Ovarian response and embryo ploidy following oral micronized progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation versus GnRH antagonist protocol. A prospective study with repeated ovarian stimulation cycles.

STUDY QUESTION: Is there any difference in ovarian response and embryo ploidy following progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) using micronized progesterone or GnRH antagonist protocol? SUMMARY ANSWER: Pituitary downregulation with micronized progesterone as PPOS results in higher number of oocytes retrieved and a comparable number of euploid blastocysts to a GnRH antagonist protocol. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Although the GnRH antagonist is considered by most the gold standard protocol for controlling the LH surge during ovarian stimulation (OS) for IVF/ICSI, PPOS protocols are being increasingly used in freeze-all protocols. Still, despite the promising results of PPOS protocols, an early randomized trial reported potentially lower live births in recipients of oocytes resulting following downregulation with medroxyprogesterone acetate as compared with a GnRH antagonist protocol. The scope of the current prospective study was to investigate whether PPOS with micronized progesterone results in an equivalent yield of euploid blastocysts to a GnRH antagonist protocol. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In this prospective study, performed between September 2019 to January 2022, 44 women underwent two consecutive OS protocols within a period of 6 months in a GnRH antagonist protocol or in a PPOS protocol with oral micronized progesterone. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Overall, 44 women underwent two OS cycles with an identical fixed dose of rFSH (225 or 300 IU) in both cycles. Downregulation in the first cycles was performed with the use of a flexible GnRH antagonist protocol (0.25 mg per day as soon as one follicle of 14 mm) and consecutively, after a washout period of 1 month, control of LH surge was performed with 200 mg of oral micronized progesterone from stimulation Day 1. After the completion of both cycles, all generated blastocysts underwent genetic analysis for aneuploidy screening (preimplantation genetic testing for aneuplody, PGT-A). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Comparisons between protocols did not reveal differences between the duration of OS. The hormonal profile on the day of trigger revealed statistically significant differences between protocols in all the tested hormones except for FSH: with significantly higher serum E2 levels, more elevated LH levels and higher progesterone levels in PPOS cycles as compared with antagonist cycles, respectively. Compared with the GnRH antagonist protocol, the PPOS protocol resulted in a significantly higher number of oocytes (12.7 ± 8.09 versus 10.3 ± 5.84; difference between means [DBM] -2.4 [95% CI -4.1 to -0.73]), metaphase II (9.1 ± 6.12 versus 7.3 ± 4.15; DBM -1.8 [95% CI -3.1 to -0.43]), and 2 pronuclei (7.1 ± 4.99 versus 5.7 ± 3.35; DBM -1.5 [95% CI -2.6.1 to -0.32]), respectively. Nevertheless, no differences were observed regarding the mean number of blastocysts between the PPOS and GnRH antagonist protocols (2.9 ± 2.11 versus 2.8 ± 2.12; DBM -0.07 [95% CI -0.67 to 0.53]) and the mean number of biopsied blastocysts (2.9 ± 2.16 versus 2.9 ± 2.15; DBM -0.07 [95% CI -0.70 to 0.56]), respectively. Concerning the euploidy rates per biopsied embryo, a 29% [95% CI 21.8-38.1%] and a 35% [95% CI 26.6-43.9%] were noticed in the PPOS and antagonist groups, respectively. Finally, no difference was observed for the primary outcome, with a mean number of euploid embryos of 0.86 ± 0.90 versus 1.00 ± 1.12 for the comparison of PPOS versus GnRh antagonist. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was powered to detect differences in the mean number of euploid embryos and not in terms of pregnancy outcomes. Additionally, per protocol, there was no randomization, the first cycle was always a GnRH antagonist cycle and the second a PPOS with 1 month of washout period in between. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: In case of a freeze-all protocol, clinicians may safely consider oral micronized progesterone to control the LH surge and patients could benefit from the advantages of a medication of oral administration, with a potentially higher number of oocytes retrieved at a lower cost, without any compromise in embryo ploidy rates. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was supported by an unrestricted grant from Theramex. N.P.P. has received Research grants from Merck Serono, Organon, Ferring Pharmaceutical, Roche, Theramex, IBSA, Gedeon Richter, and Besins Healthcare; honoraria for lectures from: Merck Serono, Organon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Besins International, Roche Diagnostics, IBSA, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter; consulting fees from Merck Serono, Organon, Besins Healthcare, and IBSA. M.d.M.V., F.M., and I.R. declared no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study was registered at Clinical Trials Gov. (NCT04108039).

