Preimplantation Genetic Testing for Monogenic Kidney Disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: A genetic cause can be identified for an increasing number of pediatric and adult-onset kidney diseases. Preimplantation genetic testing (formerly known as preimplantation genetic diagnostics) is a reproductive technology that helps prospective parents to prevent passing on (a) disease-causing mutation(s) to their offspring. Here, we provide a clinical overview of 25 years of preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic kidney disease in The Netherlands. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: This is a retrospective cohort study of couples counseled on preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic kidney disease in the national preimplantation genetic testing expert center (Maastricht University Medical Center+) from January 1995 to June 2019. Statistical analysis was performed through chi-squared tests. RESULTS: In total, 98 couples were counseled regarding preimplantation genetic testing, of whom 53% opted for preimplantation genetic testing. The most frequent indications for referral were autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (38%), Alport syndrome (26%), and autosomal recessive polycystic kidney disease (9%). Of couples with at least one preimplantation genetic testing cycle with oocyte retrieval, 65% experienced one or more live births of an unaffected child. Of couples counseled, 38% declined preimplantation genetic testing for various personal and technical reasons. CONCLUSIONS: Referrals, including for adult-onset disease, have increased steadily over the past decade. Though some couples decline preimplantation genetic testing, in the couples who proceed with at least one preimplantation genetic testing cycle, almost two thirds experienced at least one live birth rate.

Individualized ovarian stimulation in IVF/ICSI treatment: it is time to stop using high FSH doses in predicted low responders.

In IVF/ICSI treatment, the FSH starting dose is often increased in predicted low responders from the belief that it improves the chance of having a baby by maximizing the number of retrieved oocytes. This intervention has been evaluated in several randomized controlled trials, and despite a slight increase in the number of oocytes-on average one to two more oocytes in the high versus standard dose group-no beneficial impact on the probability of a live birth has been demonstrated (risk difference, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.11 to 0.06). Still, many clinicians and researchers maintain a highly ingrained belief in 'the more oocytes, the better'. This is mainly based on cross-sectional studies, where the positive correlation between the number of retrieved oocytes and the probability of a live birth is interpreted as a direct causal relation. If the latter would be present, indeed, maximizing the oocyte number would benefit our patients. The current paper argues that the use of high FSH doses may not actually improve the probability of a live birth for predicted low responders undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment and exemplifies the flaws of directly using cross-sectional data to guide FSH dosing in clinical practice. Also, difficulties in the de-implementation of the increased FSH dosing strategy are discussed, which include the prioritization of intermediate outcomes (such as cycle cancellations) and the potential biases in the interpretation of study findings (such as confirmation or rescue bias).

Cumulative live birth rates in low-prognosis women.

