Home-based monitoring of ovulation to time frozen embryo transfers in the Netherlands (Antarctica-2): an open-label, nationwide, randomised, non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: The growing field of assisted reproductive techniques, including frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET), should lead the way to the best sustainable health care without compromising pregnancy chances. Correct timing of FET is crucial to allow implantation of the thawed embryo. Nowadays, timing based on hospital-controlled monitoring of ovulation in the natural cycle of a woman is the preferred strategy because of the assumption of favourable fertility prospects. However, home-based monitoring is a simple method to prevent patient travel and any associated environmental concerns. We compared ongoing pregnancy rates after home-based monitoring versus hospital-controlled monitoring with ovulation triggering. METHODS: This open-label, multicentre, randomised, non-inferiority trial was undertaken in 23 hospitals and clinics in the Netherlands. Women aged between 18 and 44 years with a regular ovulatory menstrual cycle were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio via a web-based randomisation program to home-based monitoring or hospital-controlled monitoring. Those who analysed the data were masked to the groups; those collecting the data were not. All endpoints were analysed by intention to treat and per protocol. Non-inferiority was established when the lower limit of the 90% CI exceeded -4%. This study was registered at the Dutch Trial Register (Trial NL6414). FINDINGS: 1464 women were randomly assigned between April 10, 2018, and April 13, 2022, with 732 allocated to home-based monitoring and 732 to hospital-controlled monitoring. Ongoing pregnancy occurred in 152 (20·8%) of 732 in the home-based monitoring group and in 153 (20·9%) of 732 in the hospital-controlled monitoring group (risk ratio [RR] 0·99 [90% CI 0·81 to 1·22]; risk difference [RD] -0·14 [90% CI -3·63 to 3·36]). The per-protocol analysis confirmed non-inferiority (152 [21·0%] of 725 vs 153 [21·0%] of 727; RR 1·00 (90% CI 0·81 to 1·23); RD -0·08 [90% CI -3·60 to 3·44]). INTERPRETATION: Home-based monitoring of ovulation is non-inferior to hospital-controlled monitoring of ovulation to time FET. FUNDING: The Dutch Organisation for Health Research and Development.

An unbiased approach of molecular characterization of the endometrium: toward defining endometrial-based infertility.

Infertility is a complex condition affecting millions of couples worldwide. The current definition of infertility, based on clinical criteria, fails to account for the molecular and cellular changes that may occur during the development of infertility. Recent advancements in sequencing technology and single-cell analysis offer new opportunities to gain a deeper understanding of these changes. The endometrium has a potential role in infertility and has been extensively studied to identify gene expression profiles associated with (impaired) endometrial receptivity. However, limited overlap among studies hampers the identification of relevant downstream pathways that could play a role in the development of endometrial-related infertility. To address these challenges, we propose sequencing the endometrial transcriptome of healthy and infertile women at the single-cell level to consistently identify molecular signatures. Establishing consensus on physiological patterns in endometrial samples can aid in identifying deviations in infertile patients. A similar strategy has been used with great success in cancer research. However, large collaborative initiatives, international uniform protocols of sample collection and processing are crucial to ensure reliability and reproducibility. Overall, the proposed approach holds promise for an objective and accurate classification of endometrial-based infertility and has the potential to improve diagnosis and treatment outcomes.

Hysterosalpingo-foam sonography versus hysterosalpingography during fertility work-up: an economic evaluation alongside a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the costs and effects of tubal patency testing by hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) compared to hysterosalpingography (HSG) in infertile women during the fertility work-up? SUMMARY ANSWER: During the fertility work-up, clinical management based on the test results of HyFoSy leads to slightly lower, though not statistically significant, live birth rates, at lower costs, compared to management based on HSG results. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Traditionally, tubal patency testing during the fertility work-up is performed by HSG. The FOAM trial, formally a non-inferiority study, showed that management decisions based on the results of HyFoSy resulted in a comparable live birth rate at 12 months compared to HSG (46% versus 47%; difference -1.2%, 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%; P = 0.27). Compared to HSG, HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain, it lacks ionizing radiation and exposure to iodinated contrast medium. Moreover, HyFoSy can be performed by a gynaecologist during a one-stop fertility work-up. To our knowledge, the costs of both strategies have never been compared. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed an economic evaluation alongside the FOAM trial, a randomized multicenter study conducted in the Netherlands. Participating infertile women underwent, both HyFoSy and HSG, in a randomized order. The results of both tests were compared and women with discordant test results were randomly allocated to management based on the results of one of the tests. The follow-up period was twelve months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied 1160 infertile women (18-41 years) scheduled for tubal patency testing. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth. The economic evaluation compared costs and effects of management based on either test within 12 months. We calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs): the difference in total costs and chance of live birth. Data were analyzed using the intention to treat principle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 of the 1160 women underwent both tubal tests and had data available: 747 women with concordant results (48% live births), 136 with inconclusive results (40% live births), and 143 with discordant results (41% had a live birth after management based on HyFoSy results versus 49% with live birth after management based on HSG results). When comparing the two strategies-management based on HyfoSy results versus HSG results-the estimated chance of live birth was 46% after HyFoSy versus 47% after HSG (difference -1.2%; 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%). For the procedures itself, HyFoSy cost €136 and HSG €280. When costs of additional fertility treatments were incorporated, the mean total costs per couple were €3307 for the HyFoSy strategy and €3427 for the HSG strategy (mean difference €-119; 95% CI: €-125 to €-114). So, while HyFoSy led to lower costs per couple, live birth rates were also slightly lower. The ICER was €10 042, meaning that by using HyFoSy instead of HSG we would save €10 042 per each additional live birth lost. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: When interpreting the results of this study, it needs to be considered that there was a considerable uncertainty around the ICER, and that the direct fertility enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests was not incorporated as women underwent both tubal patency tests in this study. WIDER IMPLICATION OF THE FINDINGS: Compared to clinical management based on HSG results, management guided by HyFoSy leads to slightly lower live birth rates (though not statistically significant) at lower costs, less pain, without ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast exposure. Further research on the comparison of the direct fertility-enhancing effect of both tubal patency tests is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): FOAM trial was an investigator-initiated study, funded by ZonMw, a Dutch organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm®-FOAM kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel-and speakers fees from Guerbet and her department received research grants from Guerbet outside the submitted work. H.R.V. received consulting-and travel fee from Ferring. A.M.v.P. reports received consulting fee from DEKRA and fee for an expert meeting from Ferring, both outside the submitted work. C.H.d.K. received travel fee from Merck. F.J.M.B. received a grant from Merck and speakers fee from Besins Healthcare. F.J.M.B. is a member of the advisory board of Merck and Ferring. J.v.D. reported speakers fee from Ferring. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda and consultancy for Sanofi on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.v.W. received a travel grant from Oxford Press in the role of deputy editor for Human Reproduction and participates in a DSMB as independent methodologist in obstetrics studies in which she has no other role. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from NHMRC GNT1176437. B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva, Merck, Guerbet, iGenomix, and Merck KGaA and travel support from Merck KGaA. V.M. received research grants from Guerbet, Merck, and Ferring and travel and speakers fees from Guerbet. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: International Clinical Trials Registry Platform No. NTR4746.

