Serum progesterone is lower in ovarian stimulation with highly purified HMG compared to recombinant FSH owing to a different regulation of follicular steroidogenesis: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does ovarian stimulation with highly purified (hp)-HMG protect from elevated progesterone in the follicular phase compared to recombinant FSH (r-FSH) cycles through a different regulation of follicular steroidogenesis? SUMMARY ANSWER: hp-HMG enhanced the Δ4 pathway from pregnenolone to androstenodione leading to lower serum progesterone at the end of the cycle, while r-FSH promoted the conversion of pregnenolone to progesterone causing higher follicular phase progesterone levels. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Elevated progesterone in the follicular phase has been related to lower clinical outcome in fresh IVF cycles. Progesterone levels are positively correlated to ovarian response, and some studies have shown that when r-FSH alone is used for ovarian stimulation serum progesterone levels on the day of triggering are higher than when hp-HMG is given. Whether this is caused by a lower ovarian response in hp-HMG cycles or to a difference in follicular steroidogenesis in the two ovarian stimulation regimens has not been well characterized. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A randomized controlled trial including 112 oocyte donors undergoing ovarian stimulation with GnRH antagonists and 225 IU/day of r-FSH (n = 56) or hp-HMG (n = 56) was carried out in a university-affiliated private infertility clinic. Subjects were recruited between October 2016 and June 2018. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The women were aged 18-35 years with a regular menstrual cycle (25-35 days) and normal ovarian reserve (serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) = 10-30 pMol/l) undergoing ovarian stimulation for oocyte donation. FSH, LH, estradiol (E2), estrone, progesterone, pregnenolone, 17-OH-progesterone, androstenodione, dehidroepiandrostenodione, and testosterone were determined on stimulation Days 1, 4, 6, and 8 and on day of triggering in serum and in follicular fluid. Samples were frozen at -20°C until assay. Total exposures across the follicular phase were compared by polynomic extrapolation. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Subjects in both groups were comparable in terms of age, BMI, and AMH levels. Ovarian response was also similar: 17.5 ± 7.9 (mean ± SD) versus 16.5 ± 7.5 oocytes with r-FSH and hp-HMG, respectively (P = 0.49). Serum progesterone (ng/ml) on day of trigger was 0.46 ± 0.27 in the hp-HMG group versus 0.68 ± 0.50 in the r-FSH group (P = 0.010). Differences for progesterone were also significant on stimulation days 6 and 8. The pregnenolone: progesterone ratio was significantly increased in the r-FSH group from stimulation day 8 to the day of trigger (P = 0.019). Serum androstenodione (ng/ml) on day of trigger was 3.0 ± 1.4 in the hp-HMG group versus 2.4 ± 1.1 in the r-FSH group (P = 0.015). Differences in adrostenodione were also significant on stimulation Day 8. The pregnenolone:androstenodione ratio was significantly higher in the hp-HMG group (P = 0.012) on Days 6 and 8 and trigger. There were no other significant differences between groups. Follicular fluid E2, FSH, LH, dehidroepioandrostenodione, androstenodione, and testosterone were significantly higher in the hp-HMG than r-FSH group. No differences were observed for progesterone, estrone, 17-OH-progesterone, and pregnenolone in follicular fluid. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: All women included in the study were young, not infertile, and had a normal BMI and a good ovarian reserve. The findings might be different in other patient subpopulations. Hormone analyses with immunoassays are subject to intra-assay variations that may influence the results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Stimulation with hp-HMG may prevent progesterone elevation at the end of the follicular phase because of a different follicular steroidogenesis pathway, regardless of ovarian response. This should be considered, particularly in patients at risk of having high progesterone levels at the end of the follicular phase when a fresh embryo transfer is planned. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Roche Diagnostics provided unrestricted funding for all serum and follicular fluid hormone determinations. J.L.R., M.M., and A.P. have nothing to declare. E.B. has received consulting fees from Ferring, Merck, Gedeon Richter, and Roche and has participated in a research cooperation with Gedeon-Richter. In addition, the author has participated in speakers' bureau and received fees from Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Merck, and Roche. P.A. has received consulting fees from MSD and has participated in speakers' bureau and received fees from Ferring. P.A. also declares travel/meeting support from MSD. E.L. has received consulting fees from Ferring and MSD. In addition, the author has participated in a research cooperation with Gedeon-Richter. Also, the author has participated in speakers' bureau and received fees from Ferring and IBSA, as well as travel/meeting support from IBSA and Gedeon Richter. E.B., P.A., and E.L. also own stocks in IVIRMA Valencia. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT: NCT02738580. TRIAL REGISTER DATE: 19 February 2016. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 03 October 2016.

