| Literature DB >> 32175263 |
Rachel Talia Bond1, Alexandra Nachef2, Catherine Adam1, Marielle Couturier2, Isaac-Jacques Kadoch2, Louise Lapensée2, Gilles Bleau2, Ariane Godbout1,1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The metabolic global approach is a multidisciplinary intervention for obese women before undergoing assisted reproductive techniques, with the goal of improving fertility and decreasing adverse pregnancy outcomes. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of the metabolic global approach on pregnancy rate.Entities:
Keywords: Assisted reproductive techniques; Infertility; Metabolic syndrome; Obesity; Vitamin D deficiency
Year: 2020 PMID: 32175263 PMCID: PMC7048694
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Reprod Infertil ISSN: 2228-5482
Baseline characteristics and final weight and BMI of participants
| 127 | ||||
| 32.6±5.0 | ||||
| 0 | 60 (47) | |||
| ≥1 | 67 (53) | |||
| Caucasian | 79 (62) | |||
| Middle-East/North Africa | 17 (13) | |||
| Haitian Black | 16 (13) | |||
| Hispanic | 2 (1.5) | |||
| Asian | 2 (1.5) | |||
| Others | 11 (9) | |||
| PCOS | 31 (24) | |||
| Male factor | 26 (21) | |||
| Low ovarian reserve | 30 (24) | |||
| Anatomic (tubal or uterine) | 14 (11) | |||
| Single women/same sex couple | 13 (10) | |||
| Unexplained | 13 (10) | |||
| 102.5 | [93.6; 113.6] | |||
| 97.3 | [86.4; 108.2] | |||
| 38.2 | [35.1; 41.9] | |||
| 35.8 | [33.3; 39.3] | |||
| 12 (9.7) | ||||
final
Comparisons between metabolically normal obese and metabolically abnormal obese patients
| 42 | 81 | 25 | 29 | ||
| 32.1±4.9 | 32.8±5.0 | 32.2±5.2 | 33.4±4.7 | 0.490 | |
| 100.2 (20.8) | 104.1 (23.2) | 104.0 (23.4) | 107.3 (25.8) | 0.410 | |
| 91.8 (21.4) | 98.2 (24.2) | 94.5 (23.1) | 99.6 (26.4) | 0.242 | |
| 5.2 (7.8) | 4.8 (7.2) | 7.0 (9.1) | 4.8 (5.9) | 0.157 | |
| 38.5 (6.2) | 38.2 (7.6) | 38.8 (9.2) | 38.8 (8.3) | 0.610 | |
| 35.9 (6.5) | 35.8 (6.4) | 36.5 (8.4) | 37.1 (8.0) | 0.830 | |
| 20/42 (48%) | 38/81 (47%) | 12/25 (48%) | 12/29 (41%) | 0.494 | |
| 24 (57%) | 43 (53%) | 15 (60%) | 12 (41%) | 0.340 | |
| +hCG after ART (n) | 11 | 14 | 4 | 3 | 0.150 |
| +hCG without ART (n) | 13 | 29 | 11 | 9 | 0.320 |
| 7 (35%) | 16 (42%) | 6 | 5 | 0.317 | |
Comparisons: MNO versus MAO whole group; MAO corrected versus not corrected.
Data not available in 4 patients; data available in 54 patients for MAO corrected and not corrected combined. SD: Standard deviation; IQR: Interquartile range; BMI: Body mass index
Comparisons of metabolic parameters between pregnant and non pregnant patients
| 67/127 | 60/127 | |||||
| Age (y) | 32.0±4.7 | 33.0±5.1 | 0.97 (0.94–1.02) | |||
| Initial body weight ( | 104.0 (18.3) | 101.8 (23.2) | 0.99 (0.98–1.01) | |||
| Final body weight ( | 95.2 (20.1) | 98.2 (23.1) | 0.99 (0.98–1.01) | |||
| Weight loss (%) | 5.3 (9.2) | 4.6 (6.7) | 1.01 (0.97–1.02) | |||
| Initial BMI ( | 38.0 (6.2) | 38.3 (8.1) | 0.99 (0.96–1.03) | |||
| Final BMI ( | 35.6 (5.8) | 36.3 (9.0) | 0.95 (0.90–0.99)[ | |||
| Fat mass (%) | 52.0±4.5 | 52.1±4.6 | 0.99 (0.95–1.04) | |||
| Metabolically normal obese (n=42/123) | 20 | 22 | 1.04 (0.70–1.55) | |||
| Metabolically abnormal obese corrected (n=25/54) | 12 | 13 | 1.16 (0.64–2.11) | |||
| Prediabetes (n=36/121) | 15 | 21 | 1.03 (0.45–2.36) | |||
| Type 2 diabetes (n=14/121) | 5 | 9 | 1.36 (0.64–2.77) | |||
| Smoking (n=12/124) | 6 | 6 | 0.89 (0.49–1.63) | |||
| Hypertension (n=14/105) | 7 | 7 | 0.86 (0.48–1.52) | |||
| Abnormal liver function (n=13/70) | 7 | 6 | 0.82 (0.45–1.46) | |||
| Hypertriglyceridemia (n=33/113) | 13 | 20 | 1.91 (1.01–3.59)[ | |||
| Normal 25(OH)-vitamin D level (n= 21/77) | 13 | 8 | 2.74 (1.67–4.49) [ | |||
Results are presented as
=mean ± SD,
=median and [IQR], or
=n;
p<0.05;
p<0.001
Adjusted relative risk - the 3 variables included in the model for aRR are final BMI, hypertriglyceridemia and normal vitamin D level.
not pregnant;
pregnant as reference for the variables;
For normotriglyceridemia (n= 80/113; 40 pregnant);
For abnormal 25(OH)-vitamin D level (n= 56/77; 19 pregnant).
BMI: Body mass index; SD: Standard deviation; IQR: Interquartile range; aRR: Adjusted relative risk