Late reproduction is associated with extended female survival but not with familial longevity.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Are age at last childbirth and number of children, as facets of female reproductive health, related to individual lifespan or familial longevity? DESIGN: This observational study included 10,255 female participants from a multigenerational historical cohort, the LINKing System for historical family reconstruction (LINKS), and 1258 female participants from 651 long-lived families in the Leiden Longevity Study (LLS). Age at last childbirth and number of children, as outcomes of reproductive success, were compared with individual and familial longevity using the LINKS dataset. In addition, the genetic predisposition in the form of a polygenic risk score (PRS) for age at menopause was studied in relation to familial longevity using the LLS dataset. RESULTS: For each year increase in the age of the birth of the last child, a woman's lifespan increased by 0.06 years (22 days; P = 0.002). The yearly risk for having a last child was 9% lower in women who survived to the oldest 10% of their birth cohort (hazard ratio 0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.95). Women who came from long-living families did not have a higher mean age of last childbirth. There was no significant association between familial longevity and genetic predisposition to age at menopause. CONCLUSIONS: Female reproductive health associates with a longer lifespan. Familial longevity does not associate to extended reproductive health. Other factors in somatic maintenance that support a longer lifespan are likely to have an impact on reproductive health.

Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation plus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI).

BACKGROUND: During a stimulated cycle of in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI), women receive daily doses of gonadotropin follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) to induce multifollicular development in the ovaries. A normal response to stimulation (e.g. retrieval of 5 to 15 oocytes) is considered desirable. Generally, the number of eggs retrieved is associated with the dose of FSH. Both hyper-response and poor response are associated with an increased chance of cycle cancellation. In hyper-response, this is due to increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), while poor response cycles are cancelled because the quantity and quality of oocytes is expected to be low. Clinicians often individualise the FSH dose using patient characteristics predictive of ovarian response. Traditionally, this meant women's age, but increasingly, clinicians use various ovarian reserve tests (ORTs). These include basal FSH (bFSH), antral follicle count (AFC), and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). It is unclear whether individualising FSH dose improves clinical outcomes. This review updates the 2018 version. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve in women undergoing IVF/ICSI. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two trial registers in February 2023. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared (a) different doses of FSH in women with a defined ORT profile (i.e. predicted low, normal, or high responders based on AMH, AFC, and/or bFSH) or (b) an individualised dosing strategy (based on at least one ORT measure) versus uniform dosing or a different individualised dosing algorithm. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures. Primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and severe OHSS. MAIN RESULTS: We included 26 studies, involving 8520 women (6 new studies added to 20 studies included in the previous version). We treated RCTs with multiple comparisons as separate trials for the purpose of this review. Meta-analysis was limited due to clinical heterogeneity. Evidence certainty ranged from very low to low, with the main limitations being imprecision and risk of bias associated with lack of blinding. Direct dose comparisons according to predicted response in women Due to differences in dose comparisons, caution is required when interpreting the RCTs in predicted low responders. All evidence was low or very low certainty. Effect estimates were very imprecise, and increased FSH dosing may or may not have an impact on rates of live birth/ongoing pregnancy, OHSS, and clinical pregnancy. Similarly, in predicted normal responders (10 studies, 4 comparisons), higher doses may or may not impact the probability of live birth/ongoing pregnancy (e.g. 200 versus 100 international units (IU): odds ratio (OR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.36; I2 = 0%; 2 studies, 522 women) or clinical pregnancy. Results were imprecise, and a small benefit or harm remains possible. There were too few events for the OHSS outcome to enable inferences. In predicted high responders, lower doses may or may not affect live birth/ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.46; 1 study, 521 women), severe OHSS, and clinical pregnancy. It is also unclear whether lower doses reduce moderate or severe OHSS (Peto OR 2.31, 95% CI 0.80 to 6.67; 1 study, 521 participants). ORT-algorithm studies Eight trials compared an ORT-based algorithm to a non-ORT control group. It is unclear whether live birth/ongoing pregnancy and clinical pregnancy are increased using an ORT-based algorithm (live birth/ongoing pregnancy: OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.29; I2 = 30%; 7 studies, 4400 women; clinical pregnancy: OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.18; I2 = 18%; 7 studies, 4400 women; low-certainty evidence). However, ORT algorithms may reduce moderate or severe OHSS (Peto OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.84; I2 = 0%; 7 studies, 4400 women; low-certainty evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of severe OHSS (Peto OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.28; I2 = 0%; 5 studies, 2724 women; low-certainty evidence). Our findings suggest that if the chance of live birth with a standard starting dose is 25%, the chance with ORT-based dosing would be between 25% and 31%. If the chance of moderate or severe OHSS with a standard starting dose is 5%, the chance with ORT-based dosing would be between 2% and 5%. These results should be treated cautiously due to heterogeneity in the algorithms: some algorithms appear to be more effective than others. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We did not find that tailoring the FSH dose in any particular ORT population (low, normal, high ORT) affected live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates, but we could not rule out differences, due to sample size limitations. Low-certainty evidence suggests that it is unclear if ORT-based individualisation leads to an increase in live birth/ongoing pregnancy rates compared to a policy of giving all women 150 IU. The confidence interval is consistent with an increase of up to around six percentage points with ORT-based dosing (e.g. from 25% to 31%) or a very small decrease (< 1%). A difference of this magnitude could be important to many women. It is unclear if this is driven by improved outcomes in a particular subgroup. Further, ORT algorithms reduced the incidence of OHSS compared to standard dosing of 150 IU. However, the size of the effect is also unclear. The included studies were heterogeneous in design, which limited the interpretation of pooled estimates. It is likely that different ORT algorithms differ in their effectiveness. Current evidence does not provide a clear justification for adjusting the dose of 150 IU in poor or normal responders, especially as increased dose is associated with greater total FSH dose and cost. It is unclear whether a decreased dose in predicted high responders reduces OHSS, although this would appear to be the most likely explanation for the results.