STUDY QUESTION: Do cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) over multiple IVF/ICSI cycles confirm the low prognosis in women stratified according to the POSEIDON criteria? SUMMARY ANSWER: The CLBR of low-prognosis women is ~56% over 18 months of IVF/ICSI treatment and varies between the POSEIDON groups, which is primarily attributable to the impact of female age. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The POSEIDON group recently proposed a new stratification for low-prognosis women in IVF/ICSI treatment, with the aim to define more homogenous populations for clinical trials and stimulate a patient-tailored therapeutic approach. These new criteria combine qualitative and quantitative parameters to create four groups of low-prognosis women with supposedly similar biologic characteristics. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This study analyzed the data of a Dutch multicenter observational cohort study including 551 low-prognosis women, aged <44 years, who initiated IVF/ICSI treatment between 2011 and 2014 and were treated with a fixed FSH dose of 150 IU/day in the first treatment cycle. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Low-prognosis women were categorized into one of the POSEIDON groups based on their age (younger or older than 35 years), anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level (above or below 0.96 ng/ml), and the ovarian response (poor or suboptimal) in their first cycle of standard stimulation. The primary outcome was the CLBR over multiple complete IVF/ICSI cycles, including all subsequent fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfers, within 18 months of treatment. Cumulative incidence curves were obtained using an optimistic and a conservative analytic approach. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The CLBR of the low-prognosis women was on average ~56% over 18 months of IVF/ICSI treatment. Younger unexpected poor (n = 38) and suboptimal (n = 179) responders had a CLBR of ~65% and ~68%, respectively, and younger expected poor responders (n = 65) had a CLBR of ~59%. The CLBR of older unexpected poor (n = 41) and suboptimal responders (n = 102) was ~42% and ~54%, respectively, and of older expected poor responders (n = 126) ~39%. For comparison, the CLBR of younger (n = 164) and older (n = 78) normal responders with an adequate ovarian reserve was ~72% and ~58% over 18 months of treatment, respectively. No large differences were observed in the number of fresh treatment cycles between the POSEIDON groups, with an average of two fresh cycles per woman within 18 months of follow-up. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Small numbers in some (sub)groups reduced the precision of the estimates. However, our findings provide the first relevant indication of the CLBR of low-prognosis women in the POSEIDON groups. Small FSH dose adjustments between cycles were allowed, inducing therapeutic disparity. Yet, this is in accordance with current daily practice and increases the generalizability of our findings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The CLBRs vary between the POSEIDON groups. This heterogeneity is primarily determined by a woman's age, reflecting the importance of oocyte quality. In younger women, current IVF/ICSI treatment reaches relatively high CLBR over multiple complete cycles, despite reduced quantitative parameters. In older women, the CLBR remains relatively low over multiple complete cycles, due to the co-occurring decline in quantitative and qualitative parameters. As no effective interventions exist to counteract this decline, clinical management currently relies on proper counselling. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funds were obtained for this study. J.A.L. is supported by a Research Fellowship grant and received an unrestricted personal grant from Merck BV. S.C.O., T.C.v.T., and H.L.T. received an unrestricted personal grant from Merck BV. C.B.L. received research grants from Merck, Ferring, and Guerbet. K.F. received unrestricted research grants from Merck Serono, Ferring, and GoodLife. She also received fees for lectures and consultancy from Ferring and GoodLife. A.H. declares that the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre Groningen received an unrestricted research grant from Ferring Pharmaceuticals BV, the Netherlands. J.S.E.L. has received unrestricted research grants from Ferring, Zon-MW, and The Dutch Heart Association. He also received travel grants and consultancy fees from Danone, Euroscreen, Ferring, AnshLabs, and Titus Healthcare. B.W.J.M. is supported by an National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy work for ObsEva, Merck, and Guerbet. He also received a research grant from Merck BV and travel support from Guerbet. F.J.M.B. received monetary compensation as a member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono (the Netherlands) and Ferring Pharmaceuticals BV (the Netherlands) for advisory work for Gedeon Richter (Belgium) and Roche Diagnostics on automated AMH assay development, and for a research cooperation with Ansh Labs (USA). All other authors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Do female age and body weight modify the effect of individualized FSH dosing in IVF/ICSI treatment? A secondary analysis of the OPTIMIST trial.

INTRODUCTION: The OPTIMIST trial revealed that for women starting in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment, no substantial differences exist in first cycle and cumulative live birth rates between an antral follicle count (AFC)-based individualized follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) dose and a standard dose. Female age and body weight have been suggested to cause heterogeneity in the effect of FSH dose individualization. The objective of the current study is to evaluate whether these patient characteristics modify the effect of AFC-based individualized FSH dosing in IVF/ICSI treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A secondary data-analysis of the OPTIMIST trial. Women initiating IVF/ICSI treatment were classified as predicted poor (AFC 0-7), suboptimal (AFC 8-10) or hyper responders (AFC >15), and randomly allocated to a standard FSH dose (150 IU/d) or an individualized FSH dose (450, 225 or 100 IU/d for predicted poor, suboptimal and hyper responders, respectively). In each predicted response category, logistic regression models with interaction terms were used to evaluate the presence of effect modification. The first cycle was analyzed, and the primary outcomes were first complete cycle live birth rate (including fresh plus frozen-thawed embryo transfers) and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) risks. RESULTS: No effect modification was revealed in the predicted poor (n = 234) and suboptimal (n = 277) responders. In the predicted hyper responders (n = 521), the effect of the individualized FSH dose on the first cycle live birth rate was modified by female age (P = 0.02) and the effect on OHSS risks was modified by body weight (P = 0.02). A dose reduction from 150 to 100 IU/d generally decreased the OHSS risks in predicted hyper responders, but also reduced the chance of a live birth in young women, and had no beneficial impact on OHSS risks in women with a relatively low body weight. CONCLUSIONS: In women with a predicted hyper response undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment, female age and body weight seem to modify the effect of FSH dose individualization. Although a reduced FSH starting dose generally decreases the OHSS risks, it may also reduce the chance of a live birth, specifically for young women. Future studies could consider these findings when investigating the optimal approach to reduce OHSS risks while maintaining the probability of a live birth for predicted hyper responders in IVF/ICSI treatment.

