The effect of polymorphisms in FSHR gene on late follicular phase progesterone and estradiol serum levels in predicted normoresponders.

STUDY QUESTION: Does the presence of FSHR single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) affect late follicular phase progesterone and estradiol serum levels in predicted normoresponders treated with rFSH? SUMMARY ANSWER: The presence of FSHR SNPs (rs6165, rs6166, rs1394205) had no clinically significant impact on late follicular phase serum progesterone and estradiol levels in predicted normoresponders undergoing a GnRH antagonist protocol with a fixed daily dose of 150 IU rFSH. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Previous studies have shown that late follicular phase serum progesterone and estradiol levels are significantly correlated with the magnitude of ovarian response. Several authors have proposed that individual variability in the response to ovarian stimulation (OS) could be explained by variants in FSHR. However, so far, the literature is scarce on the influence of this genetic variability on late follicular phase steroidogenic response. Our aim is to determine whether genetic variants in the FSHR gene could modulate late follicular phase serum progesterone and estradiol levels. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In this multicenter multinational prospective study conducted from November 2016 to June 2019, 366 patients from Vietnam, Belgium and Spain (166 from Europe and 200 from Asia) underwent OS followed by oocyte retrieval in a GnRH antagonist protocol with a fixed daily dose of 150 IU rFSH. All patients were genotyped for 3 FSHR SNPs (rs6165, rs6166, rs1394205) and had a serum progesterone and estradiol measurement on the day of trigger. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Included patients were predicted normal responder women <38 years old undergoing their first or second OS cycle. The prevalence of late follicular phase progesterone elevation (PE), as well as mean serum progesterone and estradiol levels on the day of trigger were compared between the different FSHR SNPs genotypes. PE was defined as >1.50 ng/ml. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The overall prevalence of PE was 15.8% (n = 58). No significant difference was found in the prevalence of PE in Caucasian and Asian patients (17.5% versus 14.5%). Estradiol levels on the day of trigger and the number of retrieved oocytes were significantly higher in patients with PE (4779 ± 6236.2 versus 3261 ± 3974.5 pg/ml, P = 0.003, and 16.1 ± 8.02 versus 13.5 ± 6.66, P = 0.011, respectively). Genetic model analysis, adjusted for patient age, body mass index, number of retrieved oocytes and continent (Asia versus Europe), revealed a similar prevalence of PE in co-dominant, dominant and recessive models for variants FSHR rs6166, rs6165 and rs1394205. No statistically significant difference was observed in the mean late follicular phase progesterone serum levels according to the genotypes of FSHR rs6166 (P = 0.941), rs6165 (P = 0.637) and rs1394205 (P = 0.114) in the bivariate analysis. Also, no difference was found in the genetic model analysis regarding mean late follicular phase progesterone levels across the different genotypes. Genetic model analysis has also revealed no statistically significant difference regarding mean estradiol levels on the day of trigger in co-dominant, dominant and recessive models for variants FSHR rs6166, rs6165 and rs1394205. Haplotype analysis revealed a statistically significant lower estradiol level on the day of trigger for rs6166/rs6165 haplotypes GA, AA and GG when compared to AG (respectively, estimated mean difference (EMD) -441.46 pg/ml (95% CI -442.47; -440.45), EMD -673.46 pg/ml (95% CI -674.26; -672.67) and EMD -582.10 pg/ml (95% CI -584.92; -579.28)). No statistically significant differences were found regarding the prevalence of PE nor late follicular phase progesterone levels according to rs6166/rs6165 haplotypes. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Results refer to a population of predicted normal responders treated with a normal/low fixed dose of 150 IU rFSH throughout the whole OS. Consequently, caution is needed before generalizing our results to all patient categories. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Based on our results, FSHR SNPs rs6165, rs6166 and rs1394205 do not have any clinically significant impact neither on late follicular phase serum progesterone nor on estradiol levels in predicted normal responders. These findings add to the controversy in the literature regarding the impact of individual genetic susceptibility in response to OS in this population. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by an unrestricted grant by Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD, IISP56222). N.P.P. reports grants and/or personal fees from MSD, Merck Serono, Roche Diagnostics, Ferring International, Besins Healthcare, Gedeon Richter, Organon, Theramex and Institut Biochimique SA (IBSA). C.A. reports conference fees from Merck Serono, Medea and Event Planet. A.R.N., C.B., C.S., P.Q.M.M., H.T., C.B., N.L.V., M.T.H. and S.G. report no conflict of interests related to the content of this article. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03007043.