Implicit bias in diagnosing mosaicism amongst preimplantation genetic testing providers: results from a multicenter study of 36 395 blastocysts.

STUDY QUESTION: Does the diagnosis of mosaicism affect ploidy rates across different providers offering preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Our analysis of 36 395 blastocyst biopsies across eight genetic testing laboratories revealed that euploidy rates were significantly higher in providers reporting low rates of mosaicism. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Diagnoses consistent with chromosomal mosaicism have emerged as a third category of possible embryo ploidy outcomes following PGT-A. However, in the era of mosaicism, embryo selection has become increasingly complex. Biological, technical, analytical, and clinical complexities in interpreting such results have led to substantial variability in mosaicism rates across PGT-A providers and clinics. Critically, it remains unknown whether these differences impact the number of euploid embryos available for transfer. Ultimately, this may significantly affect clinical outcomes, with important implications for PGT-A patients. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In this international, multicenter cohort study, we reviewed 36 395 consecutive PGT-A results, obtained from 10 035 patients across 11 867 treatment cycles, conducted between October 2015 and October 2021. A total of 17 IVF centers, across eight PGT-A providers, five countries and three continents participated in the study. All blastocysts were tested using trophectoderm biopsy and next-generation sequencing. Both autologous and donation cycles were assessed. Cycles using preimplantation genetic testing for structural rearrangements were excluded from the analysis. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The PGT-A providers were randomly categorized (A to H). Providers B, C, D, E, F, G, and H all reported mosaicism, whereas Provider A reported embryos as either euploid or aneuploid. Ploidy rates were analyzed using multilevel mixed linear regression. Analyses were adjusted for maternal age, paternal age, oocyte source, number of embryos biopsied, day of biopsy, and PGT-A provider, as appropriate. We compared associations between genetic testing providers and PGT-A outcomes, including the number of chromosomally normal (euploid) embryos determined to be suitable for transfer. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The mean maternal age (±SD) across all providers was 36.2 (±5.2). Our findings reveal a strong association between PGT-A provider and the diagnosis of euploidy and mosaicism. Amongst the seven providers that reported mosaicism, the rates varied from 3.1% to 25.0%. After adjusting for confounders, we observed a significant difference in the likelihood of diagnosing mosaicism across providers (P < 0.001), ranging from 6.5% (95% CI: 5.2-7.4%) for Provider B to 35.6% (95% CI: 32.6-38.7%) for Provider E. Notably, adjusted euploidy rates were highest for providers that reported the lowest rates of mosaicism (Provider B: euploidy, 55.7% (95% CI: 54.1-57.4%), mosaicism, 6.5% (95% CI: 5.2-7.4%); Provider H: euploidy, 44.5% (95% CI: 43.6-45.4%), mosaicism, 9.9% (95% CI: 9.2-10.6%)); and Provider D: euploidy, 43.8% (95% CI: 39.2-48.4%), mosaicism, 11.0% (95% CI: 7.5-14.5%)). Moreover, the overall chance of having at least one euploid blastocyst available for transfer was significantly higher when mosaicism was not reported, when we compared Provider A to all other providers (OR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.13-1.50). Differences in diagnosing and interpreting mosaic results across PGT-A laboratories raise further concerns regarding the accuracy and relevance of mosaicism predictions. While we confirmed equivalent clinical outcomes following the transfer of mosaic and euploid blastocysts, we found that a significant proportion of mosaic embryos are not used for IVF treatment. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Due to the retrospective nature of the study, associations can be ascertained, however, causality cannot be established. Certain parameters such as blastocyst grade were not available in the dataset. Furthermore, certain platform-related and clinic-specific factors may not be readily quantifiable or explicitly captured in our dataset. As such, a full elucidation of all potential confounders accounting for variability may not be possible. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our findings highlight the strong need for standardization and quality assurance in the industry. The decision not to transfer mosaic embryos may ultimately reduce the chance of success of a PGT-A cycle by limiting the pool of available embryos. Until we can be certain that mosaic diagnoses accurately reflect biological variability, reporting mosaicism warrants utmost caution. A prudent approach is imperative, as it may determine the difference between success or failure for some patients. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported by the Torres Quevedo Grant, awarded to M.P. (PTQ2019-010494) by the Spanish State Research Agency, Ministry of Science and Innovation, Spain. M.P., L.B., A.R.L., A.L.R.d.C.L., N.P.P., M.P., D.S., F.A., A.P., B.M., L.D., F.V.M., D.S., M.R., E.P.d.l.B., A.R., and R.V. have no competing interests to declare. B.L., R.M., and J.A.O. are full time employees of IB Biotech, the genetics company of the Instituto Bernabeu group, which performs preimplantation genetic testing. M.G. is a full time employee of Novagen, the genetics company of Cegyr, which performs preimplantation genetic testing. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Real-world practices of hormone monitoring during ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology: a global online survey.