Individualized versus standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF/ICSI: an RCT. Part 2: The predicted hyper responder.

STUDY QUESTION: Does a reduced FSH dose in women with a predicted hyper response, apparent from a high antral follicle count (AFC), who are scheduled for IVF/ICSI lead to a different outcome with respect to cumulative live birth rate and safety? SUMMARY ANSWER: Although in women with a predicted hyper response (AFC > 15) undergoing IVF/ICSI a reduced FSH dose (100 IU per day) results in similar cumulative live birth rates and a lower occurrence of any grade of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) as compared to a standard dose (150 IU/day), a higher first cycle cancellation rate and similar severe OHSS rate were observed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Excessive ovarian response to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for IVF/ICSI may result in increased rates of cycle cancellation, the occurrence of OHSS and suboptimal live birth rates. In women scheduled for IVF/ICSI, an ovarian reserve test (ORT) can be used to predict response to COS. No consensus has been reached on whether ORT-based FSH dosing improves effectiveness and safety in women with a predicted hyper response. STUDY DESIGN SIZE, DURATION: Between May 2011 and May 2014, we performed an open-label, multicentre RCT in women with regular menstrual cycles and an AFC > 15. Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (Rotterdam criteria) were excluded. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy achieved within 18 months after randomization and resulting in a live birth. Secondary outcomes included the occurrence of OHSS and cost-effectiveness. Since this RCT was embedded in a cohort study assessing over 1500 women, we expected to randomize 300 predicted hyper responders. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women with an AFC > 15 were randomized to an FSH dose of 100 IU or 150 IU/day. In both groups, dose adjustment was allowed in subsequent cycles (maximum 25 IU in the reduced and 50 IU in the standard group) based on pre-specified criteria. Both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness were evaluated from an intention-to-treat perspective. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We randomized 255 women to a daily FSH dose of 100 IU and 266 women to a daily FSH dose of 150 IU. The cumulative live birth rate was 66.3% (169/255) in the reduced versus 69.5% (185/266) in the standard group (relative risk (RR) 0.95 [95%CI, 0.85-1.07], P = 0.423). The occurrence of any grade of OHSS was lower after a lower FSH dose (5.2% versus 11.8%, RR 0.44 [95%CI, 0.28-0.71], P = 0.001), but the occurrence of severe OHSS did not differ (1.3% versus 1.1%, RR 1.25 [95%CI, 0.38-4.07], P = 0.728). As dose reduction was not less expensive (€4.622 versus €4.714, delta costs/woman €92 [95%CI, -479-325]), there was no dominant strategy in the economic analysis. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Despite our training programme, the AFC might have suffered from inter-observer variation. Although strict cancellation criteria were provided, selective cancelling in the reduced dose group (for poor response in particular) cannot be excluded as observers were not blinded for the FSH dose and small dose adjustments were allowed in subsequent cycles. However, as first cycle live birth rates did not differ from the cumulative results, the open design probably did not mask a potential benefit for the reduced dosing group. As this RCT was embedded in a larger cohort study, the power in this study was unavoidably lower than it should be. Participants had a relatively low BMI from an international perspective, which may limit generalization of the findings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: In women with a predicted hyper response scheduled for IVF/ICSI, a reduced FSH dose does not affect live birth rates. A lower FSH dose did reduce the incidence of mild and moderate OHSS, but had no impact on severe OHSS. Future research into ORT-based dosing in women with a predicted hyper response should compare various safety management strategies and should be powered on a clinically relevant safety outcome while assessing non-inferiority towards live birth rates. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This trial was funded by The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMW, Project Number 171102020). SCO, TCvT and HLT received an unrestricted research grant from Merck Serono (the Netherlands). CBL receives grants from Merck, Ferring and Guerbet. BWJM is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for OvsEva, Merck and Guerbet. FJMB receives monetary compensation as a member of the external advisory board for Ferring pharmaceutics BV and Merck Serono for consultancy work for Gedeon Richter (Belgium) and Roche Diagnostics (Switzerland) and for a research cooperation with Ansh Labs (USA). All other authors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registered at the ICMJE-recognized Dutch Trial Registry (www.trialregister.nl). Registration number: NTR2657. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 20 December 2010. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 12 May 2011.