The endometrial transcriptome of infertile women with and without implantation failure.

INTRODUCTION: Implantation failure after transferring morphologically "good-quality" embryos in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) may be explained by impaired endometrial receptivity. Analyzing the endometrial transcriptome analysis may reveal the underlying processes and could help in guiding prognosis and using targeted interventions for infertility. This exploratory study investigated whether the endometrial transcriptome profile was associated with short-term or long-term implantation outcomes (ie success or failure). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Mid-luteal phase endometrial biopsies of 107 infertile women with one full failed IVF/ICSI cycle, obtained within an endometrial scratching trial, were subjected to RNA-sequencing and differentially expressed genes analysis with covariate adjustment (age, body mass index, luteinizing hormone [LH]-day). Endometrial transcriptomes were compared between implantation failure and success groups in the short term (after the second fresh IVF/ICSI cycle) and long term (including all fresh and frozen cycles within 12 months). The short-term analysis included 85/107 women (33 ongoing pregnancy vs 52 no pregnancy), excluding 22/107 women. The long-term analysis included 46/107 women (23 'fertile' group, ie infertile women with a live birth after ≤3 embryos transferred vs 23 recurrent implantation failure group, ie no live birth after ≥3 good quality embryos transferred), excluding 61/107 women not fitting these categories. As both analyses drew from the same pool of 107 samples, there was some sample overlap. Additionally, cell type enrichment scores and endometrial receptivity were analyzed, and an endometrial development pseudo-timeline was constructed to estimate transcriptomic deviations from the optimum receptivity day (LH + 7), denoted as ΔWOI (window of implantation). RESULTS: There were no significantly differentially expressed genes between implantation failure and success groups in either the short-term or long-term analyses. Principal component analysis initially showed two clusters in the long-term analysis, unrelated to clinical phenotype and no longer distinct following covariate adjustment. Cell type enrichment scores did not differ significantly between groups in both analyses. However, endometrial receptivity analysis demonstrated a potentially significant displacement of the WOI in the non-pregnant group compared with the ongoing pregnant group in the short-term analysis. CONCLUSIONS: No distinct endometrial transcriptome profile was associated with either implantation failure or success in infertile women. However, there may be differences in the extent to which the WOI is displaced.

Insights into ovarian response with a fixed low dose FSH stimulation in an IUI programme: the PRORAILS study.

STUDY QUESTION: Are patients' characteristics, such as anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) and BMI, reliable factors to predict ovarian response in couples with unexplained subfertility undergoing IUI with ovarian hyperstimulation (IUI-OH)? SUMMARY ANSWER: We observed no solid relationship between serum AMH and ovarian response. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Ovarian stimulation during IUI treatment could lead to a higher chance of pregnancy, but also a higher incidence of multiple pregnancies, unless strict cancellation criteria are being used. Several factors could influence the result of the stimulation, such as age, BMI and hormonal status of the female. In IVF treatment, AMH has shown to be a useful predictor of ovarian stimulation to optimize the outcome; however, in a milder stimulation protocol, such as IUI, this has not been investigated. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a prospective cohort study and evaluated the first IUI stimulation cycle of 492 patients. The study was conducted between 2012 and 2017. Follow-up ended if patients were not pregnant after the first cycle. If pregnancy did occur, follow-up lasted until delivery. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: PRORAILS is a large multicentre nationwide cohort study executed in the Netherlands. Eligible women aged 18-43 years who were diagnosed with unexplained subfertility or mild male subfertility according to the Dutch guideline, with a regular indication for IUI-OH, were asked to participate. Ovarian response was assessed using a transvaginal ultrasound 5-7 days after initiation of the stimulation and was repeated according to the size of the leading follicles. Ovarian response was defined as optimal or suboptimal based on the total number of dominant follicles >15 mm. A successful stimulation was defined as the presence of two to three follicles >15 mm on the day of hCG administration. Serum AMH (µg/l) was measured by ELISA, and samples were taken on day 2, 3 or 4 of the menstrual cycle. Poisson regression was used to estimate the risk of a suboptimal ovarian response. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 492 participants, the mean age was 33 years and the mean subfertility duration was 2.5 years. The median serum AMH was 2.1 (µg/l). The majority of patients had a suboptimal response: 326 women (66%), of whom 224 (45%) had a hypo response (defined as 15 mm) and 102 (21%) had a hyper response (defined as more than three follicles sized >15 mm). The lowest AMH category showed a trend towards a smaller risk of a suboptimal response (relative risk ratio 0.76 (95% CI 0.54, 1.06)), but this effect did not reach statistical significance. In the prediction models, BMI and serum basal FSH were significant predictors of a hypo response, while for hyper response the factors age, BMI and serum FSH were significant. A higher BMI showed a higher risk for hypo response, as did a higher FSH whereas a lower BMI and lower FSH showed a higher risk for hyper response. The addition of AMH to the models did not improve the predictive abilities. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although the study was prospective, the main analyses were cross-sectional with characteristics measured at one time-point. The study was not powered to provide insight into predictors of pregnancy and live births and, therefore, the result for pregnancy should be interpreted with caution. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This was the first large multicentre study that investigated the characteristics of ovarian response categories using standardized methods and centrally analysed laboratory measures. PRORAILS is a nationwide study with 15 hospitals and, therefore, these results are generalizable to other hospitals in the Netherlands. This study provides high-quality outcomes advancing the subfertility research field. Future studies would benefit from a randomized design investigating the effectiveness of an individualized approach versus a fixed dose. Also, the relation between a good ovarian stimulation and pregnancy rate could be further investigated. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The PRORAILS study is sponsored by Merck B.V., Schiphol-Rijk, the Netherlands, an affiliation of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (EMR700623_612). Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, reviewed the manuscript prior to submission. The opinions remain those of the authors. Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, had no influence on the use of medication in this study. The recombinant FSH was mostly provided by Merck B.V. or MSD. F.B. is a member of the external advisory board for Merck B.V., Schiphol-Rijk, the Netherlands, and has received a research grant from Merck B.V., Schiphol-Rijk. H.v.B. is an employee from IQVIA, which is a commercial data-analysing company, and received payment for her part in the article. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01662180.

