectable fetal heart beat after eight weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes were live birth rate, positive human chorionic gonadotropin rate, time to pregnancy, and pregnancy related, obstetric, and neonatal complications. The primary analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS Ongoing pregnancy rate did not differ significantly between the freeze-all and fresh transfer groups (27.8% (62/223) v 29.6% (68/230); risk ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.10, P=0.76). Additionally, no significant difference was found in the live birth rate (27.4% (61/223) for the freeze-all group and 28.7% (66/230) for the fresh transfer group; risk ratio 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.87 to 1.10, P=0.83). No significant differences between groups were observed for positive human chorionic gonadotropin rate or pregnancy loss, and none of the women had severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome; only one hospital admission related to this condition occurred in the fresh transfer group. The risks of pregnancy related, obstetric, and neonatal complications did not differ between the two groups except for a higher mean birth weight after frozen blastocyst transfer and an increased risk of prematurity after fresh blastocyst transfer. Time to pregnancy was longer in the freeze-all group. CONCLUSIONS In women with regular menstrual cycles, a freeze-all strategy with gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist triggering for final oocyte maturation did not result in higher ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates than a fresh transfer strategy. The findings warrant caution in the indiscriminate application of a freeze-all strategy when no apparent risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is present.
|
|
| 3. |
|
|
| 4. |
|
|
| 5. |
|
|
| 6. |
- Olofsson, Jonas K., et al.
(författare)
-
A Time-Based Account of the Perception of Odor Objects and Valences
- 2012
-
Ingår i: Psychological Science. - : SAGE Publications. - 0956-7976 .- 1467-9280. ; 23:10, s. 1224-1232
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Is human odor perception guided by memory or emotion? Object-centered accounts predict that recognition of unique odor qualities precedes valence decoding. Valence-centered accounts predict the opposite: that stimulus-driven valence responses precede and guide identification. In a speeded response time study, participants smelled paired odors, presented sequentially, and indicated whether the second odor in each pair belonged to the same category as the first (object evaluation task) or whether the second odor was more pleasant than the first (valence evaluation task). Object evaluation was faster and more accurate than valence evaluation. In a complementary experiment, participants performed an identification task, in which they indicated whether an odor matched the previously presented word label. Responses were quicker for odors preceded by semantically matching, rather than nonmatching, word labels, but results showed no evidence of interference from valence on nonmatching trials. These results are in accordance with object-centered accounts of odor perception.
|
|
| 7. |
- Stadelmann, Caroline, et al.
(författare)
-
Vaginal progesterone as luteal phase support in natural cycle frozen-thawed embryo transfer (ProFET) : protocol for a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial
- 2022
-
Ingår i: BMJ Open. - : BMJ Publishing Group. - 2044-6055. ; 12:7
-
Tidskriftsartikel (refereegranskat)abstract
- Introduction Vaginal progesterone supplementation is frequently given to patients receiving frozen embryo transfer (FET) in the natural cycle aiming to increase the chance of pregnancy and live birth. To date, only a few studies have investigated if progesterone supplementation is beneficial in these cycles and the level of evidence for progesterone supplementation is very low. Methods and analysis The ProFET trial is a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial powered for this investigation, including 1800 women with regular menstrual cycles (24-35days), aged 18-43 years planned for natural cycle-FET receiving a single blastocyst for transfer. Participants are randomised (1:1:1) to either luteal phase progesterone for 3 weeks, luteal phase progesterone for 7 weeks or no luteal phase progesterone. The participating study centres consist of 12 in vitro fertilisation-clinics in Sweden and 1 in Iceland. The primary outcome is to investigate if luteal phase support (LPS) by vaginal progesterone increases the chance of a live birth per randomised patient in a natural FET cycle compared with no LPS. Ethics and dissemination The trial was approved by the Swedish Ethical Review Authority (ID 2020-06774, 2021-02822 and 2022-01502-02) and the Swedish Medical Products Agency (ID nr 5.1-2020-102613). All participants are required to provide written informed consent. The outcome of this study will be disseminated to the public through broadcasts, newspapers and presentations at scientific congresses as well as publications in international scientific journals.
|
|