Individualized versus standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF/ICSI: an RCT. Part 1: The predicted poor responder.

STUDY QUESTION: Does an increased FSH dose result in higher cumulative live birth rates in women with a predicted poor ovarian response, apparent from a low antral follicle count (AFC), scheduled for IVF or ICSI? SUMMARY ANSWER: In women with a predicted poor ovarian response (AFC < 11) undergoing IVF/ICSI, an increased FSH dose (225/450 IU/day) does not improve cumulative live birth rates as compared to a standard dose (150 IU/day). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In women scheduled for IVF/ICSI, an ovarian reserve test (ORT) can predict ovarian response to stimulation. The FSH starting dose is often adjusted based on the ORT from the belief that it will improve live birth rates. However, the existing RCTs on this topic, most of which show no benefit, are underpowered. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Between May 2011 and May 2014, we performed an open-label multicentre RCT in women with an AFC < 11 (Dutch Trial Register NTR2657). The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy achieved within 18 months after randomization and resulting in a live birth. We needed 300 women to assess whether an increased dose strategy would increase the cumulative live birth rate from 25 to 40% (two-sided alpha-error 0.05, power 80%). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women with an AFC ≤ 7 were randomized to an FSH dose of 450 IU/day or 150 IU/day, and women with an AFC 8-10 were randomized to 225 IU or 150 IU/day. In the standard group, dose adjustment was allowed in subsequent cycles based on pre-specified criteria. Both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the strategies were evaluated from an intention-to-treat perspective. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In total, 511 women were randomized, 234 with an AFC ≤ 7 and 277 with an AFC 8-10. The cumulative live birth rate for increased versus standard dosing was 42.4% (106/250) versus 44.8% (117/261), respectively [relative risk (RR): 0.95 (95%CI, 0.78-1.15), P = 0.58]. As an increased dose strategy was more expensive [delta costs/woman: €1099 (95%CI, 562-1591)], standard FSH dosing was the dominant strategy in our economic analysis. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Despite our training programme, the AFC might have suffered from inter-observer variation. As this open study permitted small dose adjustments between cycles, potential selective cancelling of cycles in women treated with 150 IU could have influenced the cumulative results. However, since first cycle live birth rates point in the same direction we consider it unlikely that the open design masked a potential benefit for the individualized strategy. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Since an increased dose in women scheduled for IVF/ICSI with a predicted poor response (AFC < 11) does not improve live birth rates and is more expensive, we recommend using a standard dose of 150 IU/day in these women. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW number 171102020). T.C.T., H.L.T. and S.C.O. received an unrestricted personal grant from Merck BV. H.R.V. receives monetary compensation as a member on an external advisory board for Ferring pharmaceutical BV. B.W.J.M. is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for OvsEva, Merck and Guerbet. F.J.M.B. receives monetary compensation as a member of the external advisory board for Ferring pharmaceutics BV (the Netherlands) and Merck Serono (the Netherlands) for consultancy work for Gedeon Richter (Belgium) and Roche Diagnostics on automated AMH assay development (Switzerland) and for a research cooperation with Ansh Labs (USA). All other authors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registered at the ICMJE-recognized Dutch Trial Registry (www.trialregister.nl). Registration number NTR2657. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 20 December 2010. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 12 May 2011.

