On the reproductive capabilities of aneuploid human preimplantation embryos.

In IVF cycles, the application of aneuploidy testing at the blastocyst stage is quickly growing, and the latest reports estimate almost half of cycles in the US undergo preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A). Following PGT-A cycles, understanding the predictive value of an aneuploidy result is paramount for making informed decisions about the embryo's fate and utilization. Compelling evidence from non-selection trials strongly supports that embryos diagnosed with a uniform whole-chromosome aneuploidy very rarely result in the live birth of a healthy baby, while their transfer exposes women to significant risks of miscarriage and chromosomally abnormal pregnancy. On the other hand, embryos displaying low range mosaicism for whole chromosomes have shown reproductive capabilities somewhat equivalent to uniformly euploid embryos, and they have comparable clinical outcomes and gestational risks. Therefore, given their clearly distinct biological origin and clinical consequences, careful differentiation between uniform and mosaic aneuploidy is critical in both the clinical setting when counseling individuals and in the research setting when presenting aneuploidy studies in human embryology. Here, we focus on the evidence gathered so far on PGT-A diagnostic predictive values and reproductive outcomes observed across the broad spectrum of whole-chromosome aneuploidies detected at the blastocyst stage to obtain evidence-based conclusions on the clinical management of aneuploid embryos in the quickly growing PGT-A clinical setting.

Assisted reproductive technology use and outcomes in childhood cancer survivors.

BACKGROUND: Treatment exposures for childhood cancer reduce ovarian reserve. However, the success of assisted reproductive technology (ART) among female survivors is not well established. METHODS: Five-year survivors of childhood cancer in the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study were linked to the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System, which captures national ART outcomes. The authors assessed the live birth rate, the relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs), and associations with treatment exposure using generalized estimating equations to account for multiple ovarian stimulations per individual. Siblings from a random sample of survivors were recruited to serve as a comparison group. RESULTS: Among 9885 female survivors, 137 (1.4%; median age at diagnosis, 10 years [range, 0-20 years]; median years of follow-up after age 18 years, 11 years [range, 2-11 years]) underwent 224 ovarian stimulations using autologous or donor eggs and/or gestational carriers (157 autologous ovarian stimulation cycles, 67 donor ovarian stimulation cycles). In siblings, 33 (1.4%) underwent 51 autologous or donor ovarian stimulations. Of those who used embryos from autologous eggs without using gestational carriers, 97 survivors underwent 155 stimulations, resulting in 49 live births, for a 31.6% chance of live birth per ovarian stimulation (vs. 38.3% for siblings; p = .39) and a 43.9% chance of live birth per transfer (vs. 50.0%; p = .33). Prior treatment with cranial radiation therapy (RR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.20-0.97) and pelvic radiation therapy (RR, 0.33; 95% CI, 0.15-0.73) resulted in a reduced chance of live birth compared with siblings. The likelihood of live birth after ART treatment in survivors was not affected by alkylator exposure (cyclophosphamide-equivalent dose, ≥8000 mg/m2 vs. none; RR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.52-2.05). CONCLUSIONS: Childhood cancer survivors are as likely to undergo treatment using ART as sibling controls. The success of ART treatment was not reduced after alkylator exposure. The results from the current study provide needed guidance on the use of ART in this population.

SARS-CoV-2 infection is detrimental to pregnancy outcomes after embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI: a prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: To explore whether SARS-CoV-2 infection affects the pregnancy outcomes of assisted reproductive techniques (ART). METHODS: A prospective cohort study recruited patients for embryo transfer from December 01, 2022, to December 31, 2022. All patients were closely followed up for SARS-CoV-2 infection after embryo transfer. The SARS-CoV-2 "diagnosed group" was defined as RNA or antigen-positive. The SARS-CoV-2 "suspected infection group" was defined as having apparent SARS-CoV-2 symptoms without an RNA or antigen test, while the "uninfected group" was defined as having a negative SARS-CoV-2 RNA or antigen test and no SARS-CoV-2 symptoms. RESULTS: A total of 1330 patients participated in the study, 687 of whom were in the SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed group, 219 in the suspected infection group, and 424 in the uninfected group. There was no significant difference in basic characteristics among the three groups. The clinical pregnancy rate was 68% in the SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed group, 63% in the uninfected group, and 51% in the suspected infection group (P < 0.001). The ongoing pregnancy rate was 58% in the SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed group, 53% in the uninfected group, and 45% in the suspected infection group (P < 0.001). Upon analyzing the factors influencing clinical pregnancy, it was found that suspected infection (odds ratio [OR] 0.618, 95% CI 0.444-0.862, P = 0.005) and the short time (≤ 22 days) between embryo transfer and SARS-CoV-2 infection (OR 3.76, 95% CI 1.92-8.24, P < 0.001) were not conducive to clinical pregnancy. In addition, the concurrent presence of fever and dizziness/headache SARS-CoV-2 symptoms (OR 0.715, 95% CI 0.526-0.972, P = 0.032) decreased the clinical pregnancy rate. However, vaccination administered 2-3 times (OR 1.804, 95% CI 1.332-2.444, P < 0.001) was associated with an improvement in clinical pregnancy rate. CONCLUSIONS: This prospective cohort study shows that SARS-CoV-2 infection in a short period of time after embryo transfer is not conducive to clinical pregnancy. Reproductive physicians should advise patients to avoid SARS-CoV-2 infection shortly after embryo transfer. Meanwhile, women should be encouraged to vaccinate at least 2-3 times before embryo transfer or pregnancy.

Maturational competence of equine oocytes is associated with alterations in their 'cumulome'.

Assisted reproductive technologies are an emerging field in equine reproduction, with species-dependent peculiarities, such as the low success rate of conventional IVF. Here, the 'cumulome' was related to the developmental capacity of its corresponding oocyte. Cumulus-oocyte complexes collected from slaughterhouse ovaries were individually matured, fertilized by ICSI, and cultured. After maturation, the cumulus was collected for proteomics analysis using label-free mass spectrometry (MS)-based protein profiling by nano-HPLC MS/MS and metabolomics analysis by UPLC-nanoESI MS. Overall, a total of 1671 proteins and 612 metabolites were included in the quantifiable 'cumulome'. According to the development of the corresponding oocytes, three groups were compared with each other: not matured (NM; n = 18), cleaved (CV; n = 15), and blastocyst (BL; n = 19). CV and BL were also analyzed together as the matured group (M; n = 34). The dataset revealed a closer connection within the two M groups and a more distinct separation from the NM group. Overrepresentation analysis detected enrichments related to energy metabolism as well as vesicular transport in the M group. Functional enrichment analysis found only the KEGG pathway 'oxidative phosphorylation' as significantly enriched in the NM group. A compound attributed to ATP was observed with significantly higher concentrations in the BL group compared with the NM group. Finally, in the NM group, proteins related to degradation of glycosaminoglycans were lower and components of cumulus extracellular matrix were higher compared to the other groups. In summary, the study revealed novel pathways associated with the maturational and developmental competence of oocytes.