Genome-wide association study meta-analysis identifies three novel loci for circulating anti-Müllerian hormone levels in women.

STUDY QUESTION: Can additional genetic variants for circulating anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels be identified through a genome-wide association study (GWAS) meta-analysis including a large sample of premenopausal women? SUMMARY ANSWER: We identified four loci associated with AMH levels at P < 5 × 10-8: the previously reported MCM8 locus and three novel signals in or near AMH, TEX41 and CDCA7. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: AMH is expressed by antral stage ovarian follicles in women, and variation in age-specific circulating AMH levels has been associated with disease outcomes. However, the physiological mechanisms underlying these AMH-disease associations are largely unknown. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We performed a GWAS meta-analysis in which we combined summary statistics of a previous AMH GWAS with GWAS data from 3705 additional women from three different cohorts. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In total, we included data from 7049 premenopausal female participants of European ancestry. The median age of study participants ranged from 15.3 to 48 years across cohorts. Circulating AMH levels were measured in either serum or plasma samples using different ELISA assays. Study-specific analyses were adjusted for age at blood collection and population stratification, and summary statistics were meta-analysed using a standard error-weighted approach. Subsequently, we functionally annotated GWAS variants that reached genome-wide significance (P < 5 × 10-8). We also performed a gene-based GWAS, pathway analysis and linkage disequilibrium score regression and Mendelian randomization (MR) analyses. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We identified four loci associated with AMH levels at P < 5 × 10-8: the previously reported MCM8 locus and three novel signals in or near AMH, TEX41 and CDCA7. The strongest signal was a missense variant in the AMH gene (rs10417628). Most prioritized genes at the other three identified loci were involved in cell cycle regulation. Genetic correlation analyses indicated a strong positive correlation among single nucleotide polymorphisms for AMH levels and for age at menopause (rg = 0.82, FDR = 0.003). Exploratory two-sample MR analyses did not support causal effects of AMH on breast cancer or polycystic ovary syndrome risk, but should be interpreted with caution as they may be underpowered and the validity of genetic instruments could not be extensively explored. LARGE SCALE DATA: The full AMH GWAS summary statistics will made available after publication through the GWAS catalog (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/gwas/). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Whilst this study doubled the sample size of the most recent GWAS, the statistical power is still relatively low. As a result, we may still lack power to identify more genetic variants for AMH and to determine causal effects of AMH on, for example, breast cancer. Also, follow-up studies are needed to investigate whether the signal for the AMH gene is caused by reduced AMH detection by certain assays instead of actual lower circulating AMH levels. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Genes mapped to the MCM8, TEX41 and CDCA7 loci are involved in the cell cycle and processes such as DNA replication and apoptosis. The mechanism underlying their associations with AMH may affect the size of the ovarian follicle pool. Altogether, our results provide more insight into the biology of AMH and, accordingly, the biological processes involved in ovarian ageing. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Nurses' Health Study and Nurses' Health Study II were supported by research grants from the National Institutes of Health (CA172726, CA186107, CA50385, CA87969, CA49449, CA67262, CA178949). The UK Medical Research Council and Wellcome (217065/Z/19/Z) and the University of Bristol provide core support for ALSPAC. This publication is the work of the listed authors, who will serve as guarantors for the contents of this article. A comprehensive list of grants funding is available on the ALSPAC website (http://www.bristol.ac.uk/alspac/external/documents/grant-acknowledgements.pdf). Funding for the collection of genotype and phenotype data used here was provided by the British Heart Foundation (SP/07/008/24066), Wellcome (WT092830M and WT08806) and UK Medical Research Council (G1001357). M.C.B., A.L.G.S. and D.A.L. work in a unit that is funded by the University of Bristol and UK Medical Research Council (MC_UU_00011/6). M.C.B.'s contribution to this work was funded by a UK Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship (MR/P014054/1) and D.A.L. is a National Institute of Health Research Senior Investigator (NF-0616-10102). A.L.G.S. was supported by the study of Dynamic longitudinal exposome trajectories in cardiovascular and metabolic non-communicable diseases (H2020-SC1-2019-Single-Stage-RTD, project ID 874739). The Doetinchem Cohort Study was financially supported by the Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports of the Netherlands. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript. Ansh Labs performed the AMH measurements for the Doetinchem Cohort Study free of charge. Ansh Labs was not involved in the data analysis, interpretation or reporting, nor was it financially involved in any aspect of the study. R.M.G.V. was funded by the Honours Track of MSc Epidemiology, University Medical Center Utrecht with a grant from the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NWO) (022.005.021). The Study of Women's Health Across the Nation (SWAN) has grant support from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), DHHS, through the National Institute on Aging (NIA), the National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) and the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health (ORWH) (U01NR004061; U01AG012505, U01AG012535, U01AG012531, U01AG012539, U01AG012546, U01AG012553, U01AG012554, U01AG012495). The SWAN Genomic Analyses and SWAN Legacy have grant support from the NIA (U01AG017719). The Generations Study was funded by Breast Cancer Now and the Institute of Cancer Research (ICR). The ICR acknowledges NHS funding to the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. The content of this manuscript is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent official views of the funders. The Sister Study was funded by the Intramural Research Program of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (Z01-ES044005 to D.P.S.); the AMH assays were supported by the Avon Foundation (02-2012-065 to H.B. Nichols and D.P.S.). The breast cancer genome-wide association analyses were supported by the Government of Canada through Genome Canada and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the 'Ministère de l'Économie, de la Science et de l'Innovation du Québec' through Genome Québec and grant PSR-SIIRI-701, The National Institutes of Health (U19 CA148065, X01HG007492), Cancer Research UK (C1287/A10118, C1287/A16563, C1287/A10710) and The European Union (HEALTH-F2-2009-223175 and H2020 633784 and 634935). All studies and funders are listed in Michailidou et al. (Nature, 2017). F.J.M.B. has received fees and grant support from Merck Serono and Ferring BV. D.A.L. has received financial support from several national and international government and charitable funders as well as from Medtronic Ltd and Roche Diagnostics for research that is unrelated to this study. N.S. is scientific consultant for Ansh Laboratories. The other authors declare no competing interests.

