Hyperemesis gravidarum (HG) is a condition causing severe nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy often resulting in hospital admission. The incidence of HG is approximately 0.5% of live births, said to be higher in multiple pregnancies, hydatidiform mole and other conditions associated with increased pregnancy hormone levels. Both the aetiology and pathogenesis of HG remain unknown. We conducted a literature review (1966-now) to summarize the current evidence on the aetiology and pathogenesis of HG. The potential role of pregnancy-related hormones such as progesterone, estrogen and HCG has been widely studied; however, various other hormones such as leptin, placental growth hormone, prolactin, thyroid and adrenal cortical hormones have been implicated in the aetiology of HG. In addition to endocrinological hypotheses, the rationale and evidence considering infectious, immunological, psychological, metabolic and anatomical causes for HG have been analysed here. Many studies suffer from the low number of patients included, the variable definition used for HG and varying assay methodology used in studies of hormone measurement. This review highlights the need for more extensive studies addressing the pathogenesis and aetiology of HG.

BACKGROUNDSmall lifestyle-intervention studies suggest that modest weight loss increases the chance of conception and may improve perinatal outcomes, but large randomized, controlled trials are lacking. METHODSWe randomly assigned infertile women with a body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) of 29 or higher to a 6-month lifestyle intervention preceding treatment for infertility or to prompt treatment for infertility. The primary outcome was the vaginal birth of a healthy singleton at term within 24 months after randomization. RESULTSWe assigned women who did not conceive naturally to one of two treatment strategies: 290 women were assigned to a 6-month lifestyle-intervention program preceding 18 months of infertility treatment (intervention group) and 287 were assigned to prompt infertility treatment for 24 months (control group). A total of 3 women withdrew consent, so 289 women in the intervention group and 285 women in the control group were included in the analysis. The discontinuation rate in the intervention group was 21.8%. In intention-to-treat analyses, the mean weight loss was 4.4 kg in the intervention group and 1.1 kg in the control group (P<0.001). The primary outcome occurred in 27.1% of the women in the intervention group and 35.2% of those in the control group (rate ratio in the intervention group, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.99). CONCLUSIONSIn obese infertile women, a lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment, as compared with prompt infertility treatment, did not result in higher rates of a vaginal birth of a healthy singleton at term within 24 months after randomization. (Funded by the

Reducing drop-out rate is crucial to further improve the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of IVF treatment. An important factor determining the risk of drop-out is the burden of the treatment strategy. The application of a mild treatment strategy and managing patient's expectations might reduce drop-out rates.

The optimal number of retrieved oocytes depends on the ovarian stimulation regimen. After mild ovarian stimulation, a modest number of oocytes is associated with optimal implantation rates and does not reflect a poor ovarian response. Therefore, the fear of reducing the number of oocytes retrieved following mild ovarian stimulation appears to be unjustified.

Evidence in favour of mild ovarian stimulation for IVF is accumulating in recent literature. However, further, sufficiently powered prospective studies applying novel mild treatment regimens are required and structured reporting of the incidence and severity of complications, the number of treatment days, medication used, cost, patient discomfort and number of patient drop-outs in studies on IVF is encouraged.