Intracytoplasmic sperm injection versus conventional in vitro insemination in couples with non-male infertility factor in the 'real-world' setting: analysis of the HFEA registry.

BACKGROUND: In assisted reproductive technology (ART), the choice between intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and conventional in vitro insemination (IVF) remains a pivotal decision for couples with female or unexplained infertility. The hypothesis that ICSI may not confer significant improvements in live birth rates in the absence of a male infertility factor was explored in this study. METHODS: This was a retrospective collection of data recorded by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) in the UK from 2005 to 2018 and analysed through regression analysis models on both the entire dataset and a matched-pair subset. First fresh ART cycles were analysed according to the insemination technique in order to compare live birth as the main outcome. Cycles were included if complete information regarding infertility cause, female age, number of oocytes retrieved, allocation to ICSI or IVF, and treatment outcome in terms of live birth was available. Matching was performed at a 1:1 ratio between IVF and ICSI cycles according to the cause of infertility, female age, number of oocytes, and year of treatment. RESULTS: This study, based on 275,825 first cycles, revealed that, compared with IVF, ICSI was associated with higher fertilization rates and lower cycle cancellations rates. However, ICSI was associated with a lower chance of implantation and live birth than IVF in cycles with female-only infertility: in the entire dataset, the adjusted odds of having a live birth decreased by a factor of 0.95 (95% CI 0.91-0.99, p = 0.011), while in the matched-pair analyses it decreased by a factor of 0.91 (95% CI 0.86-0.96, p = 0.003) using ICSI compared to IVF. For unexplained infertility cycles, the adjusted odds ratios for live birth in ICSI compared to IVF cycles were 0.98 (95% CI 0.95-1.01) in the entire dataset and 0.97 (95% CI 0.93-1.01) in the matched-pair analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with IVF, ICSI was associated with a reduction in live births when ART was indicated due to female-only factors. Additionally, no significant improvements were associated with the use of ICSI in cycles with unexplained infertility. Our findings impose a critical reevaluation regarding the use of ICSI over IVF for cases with female-only factors and unexplained infertility.

Updates to Male Infertility: AUA/ASRM Guideline (2024).

PURPOSE: In 2023 the American Urological Association (AUA) requested an Update Literature Review (ULR) to incorporate new evidence generated since the 2020 publication of this Guideline. The resulting 2024 Guideline Amendment addresses updated recommendations to provide guidance on the appropriate evaluation and management of the male partner in an infertile couple. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 2023, the Male Infertility Guideline was updated through the AUA amendment process in which newly published literature is reviewed and integrated into previously published guidelines. An updated literature search identified 4093 new abstracts. Following initial abstract screening, 125 eligible study abstracts met inclusion criteria. On data extraction, 22 studies of interest were included in the final evidence base to inform the Guideline amendment. RESULTS: The Panel developed evidence- and consensus-based statements based on an updated review to provide guidance on evaluation and management of male infertility. These updates are detailed herein. CONCLUSIONS: This update provides several new insights, including revised thresholds for Y-chromosome microdeletion testing, indications for pelvic MRI imaging in infertile males, and guidance regarding the use of testicular sperm in nonazoospermic males. This Guideline will require further review as the diagnostic and treatment options in this space continue to evolve.

Pretreatment prediction for IVF outcomes: generalized applicable model or centre-specific model?

STUDY QUESTION: What was the performance of different pretreatment prediction models for IVF, which were developed based on UK/US population (McLernon 2016 model, Luke model, Dhillon model, and McLernon 2022 model), in wider populations? SUMMARY ANSWER: For a patient in China, the published pretreatment prediction models based on the UK/US population provide similar discriminatory power with reasonable AUCs and underestimated predictions. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Several pretreatment prediction models for IVF allow patients and clinicians to estimate the cumulative probability of live birth in a cycle before the treatment, but they are mostly based on the population of Europe or the USA, and their performance and applicability in the countries and regions beyond these regions are largely unknown. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A total of 26 382 Chinese patients underwent oocyte pick-up cycles between January 2013 and December 2020. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: UK/US model performance was externally validated according to the coefficients and intercepts they provided. Centre-specific models were established with XGboost, Lasso, and generalized linear model algorithms. Discriminatory power and calibration of the models were compared as the forms of the AUC of the Receiver Operator Characteristic and calibration curves. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The AUCs for McLernon 2016 model, Luke model, Dhillon model, and McLernon 2022 model were 0.69 (95% CI 0.68-0.69), 0.67 (95% CI 0.67-0.68), 0.69 (95% CI 0.68-0.69), and 0.67 (95% CI 0.67-0.68), respectively. The centre-specific yielded an AUC of 0.71 (95% CI 0.71-0.72) with key predictors including age, duration of infertility, and endocrine parameters. All external models suggested underestimation. Among the external models, the rescaled McLernon 2022 model demonstrated the best calibration (Slope 1.12, intercept 0.06). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study is limited by its single-centre design and may not be representative elsewhere. Only per-complete cycle validation was carried out to provide a similar framework to compare different models in the sample population. Newer predictors, such as AMH, were not used. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Existing pretreatment prediction models for IVF may be used to provide useful discriminatory power in populations different from those on which they were developed. However, models based on newer more relevant datasets may provide better calibrations. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China [grant number 22176159], the Xiamen Medical Advantage Subspecialty Construction Project [grant number 2018296], and the Special Fund for Clinical and Scientific Research of Chinese Medical Association [grant number 18010360765]. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Unexplained infertility and age-related infertility: indistinguishable diagnostic entities but different IVF prognosis.

