Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36478464›Full record

ArticleHuman reproduction (Oxford, England)2023

Thin endometrial lining: is it more prevalent in patients utilizing preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disease (PGT-M) and related to prior hormonal contraceptive use?

I Homminga, A F Ter Meer, H Groen, A E P Cantineau, A Hoek

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Human reproduction (Oxford, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 13% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

I HommingaDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Section Reproductive Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6794-2102
A F Ter MeerDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Section Reproductive Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
H GroenDepartment of Epidemiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
A E P CantineauDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Section Reproductive Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
A HoekDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Section Reproductive Medicine, University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
University Medical Center Groningen · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

study questionIs a thin endometrial lining before ovulation triggering more prevalent in patients utilizing preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disease (PGT-M) compared to the regular IVF/ICSI population and is this associated with prior hormonal contraceptive use? SUMMARY ANSWER: Thin (<8 mm) endometrial lining is more prevalent in PGT-M patients compared to the regular IVF/ICSI population and is associated with both longer prior hormonal contraceptive use and a shorter cessation interval of hormonal contraceptives before IVF/ICSI treatment. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Thin endometrial lining has been associated with lower pregnancy rates in IVF/ICSI cycles and increased chances of miscarriage and low birth weight. Endometrial thinning and atrophy occur during hormonal contraceptive use. Patients utilizing PGT-M typically use hormonal contraceptives up until treatment to avoid the risk of conception of a genetically affected child. Whether this could negatively affect endometrial thickness achieved during subsequent IVF/ICSI cycles is not known. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A retrospective case control study was performed, including all PGT-M patients attending the University Medical Centre Groningen (cases), between 2009 and 2018. The control group consisted of two non-PGT IVF/ICSI patients for each PGT-M patient, matched for age and treatment period. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING,

methodsFirst cycles of 122 PGT-M patients and 240 controls were included. Cessation interval of hormonal contraceptives was categorized as late cessation (cessation <1 year prior to treatment) or early cessation (>1 year prior to treatment). Endometrial thickness was routinely measured on the day of hCG triggering or 1 day prior. The prevalence of an endometrial lining <8 mm was compared between PGT-M patients and controls. Hormonal contraceptive use (both duration and cessation interval) was compared between both groups. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed to identify risk factors for thin endometrial lining. In addition, cycle and pregnancy outcomes were compared within control/PGT-M groups between patients with endometrial lining > or <8 mm. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Thin endometrial lining on the day of hCG triggering was found significantly more often in the PGT-M group, compared to controls: 32% vs 11% (mean difference 21.0%, 95% CI: 11.7, 30.3%). As expected, more patients in the PGT-M group ceased their hormonal contraception late (<1 year): 64% vs 2% in the control group (mean difference 61.9%, 95% CI: 53.0, 70.8%). Average duration of hormonal contraceptive use was 10.6 years in the PGT-M group vs 9.3 years in controls (mean difference 1.3 years, 95% CI: 0.2, 2.3 years). Multivariable logistic regression analysis identified late cessation (OR: 6.0, 95% CI: 1.9-19.2) and duration of prior hormonal contraceptive use (OR per year increase 1.1, 95% CI: 1.0-1.2) as significant independent risk factors for a thin endometrial lining. In relation to outcome, we found a statistically significant increase in miscarriage rate in PGT-M patients with an endometrial lining <8 mm compared to those with an endometrial lining >8 mm (20.0% vs 1.7%, mean difference 18.3%, 95% CI: 2.3, 34.3%). A trend towards lower birth weight and gestation- and gender-adjusted birth weight (z-score) was also found in this group. No statistically significant differences were detected in pregnancy rate, live birth rate, or incidence of preterm delivery or SGA. Within the control group, no statistically significant differences were found in outcomes between patients with an endometrial lining <8 compared to an endometrial lining >8 mm. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study is retrospective. Various types of hormonal contraceptives were reported which possibly exert different effects on the endometrial lining. In relation to pregnancy outcome measures, numbers were very limited; therefore, no firm conclusions should be drawn. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE

findingsThis study provides further insight into the role of prior hormonal contraceptive use as a possible contributor to the occurrence of thin endometrial lining during ART treatment. Future studies should provide more information on its clinical relevance, to determine whether PGT-M patients can be reassured, or should be counselled to stop hormonal contraceptive use and change to an alternative contraceptive method prior to PGT treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No specific funding was used and no conflicts of interests are declared. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Indexed as

Abortion, SpontaneousFertilization in VitroBirth RateBirth WeightCase-Control StudiesChildContraceptive AgentsFemaleGenetic TestingHumansInfant, NewbornPregnancyPregnancy RateRetrospective StudiesContraceptive AgentsARTcombined oral contraceptivescontraceptivesendometrial thicknessendometriumICSIIVFPGTPGT-Mthin endometrial lining

Identifiers

PMID36478464
PMCPMC9890269
OpenAlexW4310962370

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.