05-10-2010.

IntroductionThe aim of this study is to report the current status of ovarian tissue cryopreservation among alternatives for fertility preservation in the Nordic countries.Material and methodsA questionnaire was sent to 14 Nordic academic reproductive centers with established fertility preservation programs. It covered fertility preservation cases performed up to December 2014, standard procedures for ovarian tissue cryopreservation and oocyte cryopreservation and reproductive outcomes following ovarian tissue transplantation.ResultsAmong the Nordic countries, Denmark and Norway practice ovarian tissue cryopreservation as a clinical treatment (822 and 164 cases, respectively) and their programs are centralized. In Sweden (457 cases), ovarian tissue cryopreservation is practiced at five of six centers and in Finland at all five centers (145 cases). Nearly all considered ovarian tissue cryopreservation to be experimental. In Iceland, embryo cryopreservation is the only option for fertility preservation. Most centers use slow‐freezing methods for ovarian tissue cryopreservation. Most patients selected for ovarian tissue cryopreservation were newly diagnosed with cancer and the tissue was predominantly retrieved laparoscopically by unilateral oophorectomy. Only minor complications were reported. In total, 46 women have undergone ovarian tissue transplantation aiming at recovering fertility, 17 healthy children have been born and several additional pregnancies are currently ongoing. Whenever patients’ clinical condition is permissive, oocyte cryopreservation after hormonal stimulation is preferred for fertility preservation. Between 2012 and 2014, a smaller proportion of females have undergone fertility preservation in the Nordic centers, in comparison to males (1:3).ConclusionsOverall, ovarian tissue cryopreservation was reported to be safe. Slow freezing methods are still preferred. Promising results of recovery of fertility have been reported in Nordic countries that have initiated ovarian tissue transplantation procedures.

Introduction:Large observational studies have shown that obstetric and perinatal outcomes are negatively affected in obese women. In contrast, a recent Dutch randomized trial of infertile women and lifestyle weight intervention found no difference between the weight intervention group and the control group in obstetric or neonatal outcomes. We have recently published a large Nordic randomized trial where obese women scheduled for in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment went through an intensive weight intervention treatment before IVF. No significant effect on live birth rate was found, despite large weight loss in the intervention group. The present study was conducted primarily to find out the effect of weight intervention in obese women scheduled for IVF on mean birthweight and mean deviation from expected birthweight, and secondarily the effect on other perinatal and maternal outcomes. Material and methods:A secondary analysis of a prospective, randomized controlled trial performed between 2010 and 2016 in the Nordic countries was performed. In all, 317 women were randomized either to weight reduction and IVF treatment (n = 160) or IVF only (n = 157) and the primary end-point was live birth. From this study, all births were analyzed for perinatal and maternal outcomes. Nine infertility clinics participated, including women < 38 years of age planning for IVF, and having a body mass index ≥ 30 and < 35 kg/m 2 . Data concerning perinatal and maternal outcomes were gathered from maternal health-care and delivery records for mother and child. All analyses were performed on singletons only.Results: There were 87 live births, 45 singletons in the intervention group and 41 singletons and one twin birth in the control group. The maternal characteristics for the women having a live birth were comparable in the two groups. The primary outcomes, mean birthweight, in the weight intervention and IVF group and the IVF only group were; 3486 g (standard deviation [SD] 523) vs 3584 g (SD 509) (P = 0.46), mean difference −98.6 g (95% confidence interval [CI] −320.3 to 123.2); deviation from expected birthweight 0.25% (SD 10.4) vs 0.87% (SD 12.9), mean difference 1.1% (95% CI −6.1 to 3.9). The estimates of the secondary perinatal and maternal outcomes in the 2 groups were: preterm birth < 37 weeks 2 (4.4%) vs 1 (2.4%) (odds ratio[OR] 1.95; 95% CI 0.17-22.36), small-for-gestational-age 0 (0%) vs 1 (2.4%), mean gestational age (days) 278 vs 280 (P = 0.95), preeclampsia 5 (11.1%) vs 4 (9.8%) (OR 1.19; | 709 EINARSSON Et Al.

STUDY QUESTIONDid weight reduction in obese women scheduled for IVF increase cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) after 2 years?SUMMARY ANSWERWeight loss prior to IVF did not increase CLBR.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADYFew studies have investigated the effect of weight reduction in obese infertile women scheduled for IVF. In a recent randomized controlled trial (RCT), including one IVF cycle, we found no increase in live birth rate after weight reduction. Weight regain after obesity reduction treatment often occurs, and children born to obese women have a higher risk of childhood obesity.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATIONA 2-year follow-up of a multicenter, RCT running between 2012 and 2018 was performed. Out of 317 women randomized to weight reduction followed by IVF treatment or IVF treatment-only, 305 remained in the full analysis set. Of these women, 90.5% (276/305) participated in this study.PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODSNine infertility clinics in Sweden, Denmark and Iceland participated in the RCT. Obese women under 38 years of age having a BMI ≥30 and < 35 kg/m2 were randomized to weight reduction and IVF or IVF-only. In all, 160 patients were randomized to a low calorie diet for 12 weeks and 3–5 weeks of weight stabilization, before IVF and 157 patients to IVF-only. Two years after randomization, the patients filled in a questionnaire regarding current weight, live births and ongoing pregnancies.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE42 additional live births were achieved during the follow-up in the weight reduction and IVF group, and 40 additional live births in the IVF-only group, giving a CLBR, the main outcome of this study, of 57.2% (87/152) and 53.6% (82/153), respectively (P = 0.56; odds ratio (OR) 1.16, 95% CI: 0.74–1.52). Most of the women in the weight reduction and IVF group had regained their pre-study weight after 2 years. The mean weight gain over the 2 years was 8.6 kg, while women in the IVF-only group had a mean weight loss of 1.2 kg. At the 2-year follow-up, the weight standard deviation scores of the children born in the original RCT (index cycle) were 0.218 (1.329) (mean, SD) in the weight reduction and IVF group and − 0.055 (1.271) (mean, SD) in the IVF-only group (P = 0.25; mean difference between groups, 0.327; 95% CI: −0.272 to 0.932).LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTIONAll data presented in this follow-up study were self-reported by the participants, which could affect the results. A further limitation is in power for the main outcome. The study is a secondary analysis of a large RCT, where the original power calculation was based on live-birth rate after one cycle and not on CLBR.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGSThe follow-up indicates that for women with a BMI ≥30 and < 35 kg/m2 and scheduled for IVF, the weight reduction did not increase their chance of a live birth either in the index cycle or after 2 years. It also shows that even in this highly motivated group, a regain of pre-study weight occurred.STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)The 2-year follow-up was financed by grants from ...