Dataset Information

The Effect of Lifestyle Intervention on Pregnancy and Birth Outcomes on Obese Infertile Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: Obesity has been associated with negative effects on natural fertility and poor prognosis when assisted reproductive technologies (ART) are performed. Patients attending for fertility treatments are often advised to optimize their weights to improve the outcomes. There is lack of enough information on how weight-loss would be effective for improving fertility in women who are overweight or obese. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate whether weight-loss achieved by lifestyle program improves natural or assisted reproduction in obese infertile women. We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE up to March 2018. Two reviews were selected as randomised trials assessing a lifestyle intervention in women with obesity before receiving treatments for infertility and appraised their risk of bias. We extracted data on pregnancy, birth, and miscarriage rates as the primary outcomes and pooled effect estimates using a random effects model. The primary outcome was the live birth rate. We reported summary measures as the relative risk (RR), 95% confidence interval (CI), and percentage of heterogeneity (I2). We included eight randomised trials with 1175 women. Lifestyle programmes, improved pregnancy rates (RR: 1.43, CI: 95% 1.02 to 2.01; I2=60%; 8 RCTs; N=1098) but had no impact on live births (RR: 1.39, CI: 95% 0.90 to 2.14; I2=64%; 7RCTs; N=1034). Our findings suggest that women participating in lifestyle interventions had an increased risk of miscarriage (RR: 1.50, CI: 95% 1.04 to 2.16; I2=0; 6RCTs; N=543). We rated the quality of evidence for these outcomes as the moderate-to-low. Lifestyle interventions slightly increased the pregnancy rate, while it would be uncertain whether it can improve the live birth. Lifestyle interventions can increase the risk of miscarriage. More research is needed to further explore lifestyle interventions on reproductive outcomes in obese infertile women.

SUBMITTER: Espinos JJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7139226 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Effect of Lifestyle Intervention on Pregnancy and Birth Outcomes on Obese Infertile Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Espinós Juan J JJ Solà Ivan I Valli Claudia C Polo Ana A Ziolkowska Lucja L Martínez-Zapata M José MJ

International journal of fertility & sterility 20200225 1

Obesity has been associated with negative effects on natural fertility and poor prognosis when assisted reproductive technologies (ART) are performed. Patients attending for fertility treatments are often advised to optimize their weights to improve the outcomes. There is lack of enough information on how weight-loss would be effective for improving fertility in women who are overweight or obese. We conducted a systematic review to evaluate whether weight-loss achieved by lifestyle program impro ...[more]