Individualized FSH dosing based on ovarian reserve testing in women starting IVF/ICSI: a multicentre trial and cost-effectiveness analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: Is there a difference in live birth rate and/or cost-effectiveness between antral follicle count (AFC)-based individualized FSH dosing or standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF or ICSI treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER: In women initiating IVF/ICSI, AFC-based individualized FSH dosing does not improve live birth rates or reduce costs as compared to a standard FSH dose. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In IVF or ICSI, ovarian reserve testing is often used to adjust the FSH dose in order to normalize ovarian response and optimize live birth rates. However, no robust evidence for the (cost-)effectiveness of this practice exists. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Between May 2011 and May 2014 we performed a multicentre prospective cohort study with two embedded RCTs in women scheduled for IVF/ICSI. Based on the AFC, women entered into one of the two RCTs (RCT1: AFC < 11; RCT2: AFC > 15) or the cohort (AFC 11-15). The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy achieved within 18 months after randomization resulting in a live birth (delivery of at least one live foetus after 24 weeks of gestation). Data from the cohort with weight 0.5 were combined with both RCTs in order to conduct a strategy analysis. Potential half-integer numbers were rounded up. Differences in costs and effects between the two treatment strategies were compared by bootstrapping. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In both RCTs women were randomized to an individualized (RCT1:450/225 IU, RCT2:100 IU) or standard FSH dose (150 IU). Women in the cohort all received the standard dose (150 IU). Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) was measured to assess AMH post-hoc as a biomarker to individualize treatment. For RCT1 dose adjustment was allowed in subsequent cycles based on pre-specified criteria in the standard group only. For RCT2 dose adjustment was allowed in subsequent cycles in both groups. Both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the strategies were evaluated from an intention-to-treat perspective. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We included 1515 women, of whom 483 (31.9%) entered the cohort, 511 (33.7%) RCT1 and 521 (34.4%) RCT2. Live births occurred in 420/747 (56.3%) women in the individualized strategy and 447/769 (58.2%) women in the standard strategy (risk difference -0.019 (95% CI, -0.06 to 0.02), P = 0.39; a total of 1516 women due to rounding up the half integer numbers). The individualized strategy was more expensive (delta costs/woman = €275 (95% CI, 40 to 499)). Individualized dosing reduced the occurrence of mild and moderate ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and subsequently the costs for management of these OHSS categories (costs saved/woman were €35). The analysis based on AMH as a tool for dose individualization suggested comparable results. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Despite a training programme, the AFC might have suffered from inter-observer variation. In addition, although strict cancel criteria were provided, selective cancelling in the individualized dose group (for poor response in particular) cannot be excluded as observers were not blinded for the FSH dose and small dose adjustments were allowed in subsequent cycles. However, as both first cycle live birth rates and cumulative live birth rates show no difference between strategies, the open design probably did not mask a potential benefit for the individualized group. Despite increasing consensus on using GnRH antagonist co-treatment in women predicted for a hyper response in particular, GnRH agonists were used in almost 80% of the women in this study. Hence, in those women, the AFC and bloodsampling for the post-hoc AMH analysis were performed during pituitary suppression. As the correlation between AFC and ovarian response is not compromised during GnRH agonist use, this will probably not have influenced classification of response. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Individualized FSH dosing for the IVF/ICSI population as a whole should not be pursued as it does not improve live birth rates and it increases costs. Women scheduled for IVF/ICSI with a regular menstrual cycle are therefore recommended a standard FSH starting dose of 150 IU per day. Still, safety management by individualized dosing in predicted hyper responders is open for further research. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW number 171102020). AMH measurements were performed free of charge by Roche Diagnostics. TCT, HLT and SCO received an unrestricted personal grant from Merck BV. AH declares that the department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Medical Centre Groningen receives an unrestricted research grant from Ferring pharmaceutics BV, The Netherlands. CBL receives grants from Merck, Ferring and Guerbet. BWJM is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for OvsEva, Merck and Guerbet. FJMB receives monetary compensation as a member of the external advisory board for Ferring pharmaceutics BV (the Netherlands) and Merck Serono (the Netherlands) for consultancy work for Gedeon Richter (Belgium) and Roche Diagnostics on automated AMH assay development (Switzerland) and for a research cooperation with Ansh Labs (USA). All other autors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registered at the ICMJE-recognized Dutch Trial Registry (www.trialregister.nl). Registration number: NTR2657.