Objective: The aim of this study is to understand the global practice of routine hormonal monitoring (HM) during ovarian stimulation (OS) in the context of assisted reproductive technique (ART) treatment. Methods: An open-access questionnaire was available to 3,845 members of IVF-Worldwide.com from September 8 to October 13, 2021. The survey comprised 25 multiple-choice questions on when and how ultrasound (US) and hormone tests were conducted during ovarian stimulation OS. For most questions, respondents were required to select a single option. Some questions allowed the selection of multiple options. Results: In all, 528 (13.7%) members from 88 countries responded to the questionnaire. Most respondents (98.9%) reported using US to monitor OS cycles. HM was used by 79.5% of respondents during any of the cycle monitoring visits and was most commonly performed on the day of, or a day prior to final oocyte maturation. Overall, 87% of respondents claimed adjusting the dose of gonadotropin during OS, with 61.7% adjusting the dose based on hormonal levels. Oestradiol (E2) was the most frequently monitored hormone during all visits and was used by 74% of respondents for the prediction of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). On or a day prior to ovulation triggering (OT), the number of respondents who measured progesterone increased from 34.3% in the second/third visit to 67.7%. Approximately one-third of respondents measured luteinizing hormone during all visits. Conclusion: Globally, most ART specialists (~80%) use HM, along with US, for monitoring OS, especially for the prevention of OHSS.

Presence of Adenomyosis Impairs Clinical Outcomes in Women Undergoing Frozen Embryo Transfer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

(1) Background: The presence of adenomyosis among pregnant patients has been associated with a higher incidence of miscarriage and pregnancy complications. Although the role of adenomyosis in women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) was investigated in several studies and demonstrated a potentially detrimental effect on live birth rates following IVF, most of them were small studies in which the adenomyosis diagnosis was not confirmed based on solid ultrasonographic criteria. (2) Methods: 3503 patients undergoing their first blastocyst frozen transfer through a hormonal replacement (HRT) FET cycle. Among them, 140 women had a confirmed diagnosis of adenomyosis based on the MUSA criteria. (3) Results: Adenomyosis patients were more likely to proceed with deferred FET compared with no-adenomyosis women (p = 0.002) and were significantly more likely to be treated with GnRH agonist pre-treatment (2 months) (p < 0.001). The presence of adenomyosis significantly decreased the clinical pregnancy rates (aOR 0.62, 95% CI: 0.39-0.98, p = 0.040) and live birth rates (aOR 0.46, 95% CI: 0.27-0.75, p = 0.003) and significantly increased the miscarriage rates (aOR 2.13, 95% CI: 0.98-4.37, p = 0.045). Multivariable logistic regression adjusting for age, autologous or donor oocytes, PGT-A, deferred FET, serum progesterone levels the day before FET, GnRH agonist pre-treatment, number of embryos transferred, and adenomyosis demonstrated that the use of the GnRH agonist protocol did not decrease or increase the miscarriage rate, clinical pregnancy rate, or live birth rate. (4) Conclusions: The presence of adenomyosis had a significant negative impact on the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing FET and was associated with higher miscarriage, lower clinical pregnancy, and live birth rates. GnRH agonist pre-treatment does not appear to improve clinical outcomes.