PMID: 32112628

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundObesity in infertile women increases the costs of fertility treatments, reduces their effectiveness and increases significantly the risks of many complications of pregnancy and for the newborn. Studies suggest that even a modest loss of 5-10 % of body weight can restore ovulation. However, there are gaps in knowledge regarding the benefits and cost-effectiveness of a lifestyle modification program targeting obese infertile women and integrated into the fertility clinics. This study will evaluate clinical outcomes and costs of a transferable interdisciplinary lifestyle intervention, before and during pregnancy, in obese infertile women. We hypothesize that the intervention will: 1) improve fertility, efficacy of fertility treatments, and health of mothers and their children; and 2) reduce the cost per live birth, including costs of fertility treatments and pregnancy outcomes.Methods/designObese infertile women (age: 18-40 years; BMI ≥30 kg/m(2) or ≥27 kg/m(2) with polycystic ovary syndrome) will be randomised to either a lifestyle intervention followed by standard fertility treatments after 6 months if no conception has been achieved (intervention group) or standard fertility treatments only (control group). The intervention and/or follow-up will last for a maximum of 18 months or up to the end of pregnancy. Evaluation visits will be planned every 6 months where different outcome measures will be assessed. The primary outcome will be live-birth rates at 18 months. The secondary outcomes will be sub-divided into four categories: lifestyle and anthropometric, fertility, pregnancy complications, and neonatal outcomes. Outcomes and costs will be also compared to similar women seen in three fertility clinics across Canada. Qualitative data will also be collected from both professionals and obese infertile women.DiscussionThis study will generate new knowledge about the implementation, impacts and costs of a lifestyle management program in obese infertile women. This information will be relevant for decision-makers and health care professionals, and should be generalizable to North American fertility clinics.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT01483612. Registered 25 November 2011.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The prevalence of obesity, an important cardiometabolic risk factor, is rising in women. Lifestyle improvements are the first step in treatment of obesity, but the success depends on factors like timing and motivation. Women are especially receptive to advice about lifestyle before and during pregnancy. Therefore, we hypothesize that the pre-pregnancy period provides the perfect window of opportunity to improve cardiometabolic health and quality of life of obese infertile women, by means of a lifestyle intervention. METHODS AND FINDINGS:Between 2009-2012, 577 infertile women between 18 and 39 years of age, with a Body Mass Index of ? 29 kg/m2, were randomized to a six month lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment, or to direct infertility treatment. The goal of the intervention was 5-10% weight loss or a BMI < 29 kg/m2. Cardiometabolic outcomes included weight, waist- and hip circumference, body mass index, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, fasting glucose and insulin, HOMA-IR, hs-CRP, lipids and metabolic syndrome. All outcomes were measured by research nurses at randomization, 3 and 6 months. Self-reported quality of life was also measured at 12 months. Three participants withdrew their informed consent, and 63 participants discontinued the intervention program. Intention to treat analysis was conducted. Mixed effects regression models analyses were performed. Results are displayed as estimated mean differences between intervention and control group. Weight (-3.1 kg 95% CI: -4.0 to -2.2 kg; P < .001), waist circumference (-2.4 cm 95% CI: -3.6 to -1.1 cm; P < .001), hip circumference (-3.0 95% CI: -4.2 to -1.9 cm; P < .001), BMI (-1.2 kg/m2 95% CI: -1.5 to -0.8 kg/m2; P < .001), systolic blood pressure (-2.8 mmHg 95% CI: -5.0 to -0.7 mmHg; P = .01) and HOMA-IR (-0.5 95% CI: -0.8 to -0.1; P = .01) were lower in the intervention group compared to controls. Hs-CRP and lipids did not differ between groups. The odds ratio for metabolic syndrome in the intervention group was 0.53 (95% CI: 0.33 to 0.85; P < .01) compared to controls. Physical QoL scores were higher in the lifestyle intervention group (2.2 95% CI: 0.9 to 3.5; P = .001) while mental QoL scores did not differ. CONCLUSIONS:In obese infertile women, a lifestyle intervention prior to infertility treatment improves cardiometabolic health and self-reported physical quality of life (LIFEstyle study: Netherlands Trial Register: NTR1530).

Project description:Obesity in women of reproductive age has deleterious effects on reproductive and offspring health. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the association between the magnitude of periconceptional body-mass index (BMI) change and maternal and neonatal outcomes in obese infertile women who participated in the LIFEstyle study. The LIFEstyle study was a randomized controlled trial, evaluating if a six-month lifestyle intervention program prior to infertility treatment in obese infertile women improved birth rates, compared to prompt infertility treatment.This is an exploratory post hoc analysis of the LIFEstyle study. We recorded periconceptional BMI change in women with an ongoing pregnancy, pooling data of all women, regardless of randomization arm. Periconceptional BMI change was calculated using weight at randomization and the periconceptional weight (measured in kilograms 12 weeks before or after conception and expressed as BMI change in units BMI (kg/m2)). Subsequently, women were categorized into quartiles according to the magnitude of their periconceptional change in BMI. The odds of maternal and neonatal outcomes were calculated using logistic regression analysis, comparing women in each of the first three weight change quartiles separately, and combined, to women in the fourth quartile. The fourth quartile was chosen as reference group, since these women had the least weight loss. We adjusted for periconceptional BMI, nulliparity and smoking status. In addition, we performed a subgroup analysis for singleton pregnancies. In the LIFEstyle study, 321 obese infertile women achieved an ongoing pregnancy which was conceived within 24 months after randomization. Periconceptional BMI change was available in 244 of these women (76%). Median BMI at randomization was 35.9 kg/m2. Women in the first quartile (Q1) had a periconceptional BMI change of <-2.1 kg/m2, women in the second quartile (Q2) -2.1 to -0.9 kg/m2, women in the third quartile (Q3) -0.9 to 0.1 kg/m2 and women in the fourth quartile (Q4) gained ≥0.1 kg/m2. There were no significant differences between women in the quartiles regarding rates of excessive gestational weight gain (in term pregnancies), gestational diabetes, preterm birth, induction of labor, spontaneous vaginal birth and Caesarean section. Compared to women in Q4, the adjusted odds ratios, aOR, and 95% confidence interval for a hypertensive complication were; 0.55 (0.22-1.42) for women in Q1, 0.30 (0.12-0.78) for women in Q2, 0.39 (0.16-0.96) for women in Q3 and 0.39 (0.19-0.82) for women in Q1 to Q3 combined. In the subgroup analysis, investigating singleton pregnancies only, the statistically significant decreased rate of a hypertensive complication remained in women in Q2 (aOR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10-0.72) and Q3 (aOR 0.39, 95%CI 0.16-0.98) and when comparing women in Q1 to Q3 together to women in Q4 (aOR 0.38, 95%CI 0.18-0.80). Furthermore, there was a significantly decreased aOR (95%CI) of preterm birth in women in Q2 (0.24, 0.06-0.98) and when combining women in Q1 to Q3 (0.37, 0.14-0.97) compared to women in Q4.These results suggest that a periconceptional decrease in BMI in obese infertile women could lead to a decrease of the rates of hypertensive pregnancy complications and preterm birth. The results are limited by the exploratory nature of the analyses and further evidence is necessary to provide more definitive conclusions.

