Assisted reproductive technology and obstetric outcome in couples when the male partner has a chronic viral disease.

BACKGROUND Assisted reproductive technology (ART) with washed semen can achieve pregnancy with minimal risk of horizontal and vertical transmission of chronic viral diseases (CVD) such as human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepati- tis C virus (HCV) and hepatitis B virus (HBV) among serodiscordant couples. How- ever, few studies have been made of the use made by these couples of ARTs or of the obstetric results achieved. MATERIALS AND METHODS In this retrospective study, 93 men who were seropositive for HIV, HCV or HBV and who underwent assisted reproduction treatment at our centre (Hospital Universitario Virgen de las Nieves, Granada, Spain) were included. Washed semen was tested to detect viral particles. Non-infected women were tested before and after each treatment, as were the neonates at birth and after three months. RESULTS A total of 62 sperm samples were washed, and none were positive for the detec- tion of viral molecules. Semen samples from 34 HBV positive males were not washed since the female partner had immunity to hepatitis B. In total, 38 clinical pregnancies were achieved (22% per cycle and 40.9% per couple) out of 173 cycles initiated, and 28 births were achieved (16.2% per cycle and 30.1% per couple), producing 34 live births. The rate of multiple pregnancies was 21.4%. Obstetric and neonatal results were similar in the groups of couples studied. At follow-up, no seroconversion was detected in the women or neonates. CONCLUSION Sperm washing and intracytoplasmic sperm injection are shown to be a safe and effective option for reducing the risk of transmission or super infection in serodiscordant or concordant couples who wish to have a child. Pregnancies ob- tained by ART in couples when the male is CVD infected achieve good obstetric and neonatal results.

Expert study: A bolus calculator improves glycemic control and quality of life of type 1 diabetic patients (T1DM) (preliminary results)

Aims: To evaluate the impact on glycemic control and quality of life of a bolus calculator. Methods: Multicentre randomized prospective crosssectional study. Patients were randomized to control phase (3 months; calculation of prandial insulin according to insulinto-carbohydrate ratio and insulin sensitivity factor using a single strip meter) or intervention phase (3 months; calculation of prandial insulin with a bolus advisor), with a washout period (3 months). Patients wore a continuous glucosensor (7 days) and answered a quality of life questionnaire at the beginning and at the end of each phase. A questionnaire of satisfaction was obtained at the end of both phases. Inclusion criteria: Adults; T1DM> 1 year, HbA1c > 7.5%, basal-bolus therapy with insulin analogs, experience with carbohydrate Results: Data from the first 32 subjects with at least 1 ended phase (27 females, age 38 – 11 years, diabetes duration 16.8 – 7.5 years). Basal characteristics were comparable independently of the starting phase. No differences were found between phases in terms of mean blood glucose, standard deviation (from meter neither from sensor) and satisfaction. Conclusions: The use of a bolus calculator improves glycemic control and quality of life of T1DM subjects.