Elevated serum progesterone levels before frozen embryo transfer do not negatively impact reproductive outcomes: a large retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether patients with high-serum progesterone levels before frozen embryo transfer (FET) under hormonal replacement therapy present with worse reproductive outcomes. DESIGN: A cohort retrospective study. SETTING: A university-affiliated fertility center. PATIENT(S): A total of 3,183 FET cycles in patients receiving hormonal replacement therapy between March 2009 and December 2020 were included. The luteal phase was covered with 200 mg per 8 hours of vaginal micronized progesterone either alone or in combination with a daily subcutaneous injection of 25 mg of progesterone. A total of 1,360 cycles corresponded to frozen homologous embryo transfer (ET) (hom-FET), 1,024 were euploid ET (eu-FET) after preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies, and 799 cycles were frozen heterologous ET (het-FET). All patients had adequate serum progesterone levels (≥10.6 ng/mL) before the procedure. INTERVENTION(S): Frozen embryo transfer cycles. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth rates (LBRs). RESULTS: Median (P25; P75) serum progesterone level before FET was 14.39 (12.43-17.49) ng/mL. Progesterone levels were significantly higher in the group under vaginal plus subcutaneous progesterone (15.96 [13.74-21.60] vs. 14.09 [12.19-16.95]). No differences in clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and LBR were observed based on the use of vaginal or vaginal plus subcutaneous progesterone for each of the groups (hom-FET, eu-FET, and het-FET). Live birth rates were comparable among patients in the highest centile of serum progesterone levels (≥p90) (22.33 ng/mL) and the rest of the patients (p<90) (43.9% vs. 41.3%). Patients with progesterone levels ≥p90 presented lower body mass index than those in the lower centiles (

Comparison of blastocyst euploidy rates following luteal versus follicular phase stimulation in a GnRH antagonist protocol: a prospective study with repeated ovarian stimulation cycles.