Ovarian response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: what does serum FSH say?

STUDY QUESTION: Do serum FSH levels on day of hCG trigger differ between women with a poor, normal or hyper response to a fixed daily dose of 150 IU recombinant FSH (rFSH)? SUMMARY ANSWER: There is no consistent relationship between ovarian response and serum FSH levels on day of hCG trigger in a 150 IU fixed dose treatment protocol. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: When ovarian response to stimulation for IVF/ICSI is suboptimal, the FSH dose is often adjusted in a subsequent cycle, thereby assuming that serum FSH levels were inadequate for optimal stimulation. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Nested cohort study within a randomized controlled trial conducted at the University Medical Centre Utrecht between March 2009 and July 2011. Blood was drawn from 124 women on cycle Day 2 and on day of hCG triggering. Serum FSH level was determined by the Beckman-Coulter Unicel DXi800 chemiluminescence assay. In order to detect a difference of 2 IU/L between poor, normal and hyper responders, a total of 64 participants (16 poor, 32 normal and 16 hyper responders) would provide 80% power, assuming a standard deviation of 2 and an alpha of 0.05. PARTICIPANTS, SETTING, METHODS: Women aged ≤39 years with a regular cycle and fixed FSH dose of 150 IU. Exclusion criteria: BMI > 32 kg/m2 and >2 previous unsuccessful IVF/ICSI cycles. The primary outcome measure was serum FSH level on day of triggering. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Median [range] body weight was 70.0 kg [55.0-85.6], 68.0 kg [52.0-94] and 60.6 kg [51.0-78.0] for poor (n = 16), normal (n = 94) and hyper (n = 17) responders, respectively. Mean (SD) serum FSH levels on day of triggering were 9.5 IU/L (2.4) in poor, 10.4 IU/L (2.3) in normal and 11.5 IU/L (2.2) in hyper responders. Serum FSH levels on day of hCG in poor responders differed significantly as compared to those in hyper responders (P = 0.03). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The number of retrieved oocytes is only minimally determined by serum FSH level on the day of hCG trigger. After correction for age, body weight, basal serum FSH and basal anti-Mullerian hormone the correlation between serum FSH level on the day of hCG and ovarian response regarding the number of retrieved oocytes disappeared. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The current study shows that a poor response is not related to inadequate serum FSH levels per se. One could therefore question whether increasing the rFSH dose in women with a suboptimal response is meaningful. In women with a hyper response, however, lowering the dose of rFSH in a subsequent IVF cycle may lead to lower serum FSH levels and thereby mitigate ovarian response and improve safety of the IVF treatment. As this was not a dose-response study, future research should assess whether dose adjustments benefit the poor and hyper responder. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funds were obtained for this study. S.C.O, T.C.v.T., O.H., H.L.T., E.G.W.M.L., C.B.L. and M.J.C.E. have nothing to disclose. F.J.M.B. receives monetary compensation: member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono and Ferring, the Netherlands; educational activities for Ferring BV, the Netherlands; consultancy work for Gedeon Richter, Belgium; strategic cooperation with Roche on automated AMH assay development and research cooperation with Ansh Labs.

Serum AMH levels in healthy women from BRCA1/2 mutated families: are they reduced?