Luteal phase support using micronized vaginal progesterone as pessaries or capsules in artificial cycles: is there any difference?

RESEARCH QUESTION: Is there a difference between the proportion of patients with serum progesterone <8.8 ng/ml on the day of embryo transfer when micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) for luteal phase support (LPS) is given as pessaries versus capsules? DESIGN: This retrospective, matched-cohort, single-centre study compared pessaries (Cyclogest) versus capsules (Utrogestan, Progeffik) for LPS in hormone replacement treatment-embryo transfer (HRT-ET) cycles. Patients under 50 years old with a triple-layer endometrial thickness of ≥6.5 mm underwent transfer of one or two blastocysts. Serum progesterone concentrations were measured on the day of transfer; patients with concentrations <8.8 ng/ml received a single 'rescue' dose of additional progesterone by subcutaneous injection. RESULTS: In total 2665 HRT-ET cycles were analysed; 663 (24.9%) used pessaries for LPS and 2002 (75.1%) used capsules. Mean serum progesterone concentrations with standard deviations on the day of embryo transfer were significantly higher in the group using MVP pessaries compared with those using capsules (14.5 ± 5.1 versus 13.0 ± 4.8 ng/ml; P = 0.000). The percentage of participants with suboptimal serum progesterone concentrations on the day of embryo transfer (<8.8 ng/ml) was significantly lower in the pessary group than the capsule group (10.3%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 7.9-12.6% versus 17.9%, 95% CI 16.2-19.6%; adjusted odds ratio 0.426, 95% CI 0.290-0.625; P = 0.000). No differences in pregnancy outcome were observed between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Using MVP pessaries rather than capsules for LPS resulted in significantly fewer patients having suboptimal serum progesterone concentrations on the day of embryo transfer. Consequently, almost 50% fewer patients in the pessary group needed rescue treatment.

Live birth rates following individualized dosing algorithm of follitropin delta in a long GnRH agonist protocol.

PURPOSE: To explore the efficacy and safety of individualized follitropin delta dosing, based on serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) concentration and bodyweight, in a long gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist protocol. METHODS: Clinical outcomes after one treatment cycle are reported in women with AMH: 5-35 pmol/L. Oocytes were inseminated by intracytoplasmic sperm injection, blastocyst transfer was on Day 5 and remaining blastocysts were cryopreserved. Data collection included live births and neonatal health follow-up for all fresh/frozen transfers performed within one year after treatment allocation. RESULTS: In total, 104 women started stimulation, of whom 101 had oocyte recovery and 92 had blastocyst transfer. The average daily dose of follitropin delta was 11.0 ± 1.6 µg and the duration of stimulation was 10.3 ± 1.6 days. The mean number of oocytes was 12.5 ± 6.4, the mean number of blastocysts was 5.1 ± 3.4, and 85% had at least one good-quality blastocyst. Following mostly single blastocyst transfer (95%), the ongoing pregnancy rate was 43%, the live-birth rate was 43%, and the cumulative live-birth rate was 58% per started stimulation. There were 6 cases of early OHSS (5.8%) graded as mild (n = 3) and moderate (n = 3) and 6 cases of late OHSS (5.8%) graded as moderate (n = 3) and severe (n = 3). CONCLUSION: In this first evaluation of the individualized follitropin delta dosing in a long GnRH agonist protocol, the cumulative live-birth rate was high. A randomized trial comparing follitropin delta in a long GnRH agonist protocol versus in a GnRH antagonist protocol should provide further insight into the efficacy and safety of this treatment option. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03564509; June 21, 2018.