STUDY QUESTION: Is there any difference in the mean number of euploid embryos following luteal phase start (LS) and follicular phase start (FS) of ovarian stimulation? SUMMARY ANSWER: The mean number of euploid blastocysts is equivalent independent of whether the inseminated oocytes are derived from FS or LS. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Starting ovarian stimulation at any time of the cycle ('random-start') is commonly used for emergency fertility preservation in cancer patients. A few retrospective studies have been published evaluating LS in women undergoing ovarian stimulation in the context of IVF, but there is a lack of robust data on the comparative efficacy of LS versus FS.Although 'random start' is commonly used in cancer survivors, few retrospective and uncontrolled studies have been published evaluating luteal phase stimulation in women undergoing ovarian stimulation in the context of IVF. Owing to this evident lack of robust data on the efficacy of LS, guidelines typically recommend the LS approach only for medical reasons and not in the context of IVF. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a prospective, equivalence study, with repeated stimulation cycles, conducted between May 2018 and December 2021. Overall, 44 oocyte donors underwent two identical consecutive ovarian stimulation cycles, one initiated in the FS and the other in the LS. The primary outcome of the study was to evaluate whether FS and LS in the same patient would result in equivalent numbers of euploid embryos following fertilization of oocytes with the same sperm sample. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Overall, 44 oocyte donors underwent two consecutive ovarian stimulation protocols with 150 µg corifollitropin alpha followed by 200 IU recombinant FSH (rFSH) in a fixed GnRH antagonist protocol. The only difference between the two cycles was the day of initiation of ovarian stimulation, which was in the early follicular phase (FS) in one cycle, and in the luteal phase (LS) in the other. Forty-four oocyte recipients participated in the study receiving a mean of six metaphase II (MII) oocytes from each stimulation cycle (FS and LS). All MIIs were inseminated with the corresponding recipient's partner sperm (which had been previously frozen) or donor sperm, in order to safeguard the use of the same sample for either the FS or LS. Following fertilization and blastocyst culture, all generated embryos underwent genetic analysis for aneuploidy screening (preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: FS resulted in a significantly shorter duration of ovarian stimulation (difference between means (DBM) -1.05 (95% CI -1.89; -0.20)) and a lower total additional dose of daily rFSH was needed (DBM -196.02 (95% CI -319.92; -72.12)) compared with LS. The donors' hormonal profile on the day of trigger was comparable between the two stimulation cycles, as well as the mean number of oocytes (23.70 ± 10.79 versus 23.70 ± 8.81) (DBM 0.00 (95% CI -3.03; 3.03)) and MII oocytes (20.27 ± 9.60 versus 20.73 ± 8.65) (DBM -0.45 (95% CI -2.82; 1.91)) between FS and LS cycles, respectively. Following fertilization, the overall blastocyst formation rate was 60.70% with a euploid rate of 57.1%. Comparisons between the two stimulation cycles did not reveal any significance differences in terms of fertilization rates (71.9% versus 71.4%), blastocyst formation rates (59.4% versus 62%) and embryo euploidy rates (56.9 versus 57.3%) for the comparison of FS versus LS, respectively. The mean number of euploid blastocysts was equivalent between the FS (1.59 ± 1.30) and the LS (1.61 ± 1.17), (DBM -0.02 (90%CI -0.48; 0.44)). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was performed in young, potentially fertile oocyte donors who are patients with high blastocyst euploidy rates. Although results may be extrapolated to young infertile women with good ovarian reserve, caution is needed prior to generalizing the results to infertile women of older age. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The current study provides evidence that initiation of ovarian stimulation in the luteal phase in young potentially fertile women may result in a comparable number of oocytes and comparable blastocyst euploidy rates compared with follicular phase stimulation. This may imply that in case of a freeze-all protocol in young patients with good ovarian reserve, clinicians may safely consider initiation of ovarian stimulation during the luteal phase. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was supported by an unrestricted grant from MSD/Organon. N.P.P. has received Research grants and honoraria for lectures from: Merck Serono, MSD/Organon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Besins Intenational, Roche Diagnostics, IBSA, Theramex, Gedeon Richter. F.M., E.C., M.R. and S.G. declared no conflict of interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study was registered at Clinical Trials Gov (NCT03555942).

Male and female blastocysts: any difference other than the sex?

RESEARCH QUESTION: Is there any imbalance in the sex ratio at the blastocyst stage of human embryos? And what is the sex ratio in euploid, transferred, implanted blastocysts and at birth? DESIGN: Embryos from 646 women undergoing 921 preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) cycles from September 2017 to February 2020 were included. Data from the chromosomal constitution of 2637 biopsied blastocysts were retrospectively analysed. Trophectoderm samples were analysed by next-generation sequencing. Embryos were categorized as euploid, mosaic or aneuploid. A total of 548 blastocysts diagnosed as euploid were warmed and transferred in a subsequent single-embryo transfer cycle. RESULTS: The blastocyst sex ratio was skewed in favour of male sex with 53.1% (1401/2637) of blastocysts diagnosed as male and 46.9% (1236/2637) as female (sex ratio 1.13, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05-1.22). Following biopsy and PGT-A, 41.2% (1086/2637) of blastocysts were classified as euploid, 7.7% (202/2637) as mosaic and 51.2% (1349/2637) as aneuploid. More chromosome euploidy was observed among female than male blastocysts (adjusted odds ratio 1.29, 95% CI 1.08-1.55) after adjusting for female age, male age and gonadotrophin dose. Euploid blastocysts were comparable between the sexes (sex ratio 0.99, 95% CI 0.88-1.11). No significant differences were observed between the sexes in implantation (sex ratio 0.86, 95% CI 0.68-1.08), miscarriage (sex ratio 1, 95% CI 0.51-1.97) or live birth rate (sex ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.66-1.08). CONCLUSIONS: More male than female embryos develop to the blastocyst stage. Male blastocysts exhibit a higher aneuploidy rate. The capacity to implant and lead to a live birth is similar between the sexes.