Project description:BackgroundWomen with obesity and infertility are counseled to lose weight prior to conception and infertility treatment to improve pregnancy rates and birth outcomes, although confirmatory evidence from randomized trials is lacking. We assessed whether a preconception intensive lifestyle intervention with acute weight loss is superior to a weight neutral intervention at achieving a healthy live birth.Methods and findingsIn this open-label, randomized controlled study (FIT-PLESE), 379 women with obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) and unexplained infertility were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to 2 preconception lifestyle modification groups lasting 16 weeks, between July 2015 and July 2018 (final follow-up September 2019) followed by infertility therapy. The primary outcome was the healthy live birth (term infant of normal weight without major anomalies) incidence. This was conducted at 9 academic health centers across the United States. The intensive group underwent increased physical activity and weight loss (target 7%) through meal replacements and medication (Orlistat) compared to a standard group with increased physical activity alone without weight loss. This was followed by standardized empiric infertility treatment consisting of 3 cycles of ovarian stimulation/intrauterine insemination. Outcomes of any resulting pregnancy were tracked. Among 191 women randomized to standard lifestyle group, 40 dropped out of the study before conception; among 188 women randomized to intensive lifestyle group, 31 dropped out of the study before conception. All the randomized women were included in the intent-to-treat analysis for primary outcome of a healthy live birth. There were no significant differences in the incidence of healthy live births [standard 29/191(15.2%), intensive 23/188(12.2%), rate ratio 0.81 (0.48 to 1.34), P = 0.40]. Intensive had significant weight loss compared to standard (-6.6 ± 5.4% versus -0.3 ± 3.2%, P < 0.001). There were improvements in metabolic health, including a marked decrease in incidence of the metabolic syndrome (baseline to 16 weeks: standard: 53.6% to 49.4%, intensive 52.8% to 32.2%, P = 0.003). Gastrointestinal side effects were significantly more common in intensive. There was a higher, but nonsignificant, first trimester pregnancy loss in the intensive group (33.3% versus 23.7% in standard, 95% rate ratio 1.40, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.79 to 2.50). The main limitations of the study are the limited power of the study to detect rare complications and the design difficulty in finding an adequate time matched control intervention, as the standard exercise intervention may have potentially been helpful or harmful.ConclusionsA preconception intensive lifestyle intervention for weight loss did not improve fertility or birth outcomes compared to an exercise intervention without targeted weight loss. Improvement in metabolic health may not translate into improved female fecundity.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02432209.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To evaluate the evidence on the efficacy of psychosocial interventions for improving pregnancy rates and reducing distress for couples in treatment with assisted reproductive technology (ART). DESIGN:Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES:PsycINFO, PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library between 1978 and April 2014. STUDY SELECTION:Studies were considered eligible if they evaluated the effect of any psychosocial intervention on clinical pregnancy and/or distress in infertile participants, used a quantitative approach and were published in English. DATA EXTRACTION:Study characteristics and results were extracted and the methodological quality was assessed. Effect sizes (ES; Hedges g) were pooled using a random effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed using the Q statistic and I(2), and publication bias was evaluated using Egger's method. Possible moderators and mediators were explored with meta-analyses of variances (ANOVAs) and meta-regression. RESULTS:We identified 39 eligible studies (total N=2746 men and women) assessing the effects of psychological treatment on pregnancy rates and/or adverse psychological outcomes, including depressive symptoms, anxiety, infertility stress and marital function. Statistically significant and robust overall effects of psychosocial intervention were found for both clinical pregnancy (risk ratio=2.01; CI 1.48 to 2.73; p<0.001) and combined psychological outcomes (Hedges g=0.59; CI 0.38 to 0.80; p=0.001). The pooled ES for psychological outcomes were generally larger for women (g: 0.51 to 0.73) than men (0.13 to 0.34), but the difference only reached statistical significance for depressive symptoms (p=0.004). Meta-regression indicated that larger reductions in anxiety were associated with greater improvement in pregnancy rates (Slope 0.19; p=0.004). No clear-cut differences were found between effects of cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT; g=0.84), mind-body interventions (0.61) and other intervention types (0.50). CONCLUSIONS:The present meta-analysis suggests that psychosocial interventions for couples in treatment for infertility, in particular CBT, could be efficacious, both in reducing psychological distress and in improving clinical pregnancy rates.

