Do Popular Diets Impact Fertility?

Infertility affects 15% of the population in developed countries, and its prevalence is increasing. Fertility can be influenced by different factors. Although key factors like maternal age cannot be changed, there is growing evidence that other modifiable factors, such as diet, can have an impact on fertility. Diet has become increasingly important in recent years for a number of reasons: the new trend toward a healthy lifestyle, the higher prevalence of certain digestive disorders, a lack of time that leads people to consume more prepared and processed food, and personal choice to not eat meat, among others. To meet these needs, several diets have recently become popular, such as the Mediterranean diet, known as the gold standard of health; the DASH diet, known for preventing hypertension; the Western diet, characterized by processed food; the ketogenic diet, characterized by low carbohydrate intake; and the vegetarian diet, which is the choice for people who do not eat meat or animal by-products. Diets present a unique composition characterized by the presence or absence of specific nutrients, which have also been associated with male and female fertility individually. This review assesses the impact of these diets and of macro- and micronutrients on both female and male fertility.

Luteal phase support using micronized vaginal progesterone as pessaries or capsules in artificial cycles: is there any difference?

RESEARCH QUESTION: Is there a difference between the proportion of patients with serum progesterone <8.8 ng/ml on the day of embryo transfer when micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) for luteal phase support (LPS) is given as pessaries versus capsules? DESIGN: This retrospective, matched-cohort, single-centre study compared pessaries (Cyclogest) versus capsules (Utrogestan, Progeffik) for LPS in hormone replacement treatment-embryo transfer (HRT-ET) cycles. Patients under 50 years old with a triple-layer endometrial thickness of ≥6.5 mm underwent transfer of one or two blastocysts. Serum progesterone concentrations were measured on the day of transfer; patients with concentrations <8.8 ng/ml received a single 'rescue' dose of additional progesterone by subcutaneous injection. RESULTS: In total 2665 HRT-ET cycles were analysed; 663 (24.9%) used pessaries for LPS and 2002 (75.1%) used capsules. Mean serum progesterone concentrations with standard deviations on the day of embryo transfer were significantly higher in the group using MVP pessaries compared with those using capsules (14.5 ± 5.1 versus 13.0 ± 4.8 ng/ml; P = 0.000). The percentage of participants with suboptimal serum progesterone concentrations on the day of embryo transfer (<8.8 ng/ml) was significantly lower in the pessary group than the capsule group (10.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.9-12.6% versus 17.9%, 95% CI 16.2-19.6%; adjusted odds ratio 0.426, 95% CI 0.290-0.625; P = 0.000). No differences in pregnancy outcome were observed between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Using MVP pessaries rather than capsules for LPS resulted in significantly fewer patients having suboptimal serum progesterone concentrations on the day of embryo transfer. Consequently, almost 50% fewer patients in the pessary group needed rescue treatment.

Duration of oestrogen exposure does not affect reproductive outcome in artificial cycles: a retrospective analysis of more than 7000 hormonal replacement therapy cycles for an embryo transfer.

Introduction: Optimal duration of oestrogen exposure before an embryo transfer in artificial cycles has not been defined yet, as its correlation with reproductive outcome remains controversial. The length of oestrogen treatment before starting luteal phase support varies significantly among patients. Materials and methods: In this study, we conducted a retrospective analysis of a huge database of our own clinical results in artificial cycles in the past five years. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of the length of estrogen exposure on reproductive outcome and to evaluate if there is any optimal duration of estrogen exposure in order to maximize success rates. Results: Differences in pregnancy rates according to oestrogen length, if present, were not clinically relevant. Discussion: Our results suggest that the length of oestrogen exposure (in days) before exogenous progesterone administration do not affect clinical outcomes.