Biosimilars versus the originator of follitropin alfa for ovarian stimulation in ART: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Study Question: Is the probability of pregnancy different between women using biosimilars versus the originator of follitropin alfa for ovarian stimulation in ART?

Summary Answer: Meta-analysis of eight randomized clinical trials (RCTs) suggests that live birth, clinical, and ongoing pregnancy rates are significantly lower with biosimilars of follitropin alfa compared to the originator.

What Is Known Already: All biosimilars of follitropin alfa have received regulatory approval by demonstrating non-inferiority in the number of retrieved oocytes compared to the originator. Nevertheless, the most clinically relevant outcome in ART for both clinicians and patients is live birth.

Perinatal and infant outcomes following ART treatment for endometriosis alone compared with other causes of infertility: a data linkage cohort study.

Objective: To evaluate whether perinatal and infant outcomes differ between singleton births following assisted reproductive technology (ART) in women with endometriosis alone and those with other causes of infertility.

Design: Population-based data linkage cohort study.

Subjects: A total of 29,152 ART-conceived singleton births from 24,116 mothers, 2010-2017, New South Wales, Australia.

Deep learning versus manual morphology-based embryo selection in IVF: a randomized, double-blind noninferiority trial.

To assess the value of deep learning in selecting the optimal embryo for in vitro fertilization, a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, noninferiority parallel-group trial was conducted across 14 in vitro fertilization clinics in Australia and Europe. Women under 42 years of age with at least two early-stage blastocysts on day 5 were randomized to either the control arm, using standard morphological assessment, or the study arm, employing a deep learning algorithm, intelligent Data Analysis Score (iDAScore), for embryo selection. The primary endpoint was a clinical pregnancy rate with a noninferiority margin of 5%.

Estimating the impact of bias in causal epidemiological studies: the case of health outcomes following assisted reproduction.

Researchers interested in causal questions must deal with two sources of error: random error (random deviation from the true mean value of a distribution), and bias (systematic deviance from the true mean value due to extraneous factors). For some causal questions, randomization is not feasible, and observational studies are necessary. Bias poses a substantial threat to the validity of observational research and can have important consequences for health policy developed from the findings.

A critical systematic review and meta-analyses of risk factors for fertility problems in a globalized world.

Globally, fertility awareness efforts include well-established risk factors for fertility problems. Risks disproportionately affecting women in the Global South, however, are neglected. To address this gap, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analyses of relevant risk factors to examine the association between risk factors and fertility problems.