Can hysterosalpingo-foam sonography replace hysterosalpingography as first-choice tubal patency test? A randomized non-inferiority trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does hysterosalpingo-foam sonography (HyFoSy) lead to similar pregnancy outcomes, compared with hysterosalpingography (HSG), as first-choice tubal patency test in infertile couples? SUMMARY ANSWER: HyFoSy and HSG produce similar findings in a majority of patients and clinical management based on the results of either HyFoSy or HSG, leads to comparable pregnancy outcomes. HyFoSy is experienced as significantly less painful. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Traditionally, tubal patency testing during fertility work-up is performed by HSG. HyFoSy is an alternative imaging technique lacking ionizing radiation and iodinated contrast medium exposure which is less expensive than HSG. Globally, there is a shift towards the use of office-based diagnostic methods, such as HyFoSy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This multicentre, prospective, comparative study with a randomized design was conducted in 26 hospitals in The Netherlands. Participating women underwent both HyFoSy and HSG in randomized order. In case of discordant results, women were randomly allocated to either a management strategy based on HyFoSy or one based on HSG. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We included infertile women between 18 and 41 years old who were scheduled for tubal patency testing during their fertility work-up. Women with anovulatory cycles not responding to ovulation induction, endometriosis, severe male infertility or a known iodine contrast allergy were excluded. The primary outcome for the comparison of the HyFoSy- and HSG-based strategies was ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth within 12 months after inclusion in an intention-to-treat analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Between May 2015 and January 2019, 1026 women underwent HyFoSy and HSG. HyFoSy was inconclusive in 97 of them (9.5%), HSG was inconclusive in 30 (2.9%) and both were inconclusive in 9 (0.9%). In 747 women (73%) conclusive tests results were concordant. Of the 143/1026 (14%) with discordant results, 105 were randomized to clinical management based on the results of either HyFoSy or HSG. In this group, 22 of the 54 women (41%) allocated to management based on HyFoSy and 25 of 51 women (49%) allocated to management based on HSG had an ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth (Difference -8%; 95% CI: -27% to 10%). In total, clinical management based on the results of HyFoSy was estimated to lead to a live birth in 474 of 1026 women (46%) versus 486 of 1026 (47%) for management based on HSG (Difference -1.2%; 95% CI: -3.4% to 1.5%). Given the pre-defined margin of -2%, statistically significant non-inferiority of HyFoSy relative to HSG could not be demonstrated (P = 0.27). The mean pain score for HyFoSy on the 1-10 Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was 3.1 (SD 2.2) and the mean VAS pain score for HSG was 5.4 (SD 2.5; P for difference < 0.001). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Since all women underwent both tubal patency tests, no conclusions on a direct therapeutic effect of tubal flushing could be drawn. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: HyFoSy or HSG produce similar tubal pathology findings in a majority of infertile couples and, where they differ, a difference in findings does not lead to substantial difference in pregnancy outcome, while HyFoSy is associated with significantly less pain. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The FOAM study was an investigator-initiated study funded by ZonMw, The Netherlands organization for Health Research and Development (project number 837001504). ZonMw funded the whole project. IQ Medical Ventures provided the ExEm-foam® kits free of charge. The funders had no role in study design, collection, analysis and interpretation of the data. K.D. reports travel and speaker fees from Guerbet. F.J.M.B. reports personal fees as a member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono, The Netherlands, and a research support grant from Merck Serono, outside the submitted work. C.B.L. reports speakers' fee from Ferring in the past, and his department receives research grants from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. J.S. reports a research agreement with Takeda on MR of motility outside the submitted work. M.V.W. reports leading The Netherlands Satellite of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. B.W.J.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigator grant (GNT1176437). B.W.J.M. reports consultancy for Guerbet and research funding from Merck and Guerbet. V.M. reports non-financial support from IQ medicals ventures, during the conduct of the study; grants and personal fees from Guerbet, outside the submitted work. The other authors do not report conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NTR4746/NL4587 (https://www.trialregister.nl). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 19 August 2014. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 7 May 2015.

Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination.

BACKGROUND: Intentional endometrial injury is being proposed as a technique to improve the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Endometrial injury is often performed by pipelle biopsy and is a common gynaecological procedure with established safety. However, it causes a moderate degree of discomfort/pain and requires an additional pelvic examination. The effectiveness of this procedure outside of ART, in women or couples attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse or with intrauterine insemination (IUI), remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of intentional endometrial injury performed in infertile women or couples attempting to conceive through sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI). SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, ISI Web of Knowledge, and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to 21 May 2020, as were conference abstracts and reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any kind of intentional endometrial injury in women planning to undergo IUI or attempting to conceive spontaneously (with or without ovarian stimulation (OS)) compared to no intervention, a mock intervention, or intentional endometrial injury performed at a different time. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain experienced during the procedure. Due to high risk of bias associated with many of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed. MAIN RESULTS: We included 22 RCTs (3703 women). Most of these studies included women with unexplained infertility. Intentional endometrial injury versus either no intervention or a sham procedure The primary analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias, which left only one study included. We are uncertain whether endometrial injury has an effect on the probability of live birth, as only one study is included in the analysis and the confidence interval is wide (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.59; 1 RCT, 210 participants). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 34%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 27% to 55%. When all studies were included in the sensitivity analysis, we were uncertain whether endometrial injury improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy, as the evidence was of very low quality (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.21; 8 RCTs, 1522 participants; I² = 16%). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth/ongoing pregnancy with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 13%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 17% to 28%. A narrative synthesis conducted for the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure included studies measuring pain on a zero-to-ten visual analogue scale (VAS) or grading pain as mild/moderate/severe, and showed that most often mild to moderate pain was reported (6 RCTs, 911 participants; very low-quality evidence). Timing of intentional endometrial injury Four trials compared endometrial injury performed in the cycle before IUI to that performed in the same cycle as IUI. None of these studies reported the primary outcomes of live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain during the procedure. One study compared endometrial injury in the early follicular phase (EFP; Day 2 to 4) to endometrial injury in the late follicular phase (LFP; Day 7 to 9), both in the same cycle as IUI. The primary outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy was not reported, but the study did report the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure assessed by a zero-to-ten VAS. The average pain score was 3.67 (standard deviation (SD) 0.7) when endometrial injury was performed in the EFP and 3.84 (SD 0.96) when endometrial injury was performed in the LFP. The mean difference was -0.17, suggesting that on average, women undergoing endometrial injury in the EFP scored 0.17 points lower on the VAS as compared to women undergoing endometrial injury in the LFP (95% CI -0.48 to 0.14; 1 RCT, 110 participants; very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is insufficient to show whether there is a difference in live birth/ongoing pregnancy between endometrial injury and no intervention/a sham procedure in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution, as the evidence was of low to very low quality due to high risk of bias present in most included studies and an overall low level of precision. Furthermore, studies investigating the effect of timing of endometrial injury did not report the outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy; therefore no conclusions could be drawn for this outcome. Further well-conducted RCTs that recruit large numbers of participants and minimise bias are required to confirm or refute these findings. Current evidence is insufficient to support routine use of endometrial injury in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse.