STUDY QUESTION: Do BRCA1/2 mutation carriers have a compromised ovarian reserve compared to proven non-carriers, based on serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels? SUMMARY ANSWER: BRCA1/2 mutation carriers do not show a lower serum AMH level in comparison to proven non-carriers, after adjustment for potential confounders. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: It has been suggested that the BRCA genes play a role in the process of ovarian reserve depletion, although previous studies have shown inconsistent results regarding the association between serum AMH levels and BRCA mutation status. Hence, it is yet unclear whether BRCA1/2 mutation carriers may indeed be at risk of a reduced reproductive lifespan. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A multicenter, cross-sectional study was performed between January 2012 and February 2015 in 255 women. We needed to include 120 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and 120 proven non-carriers to demonstrate a difference in AMH levels of 0.40 µg/l (SD ± 0.12 µg/l, two-sided alpha-error 0.05, power 80%). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHOD: Healthy women aged 18-45 years who were referred to the Clinical Genetics Department and applied for predictive BRCA1/2 testing because of a familial BRCA1/2 mutation were asked to participate. A cross-sectional assessment was performed by measuring serum AMH levels and filling out a questionnaire. Multivariate linear regression analyses adjusted for age, current smoking and current hormonal contraceptive use were performed on log-transformed serum AMH levels. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Out of 823 potentially eligible women, 421 (51.2%) were willing to participate, and of those, 166 (39%) did not meet our inclusion criteria. Two hundred and fifty-five women were available for analyses; 124 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and 131 proven non-carriers. The median [range] AMH level in carriers was 1.90 µg/l [0.11-19.00] compared to 1.80 µg/l [0.11-10.00] in non-carriers (P = 0.34). Adjusted linear regression analysis revealed no reduction in AMH level in the carriers (relative change = 0.98 (95%CI, 0.77-1.22); P = 0.76). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Participants were relatively young. Power was insufficient to analyze BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutation carriers separately. AMH levels may have been influenced by the use of hormonal contraceptives, though similar proportions of carriers and non-carriers were current users and adjustments were made to correct for potential confounding in our analysis. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Limitations of the current analysis and limitations of the existing literature argue for prospective, well-controlled follow-up studies with recurrent AMH measurements to determine whether carriers might be at risk for low ovarian reserve and to definitively guide care. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was partially financially supported by a personal grant for Inge A.P. Derks-Smeets, kindly provided by the Dutch Cancer Society (Grant Number UM 2011-5249). Theodora C. van Tilborg, Inge A.P. Derks-Smeets, Anna M.E. Bos, Jan C. Oosterwijk, Christine E. de Die-Smulders, Lizet E. van der Kolk, Wendy A.G. van Zelst-Stams, Maria E. Velthuizen, Marinus J.C. Eijkemans and Margreet G.E.M. Ausems have nothing to disclose. Ron J. van Golde has received unrestricted research grants from Ferring and Merck Serono, outside the submitted work. Annemieke Hoek received an unrestricted educational grant from Ferring pharmaceutical BV, The Netherlands and a speaker's fee for post graduate education from MSD pharmaceutical company, outside the submitted work. Joop S.E. Laven has received unrestricted research grants from Ferring, Merck Serono, Merck Sharpe & Dome, Organon, and Schering Plough, outside the submitted work. Frank J.M. Broekmans is a member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono (The Netherlands), outside the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR no. 4324.

Individualized follicle-stimulating hormone dosing and in vitro fertilization outcome in agonist downregulated cycles: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: This systematic review examines whether individualized gonadotropin dosing in in vitro fertilization (IVF) leads to better outcomes with respect to safety, costs, and live birth rates compared with standard dosing. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Electronic databases searched were PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane. The primary outcome was live birth rate. The secondary outcomes included pregnancy rate, costs, and safety. Papers were critically appraised by two reviewers. RESULTS: A total of 7022 articles were retrieved and assessed for eligibility, of which seven randomized controlled trials were selected. All studies used gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist co-treatment. Clinical and methodological heterogeneity was present, so data could not be pooled for meta-analysis. Only one study, that mainly included women with a good prognosis, revealed an increased chance of ongoing pregnancy in the individualized dosing group compared with standard treatment. With respect to safety, individualized dosing might reduce the occurrence of hyper-response and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, without affecting the outcome of pregnancy. In predicted poor responders, higher than standard dosages do not reduce the incidence of poor response. A cost-efficacy analysis was not performed in any of the studies included. CONCLUSION: It is currently not possible to conclude whether individualized dosing leads to higher pregnancy or live birth rates compared with standard dosing, because evidence from well-designed studies that are adequately powered for one of these outcomes is lacking. So, large well-designed studies that evaluate the impact of individualized dosing on live birth rates are needed to assess whether individualized dosing should become the standard in IVF practice.