Prediction of ovarian response using the automated Elecsys anti-Müllerian hormone assay in gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the capability of serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) measured using the automated Elecsys® AMH immunoassay to (Roche Diagnostics International Ltd) determine ovarian response after fertility treatment? DESIGN: Single-centre, retrospective, observational, cohort study including women undergoing ovarian stimulation. Serum AMH concentrations were determined using the Elecsys AMH immunoassay based on one blood sample drawn 6 months or less before treatment. Stimulation was conducted in accordance with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol. Patients were divided into four ovarian response categories based on their oocyte yield: low (0-3), suboptimal (4-9), optimal (10-15) and high (>15). Areas under the curve were calculated for each ovarian response group. RESULTS: Overall, 1248 patients were enrolled. The AMH concentration had a strong positive correlation with oocyte yield (Spearman's rho = 0.74, P < 0.001). Areas under the curve (95% CI) for AMH predicting ovarian response were 0.85 (0.83 to 0.88) for low and 0.89 (0.87 to 0.91) for high response. Optimal serum AMH cut-offs for predicting a low and high response using the Elecsys AMH immunoassay were 6.4 pmol/l (0.89 ng/ml) and 14.2 pmol/l (1.99 ng/ml), respectively. Multivariable regression analysis showed that 47% (R2 = 0.470) of variation in ovarian response could be attributed to AMH alone, increasing to 50.9% (R2 = 0.509) with the addition of age, body weight, and total dose of gonadotrophin. CONCLUSION: Ovarian response and oocyte yield after stimulation in a GnRH antagonist cycle can be predicted with high accuracy using a single determination of serum AMH before ovarian stimulation.

Medroxyprogesterone acetate: an alternative to GnRH-antagonist in oocyte vitrification for social fertility preservation and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Can medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) be used as a pituitary suppressor instead of a gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist during ovarian stimulation in elective fertility preservation and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) cycles? DESIGN: A multicentre, retrospective, observational, cohort study conducted in 11 IVIRMA centres affiliated to private universities. Of a total of 1652 cycles of social fertility preservation, 267 patients were stimulated using a progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol (PPOS), and 1385 patients received a GnRH antagonist. In the PGT-A cycles, 5661 treatments were analysed: 635 patients received MPA and 5026 patients received GnRH antagonist. A further 66 fertility preservation and 1299 PGT-A cycles were cancelled. All cycles took place between June 2019 and December 2021. RESULTS: In the social fertility preservation cycles, the number of mature oocytes vitrified in MPA was similar to the number of those treated with an antagonist, a trend that was seen regardless of age (≤35 or >35 years). In the PGT-A cycles, no differences were found in number of metaphase II, two pronuclei, number of biopsied embryos (4.4 ± 3.1 versus 4.5 ± 3.1), rate of euploidy (57.9% versus 56.4%) or ongoing pregnancy rate (50.4% versus 47.1%, P = 0.119) between the group receiving MPA versus a GnRH antagonist, whereas the clinical miscarriage rate was higher in the antagonist group (10.4% versus 14.8%, P = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of PPOS yields similar results to GnRH antagonists in oocytes retrieved, rate of euploid embryos and clinical outcome. Hence, PPOS can be recommended for ovarian stimulation in social fertility preservation and PGT-A cycles, as it allows greater patient comfort.

Perinatal outcomes in children born after fresh or frozen embryo transfer using donated oocytes.