Anti-Müllerian hormone levels and risk of type 2 diabetes in women.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Given its role in ovarian follicle development, circulating anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) is considered to be a marker of reproductive ageing. Although accelerated reproductive ageing has been associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes, research on the relationship between AMH and type 2 diabetes risk is scarce. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether age-specific AMH levels and age-related AMH trajectories are associated with type 2 diabetes risk in women. METHODS: We measured AMH in repeated plasma samples from 3293 female participants (12,460 samples in total), aged 20-59 years at recruitment, from the Doetinchem Cohort Study, a longitudinal study with follow-up visits every 5 years. We calculated age-specific AMH tertiles at baseline to account for the strong AMH-age correlation. Cox proportional hazards models adjusted for confounders were used to assess the association between baseline age-specific AMH tertiles and incident type 2 diabetes. We applied linear mixed models to compare age-related AMH trajectories for women who developed type 2 diabetes with trajectories for women who did not develop diabetes. RESULTS: During a median follow-up of 20 years, 163 women developed type 2 diabetes. Lower baseline age-specific AMH levels were associated with a higher type 2 diabetes risk (HRT2vsT3 1.24 [95% CI 0.81, 1.92]; HRT1vsT3 1.62 [95% CI 1.06, 2.48]; ptrend = 0.02). These findings seem to be supported by predicted AMH trajectories, which suggested that plasma AMH levels were lower at younger ages in women who developed type 2 diabetes compared with women who did not. The trajectories also suggested that AMH levels declined at a slower rate in women who developed type 2 diabetes, although differences in trajectories were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: We observed that lower age-specific AMH levels were associated with a higher risk of type 2 diabetes in women. Longitudinal analyses did not show clear evidence of differing AMH trajectories between women who developed type 2 diabetes compared with women who did not, possibly because these analyses were underpowered. Further research is needed to investigate whether AMH is part of the biological mechanism explaining the association between reproductive ageing and type 2 diabetes. Graphical abstract.

Increased obstetric and neonatal risks in artificial cycles for frozen embryo transfers?

RESEARCH QUESTION: What are the obstetric and neonatal risks for women conceiving via frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) during a modified natural cycle compared with an artificial cycle method. DESIGN: A follow-up study to the ANTARCTICA randomized controlled trial (RCT) (NTR 1586) conducted in the Netherlands, which showed that modified natural cycle FET (NC-FET) was non-inferior to artificial cycle FET (AC-FET) in terms of live birth rates. The current study collected data on obstetric and neonatal outcomes of 98 women who had a singleton live birth. The main outcome was birthweight; additional outcomes included hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, premature birth, gestational diabetes, obstetric haemorrhage and neonatal outcomes including Apgar scores and admission to the neonatal ward or the neonatal intensive care unit and congenital anomalies. RESULTS: Data from 82 out of 98 women were analysed according to the per protocol principle. There was no significant difference in the birthweights of children born between groups (mean difference -124 g [-363 g to 114 g]; P = 0.30). Women who conceived by modified NC-FET have a decreased risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy compared with AC-FET (relative risk 0.27; 95% CI 0.08-0.94; P = 0.031). Other outcomes, such as rates of premature birth, gestational diabetes or obstetric haemorrhage and neonatal outcomes, were not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The interpretation is that modified NC-FET is the preferred treatment in women with ovulatory cycles undergoing FET when the increased risk of obstetrical complications and potential neonatal complications in AC-FET are considered.

Endometrial injury for pregnancy following sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination.