STUDY QUESTION: Is IVF indicated for couples with age-related infertility? SUMMARY ANSWER: IVF may be of doubtful utility for age-related infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A diagnosis of unexplained infertility is drawn when the diagnostic work-up fails to identify any patent cause. Although typically managed uniformly, unexplained infertility is likely to comprise a wide range of conditions, including age-related infertility (at least in older women). Unfortunately, no validated tests for the identification of age-related infertility exist and these women are typically treated as unexplained cases. However, homologous ART may be less effective for these women because these techniques may be unable to treat the detrimental effects of ageing on oocyte competence. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Women aged 18-42 years who underwent IVF procedures between January 2014 and December 2021 were selected retrospectively. In the first part of the study, we aimed to assess whether the proportion of women with unexplained infertility (i.e. without patent causes of infertility) increased with age. In the second part of the study, women with unexplained infertility were matched 1:1 by age, study period, and duration of infertility, to those with a patent cause of infertility. If our hypothesis is valid, the first part of the study should highlight an increase in the proportion of unexplained infertility with age. Moreover, in the second part of the study, one should observe a sharper decrease in the rate of IVF success of the procedure with age in women with an unremarkable work-up compared to those with a definite cause of infertility. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women were included if: they had been trying to conceive for more than 2 years, they had retrieved more than three oocytes, and had not undergone previous IVF attempts. We exclude couples with severe male factor (criptozoospermia), chronic anovulation, untreated hydrosalpinx, or intracavitary diseases. The first part of the study aimed at investigating the relative proportion of unexplained infertility with age. The outcome of the second part was the distribution of the live births between unexplained versus explained infertility, in women younger or older than 35 years. Only the results of the first IVF cycle were considered (including both fresh and frozen cycles). The live birth rate corresponded to the cumulative chance of a live birth per oocyte retrieval. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: One thousand five hundred and thirty-five women were selected for the first part of the study; 742 of them had unexplained infertility (48%). The frequency of this diagnosis was lower among women aged <35 years (40%) compared to those ≥35 years (52%) (P < 0.001). A clear gradient emerged when considering smaller intervals of age (P < 0.001). A total of 1134 women (567 unexplained cases and 567 explained cases) were selected for the second part of the study. Baseline variables were comparable between women with unexplained and explained infertility. Among women younger than 35 years (n = 229 unexplained cases and 229 explained cases), 108 live births were observed in women with unexplained infertility (47%) and 88 in those with explained infertility (38%). In comparison, among women older than 35 years, the live births occurred in 90 (27%) and 114 (34%) couples, respectively (P = 0.03). The adjusted odds ratio (OR) for a live birth in older women with unexplained infertility was 0.63 (95% CI: 0.43-0.94). In other words, the effectiveness of IVF in older women with unexplained infertility is reduced by an additional 37% when compared to women of similar age with a patent cause of infertility. Moreover, when considering smaller intervals of age, a gradient of the adverse effect of age on the distribution of live births between unexplained and explained infertility emerged (P = 0.003). Overall, these results support the hypothesis that IVF may be of modest benefit in women with age-related infertility. The decline in IVF success is sharper in women with unexplained infertility compared to those with explained infertility, indirectly suggesting that IVF cannot effectively treat age-related infertility. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We postulated that the greater decline in IVF success with age in the unexplained group could be related to the concomitant increase in the proportion of women with age-related infertility. However, even if this is theoretically logical, the unavailability of validated tools to diagnose age-related infertility makes our inference speculative. We cannot exclude that the prevalence of other unknown causes of infertility that cannot also be effectively overcome with IVF could increase with age. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our findings suggest that IVF may be of modest utility for treating age-related infertility. Offering this procedure to older women with an unremarkable infertility work-up may be questioned. However, the diagnosis of age-related infertility remains challenging and identifying a biomarker that could reliably diagnose age-related infertility is a priority. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was partially funded by the Italian Ministry of Health-current research IRCCS and by a specific grant supported by Ferring. ES declares receiving honoraria for lectures at meetings from IBSA and Gedeon-Richter and he also handles private grants of research from Ferring, IBSA, Theramex, and Gedeon-Richter. All the other authors do not have any conflict of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Protocol change improves live birth and recurrent cycle cancellation rates after a previous IVF cycle cancellation: an analysis of 13 000 autologous cycles reported to SART CORS.

STUDY QUESTION: After an IVF cycle cancellation, does changing the stimulation protocol affect the odds of live birth and recurrent cancellation in the subsequent cycle? SUMMARY ANSWER: After IVF cycle cancellation, compared to those who repeated the same stimulation protocol, those who changed their protocol had higher odds of live birth and lower odds of recurrent cycle cancellation. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: There is limited data addressing the effect of changing the stimulation protocol after an IVF cycle is cancelled during initial stimulation. The odds of live birth outcomes are not known so far in studies addressing the effect of changing the protocol. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Retrospective Cohort Study using the 2014-2017 Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System (SART CORS) database. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The data included 13 135 patients with a first autologous IVF cycle that resulted in a cycle cancellation and was followed by a second autologous cycle within the study period. We excluded fertility preservation cycles, supernumerary cycle attempts after the second IVF cycle attempt, and cycles with more than one stimulation protocol documented per cycle start. Patients who received the same protocol for both cycles (n = 6434) were compared to those who changed their protocol in the second cycle (n = 6701). Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to estimate the adjusted odds of live birth and recurrent cancellation. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Changing the protocol in the second cycle resulted 14% lower odds of recurrent cycle cancellation (P = 0.01) and 17% higher odds of live birth after fresh transfers (P = 0.04). When stratifying the data by specific combinations of protocol change (agonist flare, agonist suppression, antagonist), there was an increase in live birth when switching from antagonist to agonist suppression (odds ratio (OR) = 1.36, P = 0.03) and from agonist suppression to antagonist (OR = 1.73, P = 0.01) compared to those who repeated their same stimulation protocol. Specifically in poor responders, outcomes were worse when using the agonist flare protocol and significantly improved with the agonist suppression protocol. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Comparison of response to stimulation between first and second cycles cannot be made in this study because the index IVF cycle was cancelled during ovarian stimulation, and thus there is no reportable outcome data for that cycle. Additionally, SART only tracks the three stimulation protocols addressed in this study and does not have data on more contemporary protocols that are used in poor responders thus limiting the generalizability of our findings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Using the SART CORS database, which includes >90% of all reported IVF cycles in the USA, provides generalizability to the demographically diverse IVF populations found here. In agreement with prior studies assessing change in IVF protocols, the agonist flare protocol seems to result in worse IVF outcomes, and based on our results, we believe that there is no role for the agonist flare protocol in patients with a prior poor response to stimulation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): None declared. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

What do women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) understand about their chance of IVF success?

STUDY QUESTION: How well informed are Australian women who undergo IVF about their chances of having a baby? SUMMARY ANSWER: Only one in four women estimated their individual chance of success with IVF accurately, with most women overestimating their chance. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Limited knowledge about infertility and infertility treatment in the general population is well-documented. The few studies that have investigated patients' knowledge about the chance of IVF success suggest that while IVF patients are aware of average success rates, they tend to be unrealistic about their own chance of success. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We conducted an anonymous online survey of 217 women who had started IVF since 2018 in Australia. The survey was advertised on social media, enabling women from across Australia to participate. Responses were collected in June 2021. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The survey included questions on demographic characteristics and IVF history. It asked what participants thought their chance of having a baby from one IVF treatment cycle was, how they rated their knowledge about chance of success, and about their experience of receiving IVF-related information. Participants' estimations of their chance of success were compared with their chance as calculated by the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology's (SART) online calculator. Responses to a free-text question about what information women wished they had been given when they started treatment were analysed thematically. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Only about a quarter (58/217, 27%) of participants accurately estimated their chance of having a baby within 20% relative to their SART calculated chance, with more than half (118/217, 54%) overestimating their chance. Ninety percent of women indicated that their preferred source of treatment information was a consultation with their doctor, despite less than half (44%) reporting that doctors explained the probability of having a baby with IVF well (mean 5.9/10). In free-text responses, many women also reported that they wished they had been given more realistic information about IVF and their chance of success. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The dissemination method precludes calculation of response rate, and it is not possible to know if participants are representative of all women undergoing IVF. Additionally, we only surveyed women undergoing IVF, while those who decided not to have IVF were not included. Therefore, women who overestimated their chance may have been overrepresented. There is also inherent imprecision in the way understanding of chance of success was estimated. The potential impact of recall bias could neither be quantified nor excluded. It is difficult to determine to what extent women's lack of understanding of what is possible with IVF is due to poor information-provision by clinicians and the clinic, and how much can be explained by optimism bias. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The finding of poor understanding of personal chance of success amongst women undergoing IVF in Australia requires further investigation to determine potential reasons for this. The findings can be used by clinics to develop strategies for improvement in the information-provision process to ensure that women can make informed decisions about their fertility treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study received no external funding. S.L. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator Grant (APP1195189). R.W. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator Grant (APP2009767). B.W.M. is supported by a NHMRC Investigator Grant (GNT1176437). B.W.M. reports consultancy for Merck and ObsEva and has received research funding and travel funding from Merck. The other authors have no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Oral dydrogesterone versus micronized vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support: a double-blind crossover study investigating pharmacokinetics and impact on the endometrium.