STUDY QUESTION: Do children born after vitrified-thawed embryo transfers (ETs) using donated oocytes have worse perinatal outcomes when compared with fresh ET? SUMMARY ANSWER: No significant difference in birthweight and prematurity rates between fresh or frozen embryo transfers (FETs) in newborns after oocyte donation was found. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Autologous singletons born after fresh ET have been previously associated with higher rates of preterm birth and low birthweight, while FETs seem to confer a higher risk of hypertensive disorders during pregnancy and macrosomia. However, studies comparing these outcomes using autologous oocytes are unable to adequately disentangle the putative detrimental consequences of embryo vitrification from the possible effects that ovarian stimulation and endometrial preparation may have on endometrial receptivity prior to ET. The oocyte donation model is, for this reason, a more appropriate setting to study these hypotheses; however so far, the information available regarding neonatal outcomes in this patient population is limited to either small and/or heterogeneous studies. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a multicentre retrospective cohort study including 5848 singletons born between 2009 and February 2020 following oocyte donation and single blastocyst transfer, subdivided according to whether a fresh ET or FET was performed. We also performed two additional sensitivity analyses, subgrouping the sample according to the type of endometrial preparation (natural versus artificial) and whether the donated oocytes had previously been vitrified or not. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Patients with a first singleton livebirth after single blastocyst transfer were compared using multivariable regression analysis to account for potential confounding factors. The primary outcome was birthweight. Secondary outcomes were birthweight z-scores and percentiles, small/large for gestational age, gestational age at delivery, gender, prematurity (<37 weeks and <32 weeks), neonatal morbidity (Apgar scores and need for neonatal intensive care) and maternal morbidity (gestational hypertensive disorders, gestational diabetes and caesarean delivery). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There was no significant difference between the fresh ET and FET groups in terms of mean birthweight (3215 g versus 3200 g) and birthweight z-scores (0.03 versus 0.1), in both the unadjusted and confounder-adjusted models. However, artificial endometrial preparation was associated with a higher birthweight (3220 g versus 3105 g) and birthweight z-scores (0.06 versus -0.13) when compared with a transfer in a natural cycle. Although a 1-day statistically significant difference in gestational age at birth (275 versus 274 days) was detected, premature birth rates (<37 weeks) did not vary significantly between groups (9.9% and 11.2% for fresh ET and FET, respectively). No other statistically significant differences were found in the remaining neonatal and maternal outcomes studies between the fresh ET and FET groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study is limited by its retrospective design and lack of information regarding congenital malformations. Moreover, the sample selection criteria that were used may limit the generalizability of our results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Perinatal outcomes did not seem to be affected significantly by the embryo vitrification process in an oocyte donation model. Hence, other factors may contribute to the hindered perinatal outcomes described in ART, particularly the potential effect that ovarian stimulation and endometrial preparation may have on endometrial receptivity. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No specific funding was obtained for this study. All authors have no conflicts to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Patient-tailored infertility care is the way forward.

As in any other healthcare discipline, the debate around standardization of practice versus individualized care is also present in the field of infertility. While the former looks for the efficiency of diagnostic and therapeutic processes in the average population supported by evidence-based medicine (EBM), the later looks for patient-centred care, integrating individual clinical expertise and patients' rights and preferences. Both approaches have been compared in a few randomized controlled trials (RCT) having as end-points live birth rates and incidences of adverse effects. However, the available evidence is arguable and too weak to clearly proclaim that one is better than the other. Indeed, it has been suggested that RCT, the keystone of EBM, are not the best tools to evaluate the efficacy of personalized care. A different design, named 'N-of-1' trials, has been proposed as the most appropriate methodology to this end. Infertile patients are still undertreated worldwide. Poor outcomes, fear of adverse events and financial reasons are behind this. In this context, a more personalized approach, aimed at optimizing the outcome while fulfilling the patient's preferences, is necessary to overcome these barriers.

Early detection of pregnancy after IVF and embryo transfer with hyperglycosylated HCG versus Elecsys HCG+ß assay.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Is measurement of hyperglycosylated HCG (hHCG) superior to beta-HCG (HCG+ß) for early pregnancy detection after IVF and embryo transfer? DESIGN: Blood samples were collected on day 4 (+1), 7 (+1) and 11 (+2) after embryo transfer from women aged 18-45 years undergoing first or second fresh or frozen IVF embryo transfer cycles. Biochemical pregnancy was assessed on-site by HCG determination on day 11; clinical pregnancy was assessed by ultrasound on day 21 (+4/-3). Serum hHCG (immunochemiluminometric assay) and HCG+ß (Elecsys® HCG+ß assay) concentrations were measured. Performance of hHCG and HCG+ß for predicting pregnancy was evaluated and cut-offs selected. RESULTS: In total, 155 women were enrolled and underwent IVF and embryo transfer. Area under the curve (AUC) (95% CI) on day 4 was not significantly different for hHCG (AUC 0.88; 95% CI 0.83 to 0.94) and HCG+ß (AUC 0.90; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.95), as was predictive performance on day 7 and 11, with higher AUC estimates compared with day 4. Applying cut-offs derived according to Youden's index on day 4 (hHCG, 100 pg/ml; HCG+ß, 1.30 mIU/ml), both biomarkers demonstrated high negative predictive values for ruling out pregnancy (hHCG, 83.8%; HCG+ß, 82.8%) and high positive predictive values for ruling in pregnancy (hHCG, 89.0%; HCG+ß, 84.9%) on day 21. Diagnostic performance improved from day 4 to day 11. CONCLUSIONS: Predictive performance for early pregnancy post-IVF embryo transfer of day-5 blastocysts was not significantly different for hHCG and HCG+ß; hHCG superiority over HCG+ß was not shown.