BACKGROUND: Intentional endometrial injury is being proposed as a technique to improve the probability of pregnancy in women undergoing assisted reproductive technologies (ART) such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Endometrial injury is often performed by pipelle biopsy and is a common gynaecological procedure with established safety. However, it causes a moderate degree of discomfort/pain and requires an additional pelvic examination. The effectiveness of this procedure outside of ART, in women or couples attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse or with intrauterine insemination (IUI), remains unclear. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of intentional endometrial injury performed in infertile women or couples attempting to conceive through sexual intercourse or intrauterine insemination (IUI). SEARCH METHODS: The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, LILACS, ISI Web of Knowledge, and clinical trial registries were searched from inception to 21 May 2020, as were conference abstracts and reference lists of relevant reviews and included studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated any kind of intentional endometrial injury in women planning to undergo IUI or attempting to conceive spontaneously (with or without ovarian stimulation (OS)) compared to no intervention, a mock intervention, or intentional endometrial injury performed at a different time or to a higher/lower degree. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Primary outcomes were live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain experienced during the procedure. Due to high risk of bias associated with many of the studies, primary analyses of all review outcomes were restricted to studies at low risk of bias. Sensitivity analysis including all studies was then performed. MAIN RESULTS: We included 23 RCTs (4035 women). Most of these studies included women with unexplained infertility. Intentional endometrial injury versus either no intervention or a sham procedure The primary analysis was restricted to studies at low risk of bias, which left only one study included. We are uncertain whether endometrial injury has an effect on the probability of live birth, as only one study is included in the analysis and the confidence interval is wide (risk ratio (RR) 1.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 1.59; 1 RCT, 210 participants). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 34%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 27% to 55%. When all studies were included in the sensitivity analysis, we were uncertain whether endometrial injury improves live birth/ongoing pregnancy, as the evidence was of very low quality (RR 1.71, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.21; 8 RCTs, 1522 participants; I² = 16%). Evidence suggests that if the chance of live birth/ongoing pregnancy with no intervention/a sham procedure is assumed to be 13%, then the chance with endometrial injury would be 17% to 28%. A narrative synthesis conducted for the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure included studies measuring pain on a zero-to-ten visual analogue scale (VAS) or grading pain as mild/moderate/severe, and showed that most often mild to moderate pain was reported (6 RCTs, 911 participants; very low-quality evidence). Higher versus lower degree of intentional endometrial injury Evidence was insufficient to show whether there is a difference in ongoing pregnancy rates (RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.35; 1 RCT, 332 participants; low-quality evidence) between hysteroscopy with endometrial injury and hysteroscopy alone. Evidence suggests that if the chance of ongoing pregnancy with hysteroscopy alone is 10%, then the chance with hysteroscopy with endometrial injury would be 7% to 24%. This study did not report the primary outcomes of live birth and pain during the procedure. Timing of intentional endometrial injury Four trials compared endometrial injury performed in the cycle before IUI to that performed in the same cycle as IUI. None of these studies reported the primary outcomes of live birth/ongoing pregnancy and pain during the procedure. One study compared endometrial injury in the early follicular phase (EFP; Day 2 to 4) to endometrial injury in the late follicular phase (LFP; Day 7 to 9), both in the same cycle as IUI. The primary outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy was not reported, but the study did report the other primary outcome of pain during the procedure assessed by a zero-to-ten VAS. The average pain score was 3.67 (standard deviation (SD) 0.7) when endometrial injury was performed in the EFP and 3.84 (SD 0.96) when endometrial injury was performed in the LFP. The mean difference was -0.17, suggesting that on average, women undergoing endometrial injury in the EFP scored 0.17 points lower on the VAS as compared to women undergoing endometrial injury in the LFP (95% CI -0.48 to 0.14; 1 RCT, 110 participants; very low-quality evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is insufficient to show whether there is a difference in live birth/ongoing pregnancy between endometrial injury and no intervention/a sham procedure in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse. The pooled results should be interpreted with caution, as the evidence was of low to very low quality due to high risk of bias present in most included studies and an overall low level of precision. Furthermore, studies investigating the effect of timing of endometrial injury did not report the outcome live birth/ongoing pregnancy; therefore no conclusions could be drawn for this outcome. Further well-conducted RCTs that recruit large numbers of participants and minimise bias are required to confirm or refute these findings. Current evidence is insufficient to support routine use of endometrial injury in women undergoing IUI or attempting to conceive via sexual intercourse.

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

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

Organoids can be established reliably from cryopreserved biopsy catheter-derived endometrial tissue of infertile women.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Can organoids be established from endometrial tissue of infertile women and does tissue cryopreservation allow for establishment of organoids comparable to organoids derived from freshly biopsied endometrial tissue? DESIGN: Endometrial tissue was obtained from six infertile women through minimally invasive biopsy using a Pipelle catheter and subjected to organoid development, immediately after biopsy as well as after tissue cryopreservation. Organoid formation efficiency, morphology, expandability potential, endometrial marker expression (immunostaining and reverse transcription quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction) and hormonal responsiveness (after oestradiol and progesterone treatment) were assessed. RESULTS: Organoids established from both fresh and frozen tissue at comparable efficiency could be passaged long-term and showed similar morphology, i.e. cystic with a central lumen lined by a single epithelial cell layer. They also exhibited comparable expression of endometrial markers and proliferative activity (Ki67 expression). Finally, organoids from freshly biopsied and cryopreserved endometrial tissue showed similar responses to oestradiol and progesterone treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Organoids can be established from cryopreserved endometrial tissue of infertile women and cryopreservation of the biopsy does not affect organoid formation and overall organoid characteristics. Cryopreservation of biopsies for later organoid development facilitates sample collection from any fertility clinic, not just the ones near an organoid laboratory.

Gonadotrophins versus clomifene citrate with or without intrauterine insemination in women with normogonadotropic anovulation and clomifene failure (M-OVIN): a randomised, two-by-two factorial trial.

BACKGROUND: In many countries, clomifene citrate is the treatment of first choice in women with normogonadotropic anovulation (ie, absent or irregular ovulation). If these women ovulate but do not conceive after several cycles with clomifene citrate, medication is usually switched to gonadotrophins, with or without intrauterine insemination. We aimed to assess whether switching to gonadotrophins is more effective than continuing clomifene citrate, and whether intrauterine insemination is more effective than intercourse. METHODS: In this two-by-two factorial multicentre randomised clinical trial, we recruited women aged 18 years and older with normogonadotropic anovulation not pregnant after six ovulatory cycles of clomifene citrate (maximum of 150 mg daily for 5 days) from 48 Dutch hospitals. Women were randomly assigned using a central password-protected internet-based randomisation programme to receive six cycles with gonadotrophins plus intrauterine insemination, six cycles with gonadotrophins plus intercourse, six cycles with clomifene citrate plus intrauterine insemination, or six cycles with clomifene citrate plus intercourse. Clomifene citrate dosages varied from 50 to 150 mg daily orally and gonadotrophin starting dose was 50 or 75 IU daily subcutaneously. The primary outcome was conception leading to livebirth within 8 months after randomisation defined as any baby born alive after a gestational age beyond 24 weeks. Primary analysis was by intention to treat. We made two comparisons, one in which gonadotrophins were compared with clomifene citrate and one in which intrauterine insemination was compared with intercourse. This completed study is registered with the Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR1449. FINDINGS: Between Dec 8, 2008, and Dec 16, 2015, we randomly assigned 666 women to gonadotrophins and intrauterine insemination (n=166), gonadotrophins and intercourse (n=165), clomifene citrate and intrauterine insemination (n=163), or clomifene citrate and intercourse (n=172). Women allocated to gonadotrophins had more livebirths than those allocated to clomifene citrate (167 [52%] of 327 women vs 138 [41%] of 334 women, relative risk [RR] 1·24 [95% CI 1·05-1·46]; p=0·0124). Addition of intrauterine insemination did not increase livebirths compared with intercourse (161 [49%] vs 144 [43%], RR 1·14 [95% CI 0·97-1·35]; p=0·1152). Multiple pregnancy rates for the two comparisons were low and not different. There were three adverse events: one child with congenital abnormalities and one stillbirth in two women treated with clomifene citrate, and one immature delivery due to cervical insufficiency in a woman treated with gonadotrophins. INTERPRETATION: In women with normogonadotropic anovulation and clomifene citrate failure, a switch of treatment to gonadotrophins increased the chance of livebirth over treatment with clomifene citrate; there was no evidence that addition of intrauterine insemination does so. FUNDING: The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development.