STUDY QUESTION: How do plasma progesterone (P) and dydrogesterone (D) concentrations together with endometrial histology, transcriptomic signatures, and immune cell composition differ when oral dydrogesterone (O-DYD) or micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) is used for luteal phase support (LPS)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Although after O-DYD intake, even at steady-state, plasma D and 20αdihydrodydrogesterone (DHD) concentrations spiked in comparison to P concentrations, a similar endometrial signature was observed by histological and transcriptomic analysis of the endometrium. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: O-DYD for LPS has been proven to be noninferior compared to MVP in two phase III randomized controlled trials. Additionally, a combined individual participant data and aggregate data meta-analysis indicated that a higher pregnancy rate and live birth rate may be obtained in women receiving O-DYD versus MVP for LPS in fresh IVF/ICSI cycles. Little data are available on the pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of O-DYD versus MVP and their potential molecular differences at the level of the reproductive organs, particularly at the endometrial level. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Thirty oocyte donors were planned to undergo two ovarian stimulation (OS) cycles with dual triggering (1.000 IU hCG + 0.2 mg triptorelin), each followed by 1 week of LPS: O-DYD or MVP, in a randomized, cross-over, double-blind, double-dummy fashion. On both the first and eighth days of LPS, serial blood samples upon first dosing were harvested for plasma D, DHD, and P concentration analyses. On Day 8 of LPS, an endometrial biopsy was collected for histologic examination, transcriptomics, and immune cell analysis. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: All oocyte donors were <35 years old, had regular menstrual cycles, no intrauterine contraceptive device, anti-Müllerian hormone within normal range and a BMI ≤29 kg/m2. OS was performed on a GnRH antagonist protocol followed by dual triggering (1.000 IU hCG + 0.2 mg triptorelin) as soon as ≥3 follicles of 20 mm were present. Following oocyte retrieval, subjects initiated LPS consisting of MVP 200 mg or O-DYD 10 mg, both three times daily. D, DHD, and P plasma levels were measured using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Histological assessment was carried out using the Noyes criteria. Endometrial RNA-sequencing was performed for individual biopsies and differential gene expression was analyzed. Endometrial single-cell suspensions were created followed by flow cytometry for immune cell typing. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 21 women completed the entire study protocol. Subjects and stimulation characteristics were found to be similar between groups. Following the first dose of O-DYD, the average observed maximal plasma concentrations (Cmax) for D and DHD were 2.9 and 77 ng/ml, respectively. The Cmax for D and DHD was reached after 1.5 and 1.6 h (=Tmax), respectively. On the eighth day of LPS, the first administration of that day gave rise to a Cmax of 3.6 and 88 ng/ml for D and DHD, respectively. For both, the observed Tmax was 1.5 h. Following the first dose of MVP, the Cmax for P was 16 ng/ml with a Tmax of 4.2 h. On the eighth day of LPS, the first administration of that day showed a Cmax for P of 21 ng/ml with a Tmax of 7.3 h. All 42 biopsies showed endometrium in the secretory phase. The mean cycle day was 23.9 (±1.2) in the O-DYD group versus 24.0 (±1.3) in the MVP group. RNA-sequencing did not reveal significantly differentially expressed genes between samples of both study groups. The average Euclidean distance between samples following O-DYD was significantly lower than following MVP (respectively 12.1 versus 18.8, Mann-Whitney P = 6.98e-14). Immune cell profiling showed a decrease of CD3 T-cell, γδ T-cell, and B-cell frequencies after MVP treatment compared to O-DYD, while the frequency of natural killer (NK) cells was significantly increased. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The main reason for caution is the small sample size, given the basic research nature of the project. The plasma concentrations are best estimates as this was not a formal PK study. Whole tissue bulk RNA-sequencing has been performed not correcting for bias caused by different tissue compositions across biopsies. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first study comparing O-DYD/MVP, head-to-head, in a randomized design on a molecular level in IVF/ICSI. Plasma serum concentrations suggest that administration frequency is important, in addition to dose, specifically for O-DYD showing a rapid clearance. The molecular endometrial data are overall comparable and thus support the previously reported noninferior reproductive outcomes for O-DYD as compared to MVP. Further research is needed to explore the smaller intersample distance following O-DYD and the subtle changes detected in endometrial immune cells. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Not related to this work, C.Bl. has received honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing, educational events, or scientific advice from Abbott, Ferring, Organon, Cooper Surgical, Gedeon-Richter, IBSA, and Merck. H.T. has received honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing, educational events, or scientific advice from Abbott, Ferring, Cooper Surgical, Gedeon-Richter, Cook, and Goodlife. S.M. has received honoraria for lectures, presentations, educational events, or scientific advice from Abbott, Cooper Surgical, Gedeon-Richter, IBSA, and Merck and Oxolife. G.G. has received honoraria for lectures, presentations, educational events, or scientific advice from Merck, MSD, Organon, Ferring, Theramex, Gedeon-Richter, Abbott, Biosilu, ReprodWissen, Obseva, PregLem, Guerbet, Cooper, Igyxos, and OxoLife. S.V.-S. is listed as inventor on two patents (WO2019115755A1 and WO2022073973A1), which are not related to this work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EUDRACT 2018-000105-23.