The effect of polymorphisms in FSHR and FSHB genes on ovarian response: a prospective multicenter multinational study in Europe and Asia.

STUDY QUESTION: Does the presence of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in the FSH receptor gene (FSHR) and/or FSH beta subunit-encoding gene (FSHB) influence ovarian response in predicted normal responders treated with rFSH? SUMMARY ANSWER: The presence of FSHR SNPs (rs6165, rs6166, rs1394205) has a statistically significant impact in ovarian response, although this effect is of minimal clinical relevance in predicted normal responders treated with a fixed dose of 150 IU rFSH. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Ovarian reserve markers have been a breakthrough in response prediction following ovarian stimulation. However, a significant percentage of patients show a disproportionate lower ovarian response, as compared with their actual ovarian reserve. Studies on pharmacogenetics have demonstrated a relationship between FSHR or FSHB genotyping and drug response, suggesting a potential effect of individual genetic variability on ovarian stimulation. However, evidence from these studies is inconsistent, due to the inclusion of patients with variable ovarian reserve, use of different starting gonadotropin doses, and allowance for dose adjustments during treatment. This highlights the necessity of a well-controlled prospective study in a homogenous population treated with the same fixed protocol. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We conducted a multicenter multinational prospective study, including 368 patients from Vietnam, Belgium, and Spain (168 from Europe and 200 from Asia), from November 2016 until June 2019. All patients underwent ovarian stimulation followed by oocyte retrieval in an antagonist protocol with a fixed daily dose of 150 IU rFSH until triggering. Blood sampling and DNA extraction was performed prior to oocyte retrieval, followed by genotyping of four SNPs from FSHR (rs6165, rs6166, rs1394205) and FSHB (rs10835638). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Eligible were predicted normal responder women <38 years old undergoing their first or second ovarian stimulation cycle. Laboratory staff and clinicians were blinded to the clinical results and genotyping, respectively. The prevalence of hypo-responders, the number of oocytes retrieved, the follicular output rate (FORT), and the follicle to oocyte index (FOI) were compared between different FSHR and FSHB SNPs genotypes. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The prevalence of derived allele homozygous SNPs in the FSHR was rs6166 (genotype G/G) 15.8%, rs6165 (genotype G/G) 34.8%, and rs1394205 (genotype A/A) 14.1%, with significant differences between Caucasian and Asian women (P < 0.001). FSHB variant rs10835638 (c.-211 G>T) was very rare (0.5%). Genetic model analysis revealed that the presence of the G allele in FSHR variant rs6166 resulted in less oocytes retrieved when compared to the AA genotype (13.54 ± 0.46 vs 14.81 ± 0.61, estimated mean difference (EMD) -1.47 (95% CI -2.82 to -0.11)). In FSHR variant rs1394205, a significantly lower number of oocytes was retrieved in patients with an A allele when compared to G/G (13.33 ± 0.41 vs 15.06 ± 0.68, EMD -1.69 (95% CI -3.06 to -0.31)). A significantly higher prevalence of hypo-responders was found in patients with the genotype A/G for FSHR variant rs6166 (55.9%, n = 57) when compared to A/A (28.4%, n = 29), ORadj 1.87 (95% CI 1.08-3.24). No significant differences were found regarding the FORT across the genotypes for FSHR variants rs6166, rs6165, or rs1394205. Regarding the FOI, the presence of the G allele for FSHR variant rs6166 resulted in a lower FOI when compared to the A/A genotype, EMD -13.47 (95% CI -22.69 to -4.24). Regarding FSHR variant rs6165, a lower FOI was reported for genotype A/G (79.75 ± 3.35) when compared to genotype A/A (92.08 ± 6.23), EMD -13.81 (95% CI -25.41 to -2.21). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was performed in relatively young women with normal ovarian reserve to eliminate biases related to age-related fertility decline; thus, caution is needed when extrapolating results to older populations. In addition, no analysis was performed for FSHB variant rs10835638 due to the very low prevalence of the genotype T/T (n = 2). WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Based on our results, genotyping FSHR SNPs rs6165, rs6166, rs1394205, and FSHB SNP rs10835638 prior to initiating an ovarian stimulation with rFSH in predicted normal responders should not be recommended, taking into account the minimal clinical impact of such information in this population. Future research may focus on other populations and other genes related to folliculogenesis or steroidogenesis. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by an unrestricted grant by Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD). N.P.P. reports grants and/or personal fees from MSD, Merck Serono, Roche Diagnostics, Ferring International, Besins Healthcare, Gedeon Richter, Theramex, and Institut Biochimique SA (IBSA). N.L.V. and M.T.H. report consultancy and conference fees from Merck, Ferring, and MSD, outside the submitted work. P.D. has received honoraria for lecturing and/or research grants from MSD, Ferring International, and Merck. D.S. reports grants and/or personal fees from MSD, Ferring International, Merck Serono, Cook, and Gedeon Richter. A.R.N., B.A.M., C.S., J.M., L.H.L., P.Q.M.M., H.T., and S.G. report no conflict of interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03007043.

Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study† ‡.

STUDY QUESTION: Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified? SUMMARY ANSWER: The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties was entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI and IVF) and ethics, access and organization of care were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research and population science. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgment and arbitrary consensus definitions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. G.D.A. reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. A.W.H. reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist's Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma and Roche Diagnostics. M.L.H. reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. N.P.J. reports research sponsorship from AbbVie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics and Vifor Pharma. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring and retains a financial interest in NexHand. J.S. reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study† ‡.

STUDY QUESTION: Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection and reporting across future infertility research be developed? SUMMARY ANSWER: A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition and an arbitrary consensus threshold. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Fertility and Sterility and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study, the collection, management, analysis or interpretation of data, or manuscript preparation. B.W.J.M. is supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548). S.B. was supported by University of Auckland Foundation Seelye Travelling Fellowship. S.B. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.J.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study† ‡.

STUDY QUESTION: Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting? SUMMARY ANSWER: Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements and a standardized reporting table have been developed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. C.N. reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and a financial interest in NexHand. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

Bioaerosol Sampling to Detect Avian Influenza Virus in Hanoi's Largest Live Poultry Market.

BACKGROUND: Newly emergent and virulent strains of H7N9 avian influenza virus are rapidly spreading in China and threaten to invade Vietnam. We sought to introduce aerosol sampling for avian influenza viruses in Vietnam. METHODS: During October 2017, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 2-stage aerosol samplers were assembled on a tripod and run for 4 hours. Concomitantly, up to 20 oropharyngeal (OP) swab samples were collected from chickens and ducks distanced at 0.2-1.5 m from each sampler. RESULTS: The 3 weeks of sampling yielded 30 aerosol samples that were 90% positive for influenza A, by quantitative reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction, and 116 OP swab sample pools (5 samples per pool) that were 47% positive. Egg cultures yielded 1 influenza A virus (not H5 or H7) from aerosol and 25 influenza A viruses from OP swab sample pools (5 were H5 positive). The association between positive sample types (over time and position) was strong, with 91.7% of positive OP pooled swab samples confirmed by positive aerosol samples and 81% of influenza A positive aerosol samples confirmed by positive OP swab samples. CONCLUSIONS: We posit that aerosol sampling might be used for early warning screening of poultry markets for novel influenza virus detection, such as H7N9. Markets with positive aerosol samples might be followed up with more focused individual bird or cage swabbing, and back-tracing could be performed later to locate specific farms harboring novel virus. Culling birds in such farms could reduce highly pathogenic avian influenza virus spread among poultry and humans.

Overall survival and oncological outcomes after partial nephrectomy and radical nephrectomy for cT2a renal tumors: A collaborative international study from the French kidney cancer research network UroCCR.

BACKGROUND: Partial nephrectomy (PN) is recommended as first-line treatment for cT1 stage kidney tumors because of a better renal function and probably a better overall survival than radical nephrectomy (RN). For larger tumors, PN has a controversial position due to lack of evidence showing good cancer control. The aim of this study was to compare the results of PN and RN in cT2a stage on overall survival and oncological results. METHOD: A retrospective international multicenter study was conducted in the frame of the French kidney cancer research network (UroCCR). We considered all patients aged≥18 years who underwent surgical treatment for localized renal cell carcinoma (RCC) stage cT2a (7.1-10cm) between 2000 and 2014. Cox and Fine-Gray models were performed to analyze overall survival (OS), cancer specific survival (CSS) and cancer-free survival (CFS). Comparison between PN and RN was realized after an adjustment by propensity score considering predefined confounding factors: age, sex, tumor size, pT stage of the TNM classification, histological type, ISUP grade, ASA score. RESULTS: A total of 267 patients were included. OS at 3 and 5 years was 93.6% and 78.7% after PN and 88.0% and 76.2% after RN, respectively. CSS at 3 and 5 years was 95.4% and 80.2% after PN and 91.0% and 85.0% after RN. No significant difference between groups was found after propensity score adjustment for OS (HR 0.87, 95% CI: 0.37-2.05, P=0.75), CSS (HR 0.52, 95% CI: 0.18-1.54, P=0.24) and CFS (HR 1.02, 95% CI: 0.50-2.09, P=0.96). CONCLUSION: PN seems equivalent to RN for OS, CSS and CFS in cT2a stage kidney tumors. The risk of recurrence is probably more related to prognostic factors than the surgical technique. The decision to perform a PN should depend on technical feasibility rather than tumor size, both to imperative and elective situation. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 4.

Characterization of cross-clade monoclonal antibodies against H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus and their application to the antigenic analysis of diverse H5 subtype viruses.

H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza viruses (HPAIVs) are a threat to both animal and public health and require specific and rapid detection for prompt disease control. We produced three neutralizing anti-hemagglutinin (HA) monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) using two clades (2.2 and 2.5) of the H5N1 HPAIV isolated in Japan. Blocking immunofluorescence tests showed that each mAb recognized different epitopes; 3B5.1 and 3B5.2 mAbs against the clade 2.5 virus showed cross-clade reactivity to all 26 strains from clades 1, 2.2, 2.3.2.1, 2.3.2.1a, b, c and 2.3.4, suggesting that the epitope(s) recognized are conserved. Conversely, the 1G5 mAb against the clade 2.2 virus showed reactivity to only clades 1, 2.3.4 and 2.5 strains. An analysis of escape mutants, and some clades of the H5N1 viruses recognized by 3B5.1 and 3B5.2 mAbs, suggested that the mAbs bind to an epitope, including amino acid residues at position 162 in the HA1 protein (R162 and K162). Unexpectedly, however, when five Eurasian-origin H5 low-pathogenic AIV (LPAIV) strains with R162 were examined (EA-nonGsGD clade) as well as two American-origin strains (Am-nonGsGD clade), the mAb recognized only EA-nonGsGD clade strains. The R162 and K162 residues in the HA1 protein were highly conserved among 36 of the 43 H5N1 clades reported, including clades 2.3.2.1a and 2.3.2.1c that are currently circulating in Asia, Africa and Europe. The amino acid residues (158-PTIKRSYNNTNQE-170) in the HA1 protein are probably an epitope responsible for the cross-clade reactivity of the mAbs, considering the epitopes reported elsewhere. The 3B5.1 and 3B5.2 mAbs may be useful for the specific detection of H5N1 HPAIVs circulating in the field.

Characterization of mAbs to chicken anemia virus and epitope mapping on its viral protein, VP1.

Three (MoCAV/F2, MoCAV/F8 and MoCAV/F11) of four mouse mAbs established against the A2/76 strain of chicken anemia virus (CAV) showed neutralization activity. Immunoprecipitation showed a band at ~50 kDa in A2/76-infected cell lysates by neutralizing mAbs, corresponding to the 50 kDa capsid protein (VP1) of CAV, and the mAbs reacted with recombinant VP1 proteins expressed in Cos7 cells. MoCAV/F2 and MoCAV/F8 neutralized the 14 CAV strains tested, whereas MoCAV/F11 did not neutralize five of the strains, indicating distinct antigenic variation amongst the strains. In blocking immunofluorescence tests with the A2/76-infected cells, binding of MoCAV/F11 was not inhibited by the other mAbs. MoCAV/F2 inhibited the binding of MoCAV/F8 to the antigens and vice versa, suggesting that the two mAbs recognized the same epitope. However, mutations were found in different parts of VP1 of the escape mutants of each mAb: EsCAV/F2 (deletion of T89+A90), EsCAV/F8 (I261T) and EsCAV/F11 (E144G). Thus, the epitopes recognized by MoCAV/F2 and MoCAV/F8 seemed to be topographically close in the VP1 structure, suggesting that VP1 has at least two different neutralizing epitopes. However, MoCAV/F8 did not react with EsCAV/F2 or EsCAV/F8, suggesting that binding of MoCAV/F8 to the epitope requires coexistence of the epitope recognized by MoCAV/F2. In addition, MoCAV/F2, with a titre of 1 : 12 800 to the parent strain, neutralized EsCAV/F2 and EsCAV/F8 with low titres of 32 and 152, respectively. The similarity of the reactivity of MoCAV/F2 and MoCAV/F8 to VP1 may also suggest the existence of a single epitope recognized by these mAbs.

Influence of olive-derived hydroxytyrosol on the toll-like receptor 4-dependent inflammatory response of mouse peritoneal macrophages.

Macrophages play important roles in the host innate immune response and are involved in the onset of diseases caused by inflammation. Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4)-mediated inflammatory responses of macrophages may be associated with diseases such as diabetes and diseases of the cardiovascular system. Hydroxytyrosol (HT) exerts strong antioxidant and anti-inflammatory effects and may be applied in the treatment of inflammatory diseases. In the present study conducted in vitro, we investigated the effects of the TLR4-dependent anti-inflammatory effect of HT on peritoneal macrophage of BALB/c mice. We show here that the elevated levels of iNOS gene expression and nitric oxide production induced by lipopolysaccharide (LPS) (0.25 µg/ml) were suppressed by HT (12.5 µg/ml). LPS-dependent NF-κB gene expression and phosphorylation of NF-κB were not affected by HT under these conditions. In contrast, the expression of TNF-α was significantly increased in the presence of LPS and HT. These results suggest that HT suppressed nitric oxide production by decreasing iNOS gene expression through a mechanism independent of the NF-κB signaling pathway. These novel findings suggest that the modulation by HT of the expression of genes involved in inflammation may involve multiple mechanisms.

Virucidal effect of acidic electrolyzed water and neutral electrolyzed water on avian influenza viruses.

The virucidal effects of two types of electrolyzed water, acidic electrolyzed water (AEW) and neutral electrolyzed water (NEW), on avian influenza viruses were studied. Virus titers of the highly pathogenic H5N1 virus and the low-pathogenic H9N2 virus irreversibly decreased by >5-log at 1 min after the viruses were mixed with NEW containing ≥43 ppm free available chlorine (FAC), but not with NEW containing <17 ppm FAC. The minimum concentration of FAC for a virucidal effect of NEW was estimated at around 40 ppm. In contrast, the virus titers decreased by >5 log at 1 min after the viruses were mixed with AEW, in which the concentration of the FAC ranged from 72 to 0 ppm. Thus, the virucidal effect of AEW did not depend on the presence of FAC. Reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction amplified fragments of the M and NP genes, but not the complete M gene, from RNA extracted from the AEW-inactivated virus. Moderate morphological changes were found under the electron microscope, although no changes were observed in the electrophoresed proteins of the AEW-inactivated virus. No viral genes were amplified from the RNA extracted from the NEW-inactivated virus, regardless of the length of the targeted genes. No viral particles were detected under the electron microscope and no viral proteins were detected by electrophoresis for the NEW-inactivated virus. Thus, this study demonstrated potent virucidal effects of AEW and NEW and differences in the virucidal mechanism of the two types of electrolyzed water.

High Prevalence of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza: A Virus in Vietnam's Live Bird Markets.

Background: In recent years, Vietnam has suffered multiple epizootics of influenza in poultry. Methods: From 10 January 2019 to 26 April 2021, we employed a One Health influenza surveillance approach at live bird markets (LBMs) and swine farms in Northern Vietnam. When the COVID-19 pandemic permitted, each month, field teams collected oral secretion samples from poultry and pigs, animal facility bioaerosol and fecal samples, and animal worker nasal washes at 4 LBMs and 5 swine farms across 5 sites. Initially samples were screened with molecular assays followed by culture in embryonated eggs (poultry swabs) or Madin-Darby canine kidney cells (human or swine swabs). Results: Many of the 3493 samples collected had either molecular or culture evidence for influenza A virus, including 314 (37.5%) of the 837 poultry oropharyngeal swabs, 144 (25.1%) of the 574 bioaerosol samples, 438 (34.9%) of the 1257 poultry fecal swab samples, and 16 (1.9%) of the 828 human nasal washes. Culturing poultry samples yielded 454 influenza A isolates, 83 of which were H5, and 70 (84.3%) of these were highly pathogenic. Additionally, a positive human sample had a H9N2 avian-like PB1 gene. In contrast, the prevalence of influenza A in the swine farms was much lower with only 6 (0.4%) of the 1700 total swine farm samples studied, having molecular evidence for influenza A virus. Conclusions: This study suggests that Vietnam's LBMs continue to harbor high prevalences of avian influenza A viruses, including many highly pathogenic H5N6 strains, which will continue to threaten poultry and humans.