Impact of low serum progesterone levels on the day of embryo transfer on pregnancy outcome: a prospective cohort study in artificial cycles with vaginal progesterone.

STUDY QUESTION: Is there a serum progesterone (P) threshold on the day of embryo transfer (ET) in artificial endometrium preparation cycles below which the chances of ongoing pregnancy are reduced? SUMMARY ANSWER: Serum P levels <8.8 ng/ml on the day of ET lower ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) in both own or donated oocyte cycles. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: We previously found that serum P levels <9.2 ng/ml on the day of ET significantly decrease OPR in a sample of 211 oocyte donation recipients. Here, we assessed whether these results are applicable to all infertile patients under an artificial endometrial preparation cycle, regardless of the oocyte origin. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This prospective cohort study was performed between September 2017 and November 2018 and enrolled 1205 patients scheduled for ET after an artificial endometrial preparation cycle with estradiol valerate and micronized vaginal P (MVP, 400 mg twice daily). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Patients ≤50 years old with a triple-layer endometrium ≥6.5 mm underwent transfer of one or two blastocysts. A total of 1150 patients treated with own oocytes without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) (n = 184), own oocytes with PGT-A (n = 308) or donated oocytes (n = 658) were analyzed. The primary endpoint was the OPR beyond pregnancy week 12 based on serum P levels measured immediately before ET. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Women with serum P levels <8.8 ng/ml (30th percentile) had a significantly lower OPR (36.6% vs 54.4%) and live birth rate (35.5% vs 52.0%) than the rest of the patients. Multivariate logistic regression showed that serum P < 8.8 ng/ml was an independent factor influencing OPR in the overall population and in the three treatment groups. A significant negative correlation was observed between serum P levels and BMI, weight and time between the last P dose and blood tests and a positive correlation was found with age, height and number of days on HRT. Multivariate logistic regression showed that only body weight was an independent factor for presenting serum P levels <8.8 ng/ml. Obstetrical and perinatal outcomes did not differ in patients with ongoing pregnancy regardless of serum P levels being above/below 8.8 ng/ml. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Only women with MVP were included. Extrapolation to other P administration forms needs to be validated. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study identified the threshold of serum P as 8.8 ng/ml on the day of ET for artificial endometrial preparation cycles necessary to optimize outcomes, in cycles with own or donated oocytes. One-third of patients receiving MVP show inadequate levels of serum P that, in turn, impact the success of the ART cycle. Monitoring P levels in the mid-luteal phase is recommended when using MVP to adjust the doses according to the needs of the patient. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): None. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03272412.

A multi-centre international study of salivary hormone oestradiol and progesterone measurements in ART monitoring.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Ovarian stimulation during IVF cycles involves close monitoring of oestradiol, progesterone and ultrasound measurements of follicle growth. In contrast to blood draws, sampling saliva is less invasive. Here, a blind validation is presented of a novel saliva-based oestradiol and progesterone assay carried out in samples collected in independent IVF clinics. DESIGN: Concurrent serum and saliva samples were collected from 324 patients at six large independent IVF laboratories. Saliva samples were frozen and run blinded. A further 18 patients had samples collected more frequently around the time of HCG trigger. Saliva samples were analysed using an immunoassay developed with Salimetrics LLC. RESULTS: In total, 652 pairs of saliva and serum oestradiol were evaluated, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.68 to 0.91. In the European clinics, a further 237 of saliva and serum progesterone samples were evaluated; however, the correlations were generally poorer, ranging from -0.02 to 0.22. In the patients collected more frequently, five out of 18 patients (27.8%) showed an immediate decrease in oestradiol after trigger. When progesterone samples were assessed after trigger, eight out of 18 (44.4%) showed a continued rise. CONCLUSIONS: Salivary oestradiol hormone testing correlates well to serum-based assessment, whereas progesterone values, around the time of trigger, are not consistent from patient to patient.

Minimal ovarian stimulation is an alternative to conventional protocols for older women according to Poseidon's stratification: a retrospective multicenter cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether minimal ovarian stimulation (mOS) is as effective as conventional ovarian stimulation (cOS) for older women belonging to different groups according to the Poseidon criteria. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Observational retrospective multicentre cohort including women from Poseidon's groups 2 and 4 that underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF). We performed a mixed-effects logistic regression model, adding as a random effect the patients and the stimulation cycle considering the dependence of data. Survival curves were employed as a measure of the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR). The primary outcomes were live birth rate per embryo transfer and CLBR per consecutive embryo transfer and oocyte consumed until a live birth was achieved. RESULTS: A total of 2002 patients underwent 3056 embryo transfers (mOS = 497 and cOS = 2559). The live birth rates per embryo transfer in mOS and cOS showed no significant difference in both Poseidon's groups. Likewise, the logistic regression showed similar live birth rates between the two protocols in Poseidon's groups 2 (OR 1.165, 95% CI 0.77-1.77; p = 0.710) and 4 (OR 1.264 95% CI 0.59-2.70; p = 0.387). However, the survival curves showed higher CLBR per oocyte in women that received mOS (Poseidon group 2: p < 0.001 and Poseidon group 4: p = 0.039). CONCLUSIONS: Minimal ovarian stimulation is a good alternative to COS as a first-line treatment for patients belonging to Poseidon's groups 2 and 4. The number of oocytes needed to achieve a live birth seems inferior in mOS strategy than cOS.

Elevated serum progesterone does not impact euploidy rates in PGT-A patients.

PURPOSE: Some women undergoing stimulated cycles have elevated serum progesterone (P) on the day of ovulation trigger, but its effect on embryo quality is unclear. We analyze embryo quality among patients with high and low serum P undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). METHODS: This retrospective study included 1597 patients divided into two groups by serum P values: < 1.5 ng/mL or ≥ 1.5 ng/mL. A gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol was established for each patient. Serum P levels were measured on the day of triggering. Propensity score matching and Poisson regression were done. Age, body mass index, and ovarian sensitivity index were also compared. RESULTS: Elevated serum P was not significantly associated with euploid embryo rate or other embryo-quality variables evaluated in our study. Age was the only variable associated with euploidy rate (per MII oocyte, P < 0.001; per biopsied embryo, P = 0.008), embryo biopsy rate (P < 0.001), absolute number of euploid embryos (P = 0.008), and top-quality embryo rate (P = 0.008). Categorical variables decreased in value for every year of increased age in patients with high serum P. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated serum P did not affect the number of euploid and good-quality embryos for transfer in GnRH antagonist intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles. Contrary to the clear influence of premature P elevation on endometrial receptivity based on literature, our results may help to tip the balance towards the absence of a negative effect of P elevation on embryo competence. More studies are needed to fully understand the effect of P elevation on reproductive outcomes.

Empathetic application of machine learning may address appropriate utilization of ART.

The value of artificial intelligence to benefit infertile patients is a subject of debate. This paper presents the experience of one aspect of artificial intelligence, machine learning, coupled with patient empathy to improve utilization of assisted reproductive technology (ART), which is an important aspect of care that is under-recognized. Although ART provides very effective options for infertile patients to build families, patients often discontinue ART when further treatment is likely to be beneficial and most of these patients do not achieve pregnancy without medical aid. Use of ART is only in part dependent on financial considerations; stress and other factors play a major role, as shown by high discontinuation rates despite reimbursement. This commentary discusses challenges and strategies to providing personalized ART prognostics based on machine learning, and presents a case study where appropriate use of such prognostics in ART centres is associated with a trend towards increased ART utilization.

Second-generation preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in assisted reproduction: a SWOT analysis.

Second-generation preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A 2.0) in patients with an unfavourable reproductive and IVF prognosis is becoming common practice, with the aim of improving reproductive outcomes. However, there is still no clear evidence on the possible advantages and drawbacks with regard to this procedure. In this discussion paper, based on a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis, the different aspects of this strategy are evaluated. Current evidence suggests that PGT-A 2.0 should not at present have an indiscriminate application, but it might be indicated in cases in which the risk of aneuploidy is increased.

Follitropin delta in repeated ovarian stimulation for IVF: a controlled, assessor-blind Phase 3 safety trial.

RESEARCH QUESTION: To evaluate the immunogenicity of follitropin delta in repeated ovarian stimulation. DESIGN: Controlled, assessor-blind trial in IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients undergoing repeated cycles of ovarian stimulation (cycles 2 and 3), following initial stimulation with follitropin delta or follitropin alfa (cycle 1) in a preceding randomized trial. In cycles 2 and 3, 513 and 188 women, respectively, were treated as randomized in cycle 1, with dosing based on ovarian response in the previous cycle. RESULTS: The incidence of treatment-induced anti-FSH antibodies with follitropin delta was 0.8% and 1.1% in cycles 2 and 3, respectively, which was similar to the incidence in cycle 1 (1.1%). No antibodies were of neutralizing capacity. Women with pre-existing anti-FSH antibodies were safely treated with follitropin delta without boosting an immune response. Treatment with follitropin delta and follitropin alfa gave similar outcomes for mean number of oocytes retrieved (9.2 versus 8.6 [cycle 2]; 8.3 versus 8.9 [cycle 3]), ongoing pregnancy (27.8% versus 25.7%; 27.4% versus 28.0%) and live birth rates (27.4% versus 25.3%; 26.3% versus 26.9%). The presence of anti-FSH antibodies did not affect the ovarian response. CONCLUSIONS: The trial demonstrated the low immunogenicity potential of follitropin delta in repeated ovarian stimulation, and confirmed the appropriateness of the follitropin delta dosing regimen in repeated cycles, with documented efficacy and safety.

How time to healthy singleton delivery could affect decision-making during infertility treatment: a Delphi consensus.

RESEARCH QUESTION: How might time to healthy singleton delivery affect decision-making during infertility treatment? DESIGN: This was a Delphi consensus investigating expert opinion that comprised three steps. In Step 1, 12 experts developed statements. In Step 2, 27 experts (including 12 from Step 1) voted (online survey) on their agreement/disagreement with each statement (providing reasons). Consensus was reached if ≥66% of participants agreed/disagreed. Statements not reaching consensus were revised and the process repeated until consensus was achieved. In Step 3 details of the final agreed statements were communicated. RESULTS: Twelve statements were developed, and consensus (agreement) was reached on all after one round of voting. CONCLUSIONS: Time to healthy singleton delivery should be taken into consideration when making decisions related to infertility treatment, and it is important that fertility treatment is provided in a timely manner, avoiding over- or under-treatment. In all subfertile women <40 years old, IVF outcomes could be optimized by performing up to six single-embryo transfers and certain procedures might reduce time to healthy singleton delivery. These procedures include preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies, frozen replacement cycles immediately after failed fresh cycles and use of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists. Finally, the number of oocytes retrieved should be maximized to increase cumulative live birth rate.

ICSI does not offer any benefit over conventional IVF across different ovarian response categories in non-male factor infertility: a European multicenter analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether ICSI offers any benefit compared with IVF in different ovarian response categories in case of non-male factor infertility. METHODS: This is a retrospective multicenter analysis using individual patient data, conducted in 15 tertiary referral hospitals in Europe (1 center in Belgium and 14 in Spain). The study included the first cycle of all patients undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF or ICSI in a GnRH antagonist protocol. Only patients having either IVF or ICSI for non-male factor infertility were included. Patients were divided into 4 groups based on their ovarian response as follows: group A, poor responders (1-3 oocytes); group B, suboptimal responders (4-9 oocytes); group C, normal responders (10-15 oocytes); group D, high responders (> 15 oocytes). RESULTS: In total, 4891 patients were analyzed, of whom 4227 underwent ICSI and 664 IVF. There was no significant difference for the insemination method (ICSI vs. IVF) used among the different ovarian response categories: 87% vs. 13%, 87% vs. 13%, 86% vs. 14%, 84% vs. 16%, for groups A, B, C, and D, respectively, p value = 0.35. Mean fertilization rates and embryo utilization rates were comparable between IVF and ICSI in the whole cohort. Fresh and cumulative LBR did not differ significantly for IVF and ICSI in poor, suboptimal, normal, and high responders. CONCLUSION: There is no advantage of ICSI over IVF as insemination method for non-male factor infertility, irrespective of the ovarian response. The number of oocytes retrieved has no value for the selection of the insemination procedure in case of non-male infertility.

Correction to: ICSI does not offer any benefit over conventional IVF across different ovarian response categories in non-male factor infertility: a European multicenter analysis.

The original article unfortunately contained 2 mistakes.