Comparison of embryologist stress, somatization, and burnout reported by embryologists working in UK HFEA-licensed ART/IVF clinics and USA ART/IVF clinics.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the prevalence of occupational stress, somatization, and burnout reported by UK and US, embryologists and the impact of work conditions on these well-being outcomes? SUMMARY ANSWER: Surveyed UK and US embryologists reported moderate perceived stress, low somatic symptom severity, high levels of burnout, and overall stressful work conditions, but with differences that could be due to country-specific occupational and employment characteristics. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY?: Spanish, UK, US, and international surveys have identified high levels of occupational stress, somatization, burnout, and occupational health issues among embryologists. These issues have been attributed to embryologists' occupational challenges and work conditions. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A cross-sectional web-based survey was sent to 253 embryologists working in UK ART/IVF clinics and 487 embryologists working in US ART/IVF clinics. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants self-reported their stress levels, somatization, burnout, and work conditions. Proportions across the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-15), Maslach Burnout Inventory-General Survey (MBI-GS), a single-item work unit grade (A-F), and customized occupational and sociodemographic questionnaires were calculated using descriptive statistics. Welch's t-test was utilized to compare PSS and PHQ-15 scores between groups. Risk ratios were calculated using log-binomial regression for all models except for levels of anxiety related to performing cryostorage tasks, for which Poisson models were used. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In total, 50.6% (128) of the embryologists in the UK and 50.1% (244) in the US completed the survey. Both groups self-reported moderate PSS and low PHQ-15 scores, although fewer UK embryologists scored high on the MBI cynicism dimension than their US colleagues (43% UK vs 60% US embryologists, P < 0.05). The UK and US embryologists did not differ on the MBI exhaustion dimension with both scoring high for exhaustion (59% UK vs 62% US). Although 81% and 80% of UK and US embryologists, respectively, reported working overtime, more embryologists in the UK reported being adequately compensated. Increasing levels of anxiety-related to cryostorage showed a dose-dependent increased risk of burnout on at least two MBI-GS dimensions only in the UK group, and, a dose-dependent likelihood of higher PSS and PHQ-15 scores in both groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Since the two groups were surveyed 9 months apart and were self-reporting, the study is limited by the differences in responsibilities, scheduling, and workload specific to the time of year. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Work-related health issues and occupational challenges shared by UK and US embryologists could be addressed by organizational enhancements and technology. Lower levels of stress and burnout among UK embryologists might be due to the HFEA-provided structure/certainty. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported without any external funding by TMRW Life Sciences Inc., which is developing and commercializing an automated platform for embryology. M.G.C. and M.S.L. are full-time employees and stockholders/shareholders with TMRW Life Sciences, and A.M. of Novavax, Inc. was an employee of TMRW Life Sciences. G.P. is a consultant for TMRW Life Sciences. The remaining authors declare no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05326802; NCT05708963.

Trophectoderm biopsy of blastocysts following IVF and embryo culture increases epigenetic dysregulation in a mouse model.

STUDY QUESTION: Does trophectoderm biopsy (TEBx) of blastocysts for preimplantation genetic testing in the clinic affect normal placental and embryo development and offspring metabolic outcomes in a mouse model? SUMMARY ANSWER: TEBx impacts placental and embryonic health during early development, with some alterations resolving and others worsening later in development and triggering metabolic changes in adult offspring. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Previous studies have not assessed the epigenetic and morphological impacts of TEBx either in human populations or in animal models. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We employed a mouse model to identify the effects of TEBx during IVF. Three groups were assessed: naturally conceived (Naturals), IVF, and IVF + TEBx, at two developmental timepoints: embryonic day (E)12.5 (n = 40/Naturals, n = 36/IVF, and n = 36/IVF + TEBx) and E18.5 (n = 42/Naturals, n = 30/IVF, and n = 35/IVF + TEBx). Additionally, to mimic clinical practice, we assessed a fourth group: IVF + TEBx + Vitrification (Vit) at E12.5 (n = 29) that combines TEBx and vitrification. To assess the effect of TEBx in offspring health, we characterized a 12-week-old cohort (n = 24/Naturals, n = 25/IVF and n = 25/IVF + TEBx). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Our mouse model used CF-1 females as egg donors and SJL/B6 males as sperm donors. IVF, TEBx, and vitrification were performed using standardized methods. Placenta morphology was evaluated by hematoxylin-eosin staining, in situ hybridization using Tpbpa as a junctional zone marker and immunohistochemistry using CD34 fetal endothelial cell markers. For molecular analysis of placentas and embryos, DNA methylation was analyzed using pyrosequencing, luminometric methylation assay, and chip array technology. Expression patterns were ascertained by RNA sequencing. Triglycerides, total cholesterol, high-, low-, and very low-density lipoprotein, insulin, and glucose were determined in the 12-week-old cohort using commercially available kits. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We observed that at E12.5, IVF + TEBx had a worse outcome in terms of changes in DNA methylation and differential gene expression in placentas and whole embryos compared with IVF alone and compared with Naturals. These changes were reflected in alterations in placental morphology and blood vessel density. At E18.5, early molecular changes in fetuses were maintained or exacerbated. With respect to placentas, the molecular and morphological changes, although different compared to Naturals, were equivalent to the IVF group, except for changes in blood vessel density, which persisted. Of note is that most differences were sex specific. We conclude that TEBx has more detrimental effects in mid-gestation placental and embryonic tissues, with alterations in embryonic tissues persisting or worsening in later developmental stages compared to IVF alone, and the addition of vitrification after TEBx results in more pronounced and potentially detrimental epigenetic effects: these changes are significantly different compared to Naturals. Finally, we observed that 12-week IVF + TEBx offspring, regardless of sex, showed higher glucose, insulin, triglycerides, lower total cholesterol, and lower high-density lipoprotein compared to IVF and Naturals, with only males having higher body weight compared to IVF and Naturals. Our findings in a mouse model additionally support the need for more studies to assess the impact of new procedures in ART to ensure healthy pregnancies and offspring outcomes. LARGE SCALE DATA: Data reported in this work have been deposited in the NCBI Gene Expression Omnibus under accession number GSE225318. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study was performed using a mouse model that mimics many clinical IVF procedures and outcomes observed in humans, where studies on early embryos are not possible. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study highlights the importance of assaying new procedures used in ART to assess their impact on placenta and embryo development, and offspring metabolic outcomes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was funded by a National Centers for Translational Research in Reproduction and Infertility grant P50 HD068157-06A1 (M.S.B., C.C., M.M.), Ruth L. Kirschstein National Service Award Individual Postdoctoral Fellowship F32 HD107914 (E.A.R.-C.) and F32 HD089623 (L.A.V.), and National Institutes of Health Training program in Cell and Molecular Biology T32 GM007229 (C.N.H.). No conflict of interest.

Intra-patient analysis of individual weight gain or loss between IVF cycles: cycle now and transfer later.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the impact of clinically significant weight change on outcomes related to IVF cycle performance? SUMMARY ANSWER: While individual weight loss did not significantly impact ovarian response to stimulation or other cycle outcome parameters in our study, some positive associations were found for individual weight gain. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The role of weight-change in patients undergoing IVF has been largely studied by comparing weight loss in different cohorts of patients stratified by a static BMI. Specifically, obesity has been extensively studied in relation to its negative effects on assisted or unassisted conception outcomes and ovulatory function. Previous research has shown conflicting results, while BMI, which is commonly used as a marker of obesity, may not accurately reflect the underlying factors affecting fertility in obese patients. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This study utilized a retrospective within-patient repeated measurement analysis design to assess the impact of weight change on IVF outcomes in cycles where all embryos were cryopreserved at the blastocyst stage for transfer at a later date. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The study was conducted at an academically affiliated fertility center. The data included 961 women who underwent at least two IVF cycles between December 2014 and June 2020, with documented short-term weight gain (n = 607) or weight loss (n = 354) within 1 year from their initial IVF cycle. Multivariable generalized estimating equations (GEE) and generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) were employed to assess associations between weight change and outcomes across cycles. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The multivariable models indicated that weight loss did not show any significant associations with the numbers of oocytes retrieved, or mature oocytes, the fertilization rate or the blastulation rate. However, weight gain demonstrated a minor positive association with the number of oocytes retrieved in both GEE models (coefficient: 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00-0.01) and GLMM models (0.01, 95% CI: 0.01-0.00). There was also a potential increase in the fertilization rate with weight gain, as indicated by a positive coefficient in both GEE models (coefficient: 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00-0.02) and GLMM models (coefficient: 0.01, 95% CI: 0.00-0.01). However, the association between weight gain and the embryo blastulation rate was not statistically significant in any model. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study focused on cycle performance parameters instead of reproductive outcomes, which restricted our ability to evaluate the impact of weight change on cumulative live birth rates. Additionally, the study did not account for variables such as stimulation protocols, potentially introducing confounding factors and limiting the generalizability of the results. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Although obesity is associated with adverse obstetrical risks, there is less evidence of adverse reproductive outcomes in IVF cycles. We therefore recommend that an IVF cycle should not be delayed due to weight, so that the patient is not adversely affected by increasing age. The IVF cycle should aim to freeze all embryos, so that embryo transfer can then occur after weight loss, so as to limit the recognized obstetrical risks. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was not funded and there were no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Applying a simplified economic evaluation approach to evaluate infertility treatments in clinical practice.

IVF is the backbone of infertility treatment, but due to its costs, it is not affordable for everyone. The cost of IVF is further escalated by interventions added to the routine treatment, which are claimed to boost pregnancy rates, so-called add-ons. Consequently, it is critical to offset the increased costs of an intervention against a potentially higher benefit. Here, we propose using a simplified framework considering the cost of a standard IVF procedure to create one live-born baby as a benchmark for the cost-effectiveness of other fertility treatments, add-ons inclusive. This framework is a simplified approach to a formal economic evaluation, enabling a rapid assessment of cost effectiveness in clinical settings. For a 30-year-old woman, assuming a 44.6% cumulative live birth rate and a cost of $12 000 per complete cycle, the cost to create one live-born baby would be ∼$27 000 (i.e. willingness to pay). Under this concept, the decision whether to accept or reject a new treatment depends from an economic perspective on the incremental cost per additional live birth from the new treatment/add-on, with the $27 000 per live-born baby as a reference threshold. This threshold can vary with women's age, and other factors such as the economic perspective and risk of side effects can play a role. If a new add-on or treatment costs >$27 000 per live birth, it might be more rational to invest in a new IVF cycle rather than spending on the add-on. With the increasing number of novel technologies in IVF and the lack of a rapid approach to evaluate their cost-effectiveness, this simplified framework will help with a more objective assessment of the cost-effectiveness of infertility treatments, including add-ons.

BlastAssist: a deep learning pipeline to measure interpretable features of human embryos.

STUDY QUESTION: Can the BlastAssist deep learning pipeline perform comparably to or outperform human experts and embryologists at measuring interpretable, clinically relevant features of human embryos in IVF? SUMMARY ANSWER: The BlastAssist pipeline can measure a comprehensive set of interpretable features of human embryos and either outperform or perform comparably to embryologists and human experts in measuring these features. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Some studies have applied deep learning and developed 'black-box' algorithms to predict embryo viability directly from microscope images and videos but these lack interpretability and generalizability. Other studies have developed deep learning networks to measure individual features of embryos but fail to conduct careful comparisons to embryologists' performance, which are fundamental to demonstrate the network's effectiveness. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We applied the BlastAssist pipeline to 67 043 973 images (32 939 embryos) recorded in the IVF lab from 2012 to 2017 in Tel Aviv Sourasky Medical Center. We first compared the pipeline measurements of individual images/embryos to manual measurements by human experts for sets of features, including: (i) fertilization status (n = 207 embryos), (ii) cell symmetry (n = 109 embryos), (iii) degree of fragmentation (n = 6664 images), and (iv) developmental timing (n = 21 036 images). We then conducted detailed comparisons between pipeline outputs and annotations made by embryologists during routine treatments for features, including: (i) fertilization status (n = 18 922 embryos), (ii) pronuclei (PN) fade time (n = 13 781 embryos), (iii) degree of fragmentation on Day 2 (n = 11 582 embryos), and (iv) time of blastulation (n = 3266 embryos). In addition, we compared the pipeline outputs to the implantation results of 723 single embryo transfer (SET) cycles, and to the live birth results of 3421 embryos transferred in 1801 cycles. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In addition to EmbryoScope™ image data, manual embryo grading and annotations, and electronic health record (EHR) data on treatment outcomes were also included. We integrated the deep learning networks we developed for individual features to construct the BlastAssist pipeline. Pearson's χ2 test was used to evaluate the statistical independence of individual features and implantation success. Bayesian statistics was used to evaluate the association of the probability of an embryo resulting in live birth to BlastAssist inputs. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The BlastAssist pipeline integrates five deep learning networks and measures comprehensive, interpretable, and quantitative features in clinical IVF. The pipeline performs similarly or better than manual measurements. For fertilization status, the network performs with very good parameters of specificity and sensitivity (area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) 0.84-0.94). For symmetry score, the pipeline performs comparably to the human expert at both 2-cell (r = 0.71 ± 0.06) and 4-cell stages (r = 0.77 ± 0.07). For degree of fragmentation, the pipeline (acc = 69.4%) slightly under-performs compared to human experts (acc = 73.8%). For developmental timing, the pipeline (acc = 90.0%) performs similarly to human experts (acc = 91.4%). There is also strong agreement between pipeline outputs and annotations made by embryologists during routine treatments. For fertilization status, the pipeline and embryologists strongly agree (acc = 79.6%), and there is strong correlation between the two measurements (r = 0.683). For degree of fragmentation, the pipeline and embryologists mostly agree (acc = 55.4%), and there is also strong correlation between the two measurements (r = 0.648). For both PN fade time (r = 0.787) and time of blastulation (r = 0.887), there's strong correlation between the pipeline and embryologists. For SET cycles, 2-cell time (P < 0.01) and 2-cell symmetry (P < 0.03) are significantly correlated with implantation success rate, while other features showed correlations with implantation success without statistical significance. In addition, 2-cell time (P < 5 × 10-11), PN fade time (P < 5 × 10-10), degree of fragmentation on Day 3 (P < 5 × 10-4), and 2-cell symmetry (P < 5 × 10-3) showed statistically significant correlation with the probability of the transferred embryo resulting in live birth. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We have not tested the BlastAssist pipeline on data from other clinics or other time-lapse microscopy (TLM) systems. The association study we conducted with live birth results do not take into account confounding variables, which will be necessary to construct an embryo selection algorithm. Randomized controlled trials (RCT) will be necessary to determine whether the pipeline can improve success rates in clinical IVF. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: BlastAssist provides a comprehensive and holistic means of evaluating human embryos. Instead of using a black-box algorithm, BlastAssist outputs meaningful measurements of embryos that can be interpreted and corroborated by embryologists, which is crucial in clinical decision making. Furthermore, the unprecedentedly large dataset generated by BlastAssist measurements can be used as a powerful resource for further research in human embryology and IVF. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported by Harvard Quantitative Biology Initiative, the NSF-Simons Center for Mathematical and Statistical Analysis of Biology at Harvard (award number 1764269), the National Institute of Heath (award number R01HD104969), the Perelson Fund, and the Sagol fund for embryos and stem cells as part of the Sagol Network. The authors declare no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Fertility clinics have a duty of care towards patients who do not have children with treatment.

In medically assisted reproduction (MAR) success has mostly been measured in terms of achieving (healthy) livebirths. We argue this focus is too narrow and that success should be measured in terms of alleviating patient suffering caused by an unfulfilled child wish. The major implication is that clinics must better tailored care to effectively support patients who do not have child(ren) with treatment. First, we argue that clinics have a duty of care towards patients for whom MAR does not result in children because this is a common treatment outcome, because treatment is burdensome and creates new losses for patients, and because the field has the necessary expertise to provide support and it is part of patient-centred care. Then, we examine concerns about the adequacy of addressing the possibility that treatment may end without children, namely, that this may hinder patients' hope and put them off doing treatment, and that it may be perceived as a sign of clinical incompetence, as well as concerns about the required skill set. We end with a set of research-informed recommendations to promote healthy adjustment to ending fertility treatment without children. These focus on the need to reconceptualize 'success' and 'failure' in MAR, to promote open discussion about the possibility of treatment not resulting in children and encourage patients to develop 'plan(s) B', to support patients who end treatment without children, and to create the organizational structures needed to support clinics and healthcare professionals in this endeavour.

Livebirth rates are influenced by an interaction between male and female partners' age: analysis of 59 951 fresh IVF/ICSI cycles with and without male infertility.

STUDY QUESTION: Does advanced male partner's age impact live birth rates (LBRs) in IVF treatment when female partner's age is factored in? SUMMARY ANSWER: In fresh IVF cycles LBRs decline with male partner's age ≥40 years when the female partner is aged 35-39 years, irrespective of the presence or absence of male factor; but not when the female partner is <35 years or ≥40 years of age; this decline is not observed in ICSI cycles. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Advanced paternal age is associated with declining sperm parameters, impaired embryo development, compromised pregnancy outcomes, and abnormalities in the offspring in IVF/ICSI cycles. However, data on the interaction between maternal and paternal age on IVF outcomes are very limited and inconsistent. No significant effect of male partner's age on pregnancy outcomes has been noted in donor oocyte cycles. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Retrospective analysis of all eligible autologous IVF/ICSI cycles with oocyte retrieval and intended fresh embryo transfer (ET) from the UK's national anonymized registry, published online by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). There were 59 951 cycles that qualified the inclusion criteria in the study period: 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2018. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Couples underwent IVF (n = 27 226) or ICSI (n = 32 725) treatment with partner's sperm followed by fresh ET due to unexplained (n = 31 846), tubal (n = 6605), or male infertility (n = 22 905). Treatment cycles with endometriosis (n = 5563), ovulatory disorders (n = 9970), female partner aged >44 years (n = 636), and PGT (n = 280) were excluded. Women were stratified by age in the following groups: <35, 35-39, 40-42, and 43-44 years; male partner's age as <35 (reference group), 35-37, 38-39, 40-42, 43-44, 45-50, 51-55, 55-60, and >55 years as presented by the HFEA. Some age-groups were merged in the analysis to increase the population size. Chi-square test was used to compare binominal data; and multiple logistic regression to find any association between male and female age-groups on live birth adjusting for other confounders that had a significant effect on this outcome. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: LBRs per oocyte retrieval as well as per ET were no different across the male partners' age-groups when the female partners were aged <35 years or in 40- to 44-year age-group, whether male-factor infertility was included or excluded and whether it was IVF or ICSI cycle. However, when IVF was the method of insemination in the female partner's age-group of 35-39 years, LBRs per oocyte retrieval dropped significantly from 27.0% in the male age-group of <35 years (reference group) to 22.9% (P = 0.002), 22.0% (P = 0.006), and 18.8% (P = 0.004) in 40-44, 45-50, and >50 years age-group, respectively in population that included male-factor infertility. Likewise, LBR per retrieval declined from 27.6% in 35 years age-group to 23.5% (P = 0.002) and 22.2% (P = 002) in 40-44 years and older groups, respectively in cycles without male infertility. However, there was no impact of male age on LBR in any female partner's age-group when ICSI was performed in either the presence or the absence of male infertility. A similar decline in the LBR per retrieval and per ET was observed in female age-group of 35-39 years in the analyses with IVF and ICSI cycles combined. The inference remained unchanged when only the first treatment cycle was included (per patient analysis) or when single blastocyst transfer cycles were analysed, eliminating the impact of the number and stage of embryo transferred. After adjusting for confounders including male age, female age, number of previous treatment cycles, previous live birth, insemination method (IVF or ICSI), number of embryos transferred, and day (stage) of ET, male partner's age remained significantly associated with LBR in the female age-group of 35-39 years, but not when women were in <35 years or 40- to 44-year age-group, in population including as well as excluding male infertility. Miscarriage rates per single ET trended to rise (non-significantly) in IVF as well as ICSI cycle only when men were over 55 years and female partners aged <40 years, particularly when male infertility was excluded. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Information on ovarian reserve and stimulation protocols was not available. This probably would have had little impact, given the large size of the population studied. The ages of female and male partners were given in groups necessitating taking them as ordinal variable in the regression analysis. Cumulative LBRs could not be determined as the information on subsequent frozen-thawed ET cycles could not be traced and the severity or cause of abnormal semen parameters were not present in the HFEA database. Some age-groups with small number of patients were merged to obtain a reliable result. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the largest clinical data to support the laboratory evidence of the ability of oocytes from young women to reverse the age-related deterioration of sperm quality. As the ageing oocytes lose this reparatory mechanism, the ageing sperm exert a detrimental effect on the LBR. The message of this study is important in counselling of patients and planning out treatment. Further research on interaction between male and female age will increase our understanding of this matter and help to establish whether ICSI procedure is more appropriate for older male partners even when there is no apparent semen abnormality. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No funding was required. There is no competing interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A (retrospective analysis).

Survey on ART and IUI: legislation, regulation, funding, and registries in European countries-an update.