Project description:Importance:Prior studies report lower birth rates for women with epilepsy (WWE) but have been unable to differentiate between biological and social contributions. To our knowledge, we do not have data to inform WWE seeking pregnancy if their likelihood of achieving pregnancy is biologically reduced compared with their peers. Objective:To determine if WWE without a prior diagnosis of infertility or related disorders are as likely to achieve pregnancy within 12 months as their peers without epilepsy. Design, Setting, and Participants:The Women With Epilepsy: Pregnancy Outcomes and Deliveries study is an observational cohort study comparing fertility in WWE with fertility in control women (CW) without epilepsy. Participants were enrolled at 4 academic medical centers and observed up to 21 months from November 2010 to May 2015. Women seeking pregnancy aged 18 to 40 years were enrolled within 6 months of discontinuing contraception. Exclusion criteria included tobacco use and a prior diagnosis of infertility or disorders that lower fertility. Eighteen WWE and 47 CW declined the study, and 40 WWE and 170 CW did not meet study criteria. The Women With Epilepsy: Pregnancy Outcomes and Deliveries electronic diary app was used to capture data on medications, seizures, sexual activity, and menses. Data were analyzed from November 2015 to June 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was proportion of women who achieved pregnancy within 12 months after enrollment. Secondary outcomes were time to pregnancy using a proportional hazard model, pregnancy outcomes, sexual activity, ovulatory rates, and analysis of epilepsy factors in WWE. All outcomes were planned prior to data collection except for time to pregnancy. Results:Of the 197 women included in the study, 142 (72.1%) were white, and the mean (SD) age was 31.9 (3.5) years among the 89 WWE and 31.1 (4.2) among the 108 CW. Among 89 WWE, 54 (60.7%) achieved pregnancy vs 65 (60.2%) among 108 CW. Median time to pregnancy was no different between the groups after controlling for key covariates (WWE: median, 6.0 months; 95% CI, 3.8-10.1; CW: median, 9.0 months; 95% CI, 6.5-11.2; P?=?.30). Sexual activity and ovulatory rates were similar in WWE and CW. Forty-four of 54 pregnancies (81.5%) in WWE and 53 of 65 pregnancies (81.5%) in CW resulted in live births. No epilepsy factors were significant. Conclusions and Relevance:Women with epilepsy seeking pregnancy without prior known infertility or related disorders have similar likelihood of achieving pregnancy, time to pregnancy, and live birth rates compared with their peers without epilepsy.

Dataset Information

The Effect of Lifestyle Intervention on Pregnancy and Birth Outcomes on Obese Infertile Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

The Effect of Lifestyle Intervention on Pregnancy and Birth Outcomes on Obese Infertile Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets