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.

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.

A protocol developing, disseminating and implementing a core outcome set for infertility.

STUDY QUESTIONS: We aim to produce, disseminate and implement a core outcome set for future infertility research. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating infertility treatments have reported many different outcomes, which are often defined and measured in different ways. Such variation contributes to an inability to compare, contrast and combine results of individual RCTs. The development of a core outcome set will ensure outcomes important to key stakeholders are consistently collected and reported across future infertility research. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This is a consensus study using the modified Delphi method. All stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals, researchers and people with lived experience of infertility will be invited to participate. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: An international steering group, including people with lived experience of infertility, healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals and researchers, has been formed to guide the development of this core outcome set. Potential core outcomes have been identified through a comprehensive literature review of RCTs evaluating treatments for infertility and will be entered into a modified Delphi method. Participants will be asked to score potential core outcomes on a nine-point Likert scale anchored between one (not important) and nine (critical). Repeated reflection and rescoring should promote convergence towards consensus 'core' outcomes. We will establish standardized definitions and recommend high-quality measurement instruments for individual core outcomes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This project is funded by the Royal Society of New Zealand Catalyst Fund (3712235). BWM reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, Merck, and ObsEva. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Fractyl and Ogeda and research sponsorship from Ferring. S.B. is the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open. The remaining authors declare no competing interests.

Corifollitropin alfa vs recombinant FSH for controlled ovarian stimulation in women aged 35-42 years with a body weight ≥50 kg: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is corifollitropin alfa 150 µg equivalent to follitropin beta 300 IU/day for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COS) in older women weighing ≥50 kg undergoing IVF and/or ICSI in Vietnam? SUMMARY ANSWER: Corifollitropin alfa 150 µg was equivalent to follitropin beta 300 IU/day with respect to the number of oocytes retrieved, the ongoing, cumulative and live birth rates and obstetric outcomes. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Corifollitropin alfa is a recombinant FSH (rFSH) preparation with slow absorption and a long half-life allowing administration of a single dose for COS lasting 7 days. Several randomized, controlled clinical trials have reported that COS with corifollitropin alfa is associated with similar outcomes compared with COS using daily rFSH. However, limited data are available in Asian patients. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This randomized controlled trial was conducted at a single large IVF centre in Vietnam from June 2015 to August 2016. A total of 400 patients were included, 200 in each treatment group. The primary outcome measure was the number of oocytes retrieved. Patients were followed for 1 year after randomization. PARTICIPANTS /MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Participants aged 35-42 years with a body weight ≥50 kg who were undergoing an IVF cycle were randomized to undergo COS with a single dose of corifollitropin alfa 150 µg on Day 2 or 3 of the menstrual cycle, or follitropin beta 300 IU/day for 7 days starting on Day 2 or 3 of the menstrual cycle. All underwent ICSI according to standard institutional protocols. A beta hCG test was performed 17 days after ovum pick-up, and positive tests were confirmed on vaginal and/or abdominal ultrasound at 5-6 weeks after embryo transfer (clinical pregnancy) and at ≥10 weeks (ongoing pregnancy). Rates of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, and maternal and foetal outcomes after one cycle of ICSI were monitored over 12 months. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Patients in the corifollitropin alfa and follitropin beta groups were well matched at baseline (mean age 37.5 ± 1.9 vs 37.7 ± 2.0 years, mean body weight 53.7 ± 5.4 vs 52.5 ± 4.8 kg). There was no significant difference between the corifollitropin alfa and follitropin beta groups in the number of oocytes retrieved (11.4 ± 5.9 vs 10.8 ± 5.8; P = 0.338). The ongoing pregnancy rate (31.5 vs 32.0%; P = 0.99) and live birth rate (30.5 vs 32.0%; P = 0.83) (both per initiated cycle at 12 months after randomization) were also similar in the two treatment groups. Complication rates were low and similar in the corifollitropin alfa and follitropin beta groups, and there were no significant between-group differences in obstetric outcomes. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study had an open-label design, and therefore, the potential for bias cannot be excluded. The findings are only applicable to patient populations with similar characteristics to those enroled in the study. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study adds to the body of evidence supporting the equivalence of corifollitropin alfa and follitropin beta for COS in a variety of patients undergoing IVF and/or ICSI. The ability to provide COS with corifollitropin alfa has the potential to reduce the burden of treatment for patients. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was supported by Merck Sharp and Dohme. The authors state that they have no financial or commercial conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The trial was registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02466204). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 2 June 2015. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 19 June 2015.