Randomized Trial of a Lifestyle Program in Obese Infertile Women.

BACKGROUND: Small lifestyle-intervention studies suggest that modest weight loss increases the chance of conception and may improve perinatal outcomes, but large randomized, controlled trials are lacking. METHODS: We randomly assigned infertile women with a body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters) of 29 or higher to a 6-month lifestyle intervention preceding treatment for infertility or to prompt treatment for infertility. The primary outcome was the vaginal birth of a healthy singleton at term within 24 months after randomization. RESULTS: We assigned women who did not conceive naturally to one of two treatment strategies: 290 women were assigned to a 6-month lifestyle-intervention program preceding 18 months of infertility treatment (intervention group) and 287 were assigned to prompt infertility treatment for 24 months (control group). A total of 3 women withdrew consent, so 289 women in the intervention group and 285 women in the control group were included in the analysis. The discontinuation rate in the intervention group was 21.8%. In intention-to-treat analyses, the mean weight loss was 4.4 kg in the intervention group and 1.1 kg in the control group (P<0.001). The primary outcome occurred in 27.1% of the women in the intervention group and 35.2% of those in the control group (rate ratio in the intervention group, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.60 to 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: In obese infertile women, a lifestyle intervention preceding infertility treatment, as compared with prompt infertility treatment, did not result in higher rates of a vaginal birth of a healthy singleton at term within 24 months after randomization. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development; Netherlands Trial Register number, NTR1530.).

Cumulative live birth rates in low-prognosis women.

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

Screening hysteroscopy in subfertile women and women undergoing assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Screening hysteroscopy in infertile women with unexplained infertility, or prior to intrauterine insemination (IUI) or in vitro fertilisation (IVF) may reveal intrauterine pathology that may not be detected by routine transvaginal ultrasound. Hysteroscopy, whether purely diagnostic or operative may improve reproductive outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of screening hysteroscopy in subfertile women undergoing evaluation for infertility, and subfertile women undergoing IUI or IVF. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL CRSO, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (September 2018). We searched reference lists of relevant articles and handsearched relevant conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials comparing screening hysteroscopy versus no intervention in subfertile women wishing to conceive spontaneously, or before undergoing IUI or IVF. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcomes were live birth rate and complications following hysteroscopy. We analysed data using risk ratio (RR) and a fixed-effect model. We assessed the quality of the evidence by using GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We retrieved 11 studies. We included one trial that evaluated screening hysteroscopy versus no hysteroscopy, in women with unexplained subfertility, who were trying to conceive spontaneously. We are uncertain whether ongoing pregnancy rate improves following a screening hysteroscopy in women with at least two years of unexplained subfertility (RR 4.30, 95% CI 2.29 to 8.07; 1 RCT; participants = 200; very low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with a 10% ongoing pregnancy rate without hysteroscopy, performing a screening hysteroscopy would be expected to result in ongoing pregnancy rates between 23% and 81%. The included study reported no adverse events in either treatment arm. We are uncertain whether clinical pregnancy rate is improved (RR 3.80, 95% CI 2.31 to 6.24; 1 RCT; participants = 200; very low-quality evidence), or miscarriage rate increases (RR 2.80, 95% CI 1.05 to 7.48; 1 RCT; participants = 200; very low-quality evidence), following screening hysteroscopy in women with at least two years of unexplained subfertility.We included ten trials that included 1836 women who had a screening hysteroscopy and 1914 women who had no hysteroscopy prior to IVF. Main limitations in the quality of evidence were inadequate reporting of study methods and higher statistical heterogeneity. Eight of the ten trials had unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment.Performing a screening hysteroscopy before IVF may increase live birth rate (RR 1.26, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.43; 6 RCTs; participants = 2745; I² = 69 %; low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with a 22% live birth rate, performing a screening hysteroscopy would be expected to result in live birth rates between 25% and 32%. However, sensitivity analysis done by pooling results from trials at low risk of bias showed no increase in live birth rate following a screening hysteroscopy (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.18; 2 RCTs; participants = 1452; I² = 0%).Only four trials reported complications following hysteroscopy; of these, three trials recorded no events in either group. We are uncertain whether a screening hysteroscopy is associated with higher adverse events (Peto odds ratio 7.47, 95% CI 0.15 to 376.42; 4 RCTs; participants = 1872; I² = not applicable; very low-quality evidence).Performing a screening hysteroscopy before IVF may increase clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.20 to 1.45; 10 RCTs; participants = 3750; I² = 49%; low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with a 28% clinical pregnancy rate, performing a screening hysteroscopy would be expected to result in clinical pregnancy rates between 33% and 40%.There may be little or no difference in miscarriage rate following screening hysteroscopy (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.50; 3 RCTs; participants = 1669; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence).We found no trials that compared a screening hysteroscopy versus no hysteroscopy before IUI. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: At present, there is no high-quality evidence to support the routine use of hysteroscopy as a screening tool in the general population of subfertile women with a normal ultrasound or hysterosalpingogram in the basic fertility work-up for improving reproductive success rates.In women undergoing IVF, low-quality evidence, including all of the studies reporting these outcomes, suggests that performing a screening hysteroscopy before IVF may increase live birth and clinical pregnancy rates. However, pooled results from the only two trials with a low risk of bias did not show a benefit of screening hysteroscopy before IVF.Since the studies showing an effect are those with unclear allocation concealment, we are uncertain whether a routine screening hysteroscopy increases live birth and clinical pregnancy, be it for all women, or those with two or more failed IVF attempts. There is insufficient data to draw conclusions about the safety of screening hysteroscopy.

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

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