STUDY QUESTION: How are ART and IUI regulated, funded, and registered in European countries, and how has the situation changed since 2018? SUMMARY ANSWER: Of the 43 countries performing ART and IUI in Europe, and participating in the survey, specific legislation exists in only 39 countries, public funding varies across and sometimes within countries (and is lacking or minimal in four countries), and national registries are in place in 33 countries; only a small number of changes were identified, most of them in the direction of improving accessibility, through increased public financial support and/or opening access to additional subgroups. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The annual reports of the European IVF-Monitoring Consortium (EIM) clearly show the existence of different approaches across Europe regarding accessibility to and efficacy of ART and IUI treatments. In a previous survey, some coherent information was gathered about how those techniques were regulated, funded, and registered in European countries, showing that diversity is the paradigm in this medical field. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A survey was designed using the SurveyMonkey tool consisting of 90 questions covering several domains (legal, funding, and registry) and considering specific details on the situation of third-party donations. New questions widened the scope of the previous survey. Answers refer to the situation of countries on 31 December 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTINGS, METHODS: All members of the EIM were invited to participate. The received answers were checked and initial responders were asked to address unclear answers and to provide any additional information considered relevant. Tables resulting from the consolidated data were then sent to members of the Committee of National Representatives of ESHRE, requesting a second check. Conflicting information was clarified by direct contact. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Information was received from 43 out of the 45 European countries where ART and IUI are performed. There were 39 countries with specific legislation on ART, and artificial insemination was considered an ART technique in 33 of them. Accessibility is limited to infertile couples only in 8 of the 43 countries. In 5 countries, ART and IUI are permitted also for treatments of single women and all same sex couples, while a total of 33 offer treatment to single women and 19 offer treatment to female couples. Use of donated sperm is allowed in all except 2 countries, oocyte donation is allowed in 38, simultaneous donation of sperm and oocyte is allowed in 32, and embryo donation is allowed in 29 countries. Preimplantation genetic testing (PGT)-M/SR (for monogenetic disorders, structural rearrangements) is not allowed in 3 countries and PGT-A (for aneuploidy) is not allowed in 10; surrogacy is accepted in 15 countries. Except for marital/sexual situation, female age is the most frequently reported limiting criterion for legal access to ART: minimal age is usually set at 18 years and the maximum ranges from 42 to 54 with some countries not using numeric definition. Male maximum age is set in very few countries. Where third-party donors are permitted, age is frequently a limiting criterion (male maximum age ranging from 35 to 50; female maximum age from 30 to 37). Other legal restrictions in third-party donation are the number of children born from the same donor (or, in some countries, the number of families with children from the same donor) and, in 12 countries, there is a maximum number of oocyte donations. How countries deal with the anonymity is diverse: strict anonymity, anonymity just for the recipients (not for children when reaching legal adulthood age), a mixed system (anonymous and non-anonymous donations), and strict non-anonymity. Inquiring about donors' genetic screening showed that most countries have enforced either mandatory or scientific recommendations that exclude the most prevalent genetic diseases, although, again, diversity is evident. Reimbursement/compensation systems exist in more than 30 European countries, with around 10 describing clearly defined maximum amounts considered acceptable. Public funding systems are extremely variable. One country provides no financial assistance to ART/IUI patients and three offer only minimal support. Limits to the provision of funding are defined in the others i.e. age (female maximum age is the most used), existence of previous children, BMI, maximum number of treatments publicly supported, and techniques not entitled for funding. In a few countries reimbursement is linked to a clinical policy. The definitions of the type of expenses covered within an IVF/ICSI cycle, up to which limit, and the proportion of out-of-pocket costs for patients are also extremely dissimilar. National registries of ART are in place in 33 out of the 43 countries contributing to the survey and a registry of donors exists in 19 of them. When comparing with the results of the previous survey, the main changes are: (i) an extension of the beneficiaries of ART techniques (and IUI), evident in nine countries; (ii) public financial support exists now in Albania and Armenia; (iii) in Luxembourg, the only ART centre expanded its on-site activities; (iv) donor-conceived children are entitled to know the donor identity in six countries more than in 2018; and (v) four more countries have set a maximum number of oocyte donations. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although the responses were provided by well-informed and committed individuals and submitted to double checking, no formal validation by official bodies was in place. Therefore, possible inaccuracies cannot be excluded. The results presented are a cross-section in time, and ART and IUI frameworks within European countries undergo continuous modification. Finally, some domains of ART activity were deliberately left out of the scope of this survey. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our results offer a detailed updated view of the ART and IUI situation in European countries. It provides extensive answers to many relevant questions related to ART usage at the national level and could be used by institutions and policymakers at both national and European levels. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study has no external funding, and all costs were covered by ESHRE. There were no competing interests.

A modified flexible GnRH antagonist protocol using antagonist early cessation and a gonadotropin step-down approach improves live birth rates in fresh cycles: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Can pregnancy outcomes following fresh elective single embryo transfer (eSET) in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocols increase using a gonadotropin (Gn) step-down approach with cessation of GnRH antagonist on the day of hCG administration (hCG day) in patients with normal ovarian response? SUMMARY ANSWER: The modified GnRH antagonist protocol using the Gn step-down approach and cessation of GnRH antagonist on the hCG day is effective in improving live birth rates (LBRs) per fresh eSET cycle. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Currently, there is no consensus on optimal GnRH antagonist regimens. Studies have shown that fresh GnRH antagonist cycles result in poorer pregnancy outcomes than the long GnRH agonist (GnRHa) protocol. Endometrial receptivity is a key factor that contributes to this phenomenon. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: An open label randomized controlled trial (RCT) was performed between November 2021 and August 2022. There were 546 patients allocated to either the modified GnRH antagonist or the conventional antagonist protocol at a 1:1 ratio. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Both IVF and ICSI cycles were included, and the sperm samples used were either fresh or frozen from the partner, or from frozen donor ejaculates. The primary outcome was the LBRs per fresh SET cycle. Secondary outcomes included rates of implantation, clinical and ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), as well as clinical outcomes of ovarian stimulation. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Baseline demographic features were not significantly different between the two ovarian stimulation groups. However, in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the LBRs in the modified antagonist group were significantly higher than in the conventional group (38.1% [104/273] vs. 27.5% [75/273], relative risk 1.39 [95% CI, 1.09-1.77], P = 0.008). Using a per-protocol (PP) analysis which included all the patients who received an embryo transfer, the LBRs in the modified antagonist group were also significantly higher than in the conventional group (48.6% [103/212] vs. 36.8% [74/201], relative risk 1.32 [95% CI, 1.05-1.66], P = 0.016). The modified antagonist group achieved significantly higher implantation rates, and clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates than the conventional group in both the ITT and PP analyses (P < 0.05). The two groups did not show significant differences between the number of oocytes retrieved or mature oocytes, two-pronuclear zygote (2PN) rates, the number of embryos obtained, blastocyst progression and good-quality embryo rates, early miscarriage rates, or OHSS incidence rates (P > 0.05). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: A limitation of our study was that the subjects were not blinded to the treatment allocation in the RCT trial. Only women under 40 years of age who had a good prognosis were included in the analysis. Therefore, use of the modified antagonist protocol in older patients with a low ovarian reserve remains to be investigated. In addition, the sample size for Day 5 elective SET was small, so larger trials will be required to strengthen these findings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The modified GnRH antagonist protocol using the Gn step-down approach and cessation of GnRH antagonist on hCG day improved the LBRs per fresh eSET cycle in normal responders. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This project was funded by grant 2022YFC2702503 from the National Key Research & Development Program of China and grant 2021140 from the Beijing Health Promotion Association. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The RCT was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry; Study Number: ChiCTR2100053453. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 21 November 2021. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLLMENT: 23 November 2021.