H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus isolated from conjunctiva of a whooper swan with neurological signs.

An H5N1 highly pathogenic avian influenza virus was isolated from conjunctiva of a whooper swan with neurological signs, which was captured during the latest H5N1 HPAI outbreak in Japan. The conjunctival swab contained a larger amount of the virus in comparison with the tracheal swab. This is the first report on H5N1 virus isolation from the conjunctiva of a wild bird, and the result may suggest the conjunctival swab to be a critical sample for H5N1 HPAIV detection in waterfowl. Phylogenetic analysis of the HA gene indicated that the virus falls into H5N1 clade 2.3.2.1.

Surveillance and characterization of avian influenza viruses from migratory water birds in eastern Hokkaido, the northern part of Japan, 2009-2010.

Avian influenza virus (AIV) surveillance was conducted around a small pond in Obihiro, eastern Hokkaido, Japan. Eleven AIVs were isolated from a total of 1,269 fecal samples of migratory wild birds collected during 2009 and 2010. The sample number covered approximately 60 % of the total number of birds observed during sampling periods. The subtypes of the isolates included H3N8 (4 isolates), H5N2 (3), H6N2 (2), H6N1 (1), and H11N2 (1). The H3N8 subtype was most prevalent as in the previous studies performed in Hokkaido. The three H5N2 isolates genetically characterized as low pathogenic AIV were closely related to the strains previously isolated from aquatic wild birds in Japan and also to the Korean strains isolated from aquatic birds in recent years. In Korea, H5N2 subtype virus has often been isolated from poultry and wild birds, as well as reassortant viruses generated from duck H5N2 viruses and chicken H9N2 virus, and avian-swine-like reassortant H5N2 viruses. Considering the previous chicken outbreaks caused by highly pathogenic H5N2 viruses, which affected many countries, it should be an important priority to continue, monitoring the evolution of H5N2 viruses circulating in the region.

Percutaneous nephrolithotomy with ultrasonography-guided renal access in the modified lateral position with extended legs.

Purpose: This study was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided percutaneous nephrolithotomy (US-guided PCNL) in a modified lateral position with extended legs for kidney stones. Methods: This prospective study included 46 patients underwent PCNL with US-guided renal access in the modified lateral position with extended legs from 2020 to 2021. The outcomes included the rate of successful access, complete stone clearance, operative characteristics, postoperative complications, and the need for an additional procedure. Results: Median age was 54.5 years and males were 56.5%. Median stone burden was 2,660 mm3 and 93.5% of all patients were graded as 1 or 2 regarding the Guy's stone score. Twenty-four patients required one puncture and 14 patients required 2 punctures. Six patients had a concomitant ureteroscopic lithotripsy. Median access duration, fluoroscopy duration and hospital length of stay were 2.0 minutes, 14.5 seconds and 3 days respectively. Successful renal access rate was 100% and complete stone clearance rate was 93.5%. Complications occurred in 5 patients without mortality. Three patients required an additional procedure. Conclusion: US-guided PCNL in the modified lateral position with extended legs is safe and effective for kidney stones. The exposure to radiation is reduced significantly. We advocate using this approach and try to perform PCNL under X-ray free US guidance.

Surveillance of avian influenza virus in migratory water birds in eastern Hokkaido, Japan.

The epidemiological information has obtained on avian influenza virus (AIV) in eastern Hokkaido, Japan, where AIV surveillance has not been performed. Cloacal or fecal samples obtained from migratory water birds were screened for AIV both by real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction to detect the influenza A virus matrix (M) gene and by egg inoculation. Between 2007 and 2009, a total of 2,488 samples were collected from various avian species in Abashiri, Kushiro, Nemuro and Tokachi districts of eastern Hokkaido. AIVs were isolated from 18 of those samples (0.7%). No AIV was isolated from the 1,449 samples collected in Abashiri, Kushiro and Nemuro districts, although 6 were positive for the M gene by RRT-PCR. In contrast, 52 (5.0%) of the 1,039 samples collected from ducks in Tokachi district were M gene positive; AIVs were isolated from 18 of those samples (1.7%). The isolates included H3N5 (1 isolate), H3N6 (1), H3N8 (9), H4N2 (1), H4N6 (2), H6N5 (1), H6N8 (1), and H11N3 (2) subtypes. H3N5 and H11N3 subtypes have not been frequently isolated, and our study is the first to report H3N5 and the second to report H11N3 in Japan. Phylogenetic analysis revealed that the M genes of all isolates belonged to the Eurasian lineage.