Do BRCA1/2 mutation carriers have an earlier onset of natural menopause?

OBJECTIVE: It has been hypothesized that BRCA1/2 mutation carriers have an earlier age at natural menopause (ANM), although to date findings are inconclusive. This study assessed the influence of BRCA mutation status on ANM, and aimed to explore the reasons of inconsistency in the literature. METHODS: Cross-sectional assessment from an ongoing nationwide cohort study among members of BRCA1/2 mutated families. Information was obtained by a standardized questionnaire. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed, and Cox regression was used to assess the association between BRCA1/2 mutation status and ANM. Adjustments were made for birth cohort, family, smoking, use of hormonal contraceptives, and parity. RESULTS: A total of 1,208 BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and 2,211 proven noncarriers were included. Overall, no association was found between BRCA1/2 mutation status and ANM (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] = 1.06 [95% CI, 0.87-1.30]). We examined if the null finding was due to informative censoring by uptake of risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy. Indeed, within the oldest birth cohort, in which the percentage of surgical menopause events was lowest and comparable between carriers and noncarriers, the HR for earlier natural menopause in carriers was 1.45 (95% CI, 1.09-1.94). The second oldest birth cohort, however, demonstrated a decreased HR (0.67 [95% CI, 0.46-0.98]), and thus no trend over birth cohorts was found. CONCLUSIONS: Various types of selection bias hamper the comparison of ANM between BRCA1/2 mutation carriers and noncarriers, genetically tested in the clinic.

The OPTIMIST study: optimisation of cost effectiveness through individualised FSH stimulation dosages for IVF treatment. A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Costs of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) are high, which is partly due to the use of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH). FSH is usually administered in a standard dose. However, due to differences in ovarian reserve between women, ovarian response also differs with potential negative consequences on pregnancy rates. A Markov decision-analytic model showed that FSH dose individualisation according to ovarian reserve is likely to be cost-effective in women who are eligible for IVF. However, this has never been confirmed in a large randomised controlled trial (RCT). The aim of the present study is to assess whether an individualised FSH dose regime based on an ovarian reserve test (ORT) is more cost-effective than a standard dose regime. METHODS/DESIGN: Multicentre RCT in subfertile women indicated for a first IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle, who are aged < 44 years, have a regular menstrual cycle and no major abnormalities at transvaginal sonography. Women with polycystic ovary syndrome, endocrine or metabolic abnormalities and women undergoing IVF with oocyte donation, will not be included. Ovarian reserve will be assessed by measuring the antral follicle count. Women with a predicted poor response or hyperresponse will be randomised for a standard versus an individualised FSH regime (150 IU/day, 225-450 IU/day and 100 IU/day, respectively). Participants will undergo a maximum of three stimulation cycles during maximally 18 months. The primary study outcome is the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate resulting in live birth achieved within 18 months after randomisation. Secondary outcomes are parameters for ovarian response, multiple pregnancies, number of cycles needed per live birth, total IU of FSH per stimulation cycle, and costs. All data will be analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle. Cost-effectiveness analysis will be performed to assess whether the health and associated economic benefits of individualised treatment of subfertile women outweigh the additional costs of an ORT. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will be integrated into a decision model that compares cost-effectiveness of the three dose-adjustment strategies to a standard dose strategy. The study outcomes will provide scientific foundation for national and international guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR2657.