Standardizing definitions and reporting guidelines for the infertility core outcome set: an international consensus development study.

STUDY QUESTION: Can consensus definitions for the core outcome set for infertility be identified in order to recommend a standardized approach to reporting? SUMMARY ANSWER: Consensus definitions for individual core outcomes, contextual statements, and a standardized reporting table have been developed. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Different definitions exist for individual core outcomes for infertility. This variation increases the opportunities for researchers to engage with selective outcome reporting, which undermines secondary research and compromises clinical practice guideline development. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Potential definitions were identified by a systematic review of definition development initiatives and clinical practice guidelines and by reviewing Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. These definitions were discussed in a face-to-face consensus development meeting, which agreed consensus definitions. A standardized approach to reporting was also developed as part of the process. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers, and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus development methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Forty-four potential definitions were inventoried across four definition development initiatives, including the Harbin Consensus Conference Workshop Group and International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, 12 clinical practice guidelines, and Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group guidelines. Twenty-seven participants, from 11 countries, contributed to the consensus development meeting. Consensus definitions were successfully developed for all core outcomes. Specific recommendations were made to improve reporting. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations. There was limited representation from low- and middle-income countries. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: A minimum data set should assist researchers in populating protocols, case report forms, and other data collection tools. The generic reporting table should provide clear guidance to researchers and improve the reporting of their results within journal publications and conference presentations. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials statement, and over 80 specialty journals have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Craig Niederberger reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and a financial interest in NexHand. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Jack Wilkinson reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. Andy Vail reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from HFEA for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. Lan Vuong reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.

Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study.

STUDY QUESTION: Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified? SUMMARY ANSWER: The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction, and ethics, access, and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management, and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines, and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction, and ethics, access, and organization of care. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems, and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties were entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities, and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI, and IVF), and ethics, access, and organization of care, were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment, and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings, and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research, and population science. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgement, and arbitrary consensus definitions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems, and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda. STUDY FUNDING/ COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Geoffrey Adamson reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies, and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. Andrew Horne reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist's Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from Abbvie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma, and Roche Diagnostics. M. Louise Hull reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. Neil Johnson reports research sponsorship from Abb-Vie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics, and Vifor Pharma. José Knijnenburg reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Craig Niederberger reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. Jane Stewart reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring, and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Jack Wilkinson reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. Andy Vail reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from HFEA for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. Lan Vuong reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Developing a core outcome set for future infertility research: an international consensus development study.

STUDY QUESTION: Can a core outcome set to standardize outcome selection, collection, and reporting across future infertility research be developed? SUMMARY ANSWER: A minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, has been developed for randomized controlled trials (RCT) and systematic reviews evaluating potential treatments for infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Complex issues, including a failure to consider the perspectives of people with fertility problems when selecting outcomes, variations in outcome definitions, and the selective reporting of outcomes on the basis of statistical analysis, make the results of infertility research difficult to interpret. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A three-round Delphi survey (372 participants from 41 countries) and consensus development workshop (30 participants from 27 countries). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, researchers, and people with fertility problems were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus science methods. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The core outcome set consists of: viable intrauterine pregnancy confirmed by ultrasound (accounting for singleton, twin, and higher multiple pregnancy); pregnancy loss (accounting for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, stillbirth, and termination of pregnancy); live birth; gestational age at delivery; birthweight; neonatal mortality; and major congenital anomaly. Time to pregnancy leading to live birth should be reported when applicable. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, Delphi survey attrition, and an arbitrary consensus threshold. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Embedding the core outcome set within RCTs and systematic reviews should ensure the comprehensive selection, collection, and reporting of core outcomes. Research funding bodies, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) statement, and over 80 specialty journals, including the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group, Ferility and Sterility, and Human Reproduction, have committed to implementing this core outcome set. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was funded by the Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, Auckland Medical Research Fund, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and an editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. José Knijnenburg reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Craig Niederberger reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Lan Vuong reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the work presented. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative: 1023.