Ultrasonographic appearance of the endometrium after saline infusion in women presenting with PRM-associated endometrial changes, due to the use of ulipristal acetate.

Ulipristal acetate (UPA), used for the treatment in women with symptomatic fibroids, is associated with endometrial changes visualised on ultrasound as thickening up to more than 16 mm in approximately 10% of the patients. Is saline infusion sonography (SIS) a good alternative for more invasive techniques, to evaluate the presence of intrauterine pathology? Ten patients, presenting with UPA associated endometrial changes at their follow up ultra-sonographic evaluation, were included. Our study demonstrated that SIS is feasible and painless in patients presenting with UPA associated endometrial changes. The thickened endometrium appears to divide at the midline, making it possible to study both layers separately and exclude any suspected intrauterine pathology. Our findings suggest that SIS may be a first choice, non-invasive, painless technique to provide a proper visualisation to rule out intrauterine pathology when UPA associated endometrial changes are diagnosed after fibroid treatment. This is especially of clinical interest in front of assisted reproductive technology treatment. Invasive techniques can be withheld for patients in whom SIS examination is not contributive.Impact StatementWhat is already known on this subject? Reversible endometrial changes after ulipristal acetate (UPA) treatment in patients with symptomatic fibroids have been described. In patients who receive UPA, especially if planned to undergo ART, assessment of potential endometrial pathology is important as such interfere with proper implantation after ART. Consequently, clinicians may consider ruling out intrauterine pathology by invasive examinations such as biopsy or hysteroscopy after visualisation of the thickened endometrium.What do the results of this study add? Saline infusion sonography (SIS) was feasible and painless in patients presenting with UPA associated endometrial changes.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? SIS may be a first choice, non-invasive, painless technique to provide a proper visualisation to rule out intrauterine pathology when UPA associated endometrial changes are diagnosed after fibroid treatment. This is especially of clinical interest in front of assisted reproductive technology treatment. Invasive techniques can be withheld for patients in whom SIS examination is not contributive in excluding intrauterine pathology.

Progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation in oocyte donation: a model for elective fertility preservation?

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does type of LH peak suppression (progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation [PPOS] versus gonadotrophin releasing hormone [GnRH] antagonist) affect oocyte competence, embryo development and live birth rates in recipients of vitrified donated oocytes? DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study conducted between 2016 and 2018, involving 187 recipient cycles of donated vitrified oocytes. Oocyte donors were stimulated under LH suppression with desogestrel for PPOS (DSG group) or ganirelix GnRH antagonist (ANT group). Recipients younger than 50 years received vitrified oocytes from DSG donation cycles (DSG-R) or ANT donation cycles (ANT-R). RESULTS: A mean of 10.07 ± 3.54 oocytes per recipient were warmed (survival rate of 80.7%), and 5.90 ± 2.89 were fertilized (fertilization rate 72.6%). Out of 187 recipients, 168 achieved embryo transfers. No significant differences were found in warming survival rates, fertilization rates and embryo development between DSG-R and ANT-R groups. Ninety-four clinical pregnancies and 81 live births were achieved. No statistically significant differences were found in clinical pregnancy rates (47.7% versus 52.5, P = 0.513) and live birth rates (39.5% versus 46.5%, P = 0.336) per recipient cycle between DSG-R and ANT-R, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression was applied to assess the effect of treating oocyte donors. Live birth rate adjusted for associated factors was not statistically different between vitrified oocytes from DSG or ANT (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.47). CONCLUSION: Reproductive outcomes of recipients of vitrified oocytes are not affected by donor PPOS treatment. PPOS is suitable for suppressing LH peak in elective fertility preservation and in freeze-all strategies.

The effect of trophectoderm biopsy technique and sample handling on artefactual mosaicism.

PURPOSE: To determine whether embryo mosaicism prevalence in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) cycles is associated with the trophectoderm biopsy technique used (a. number of laser pulses or b. the use of flicking or pulling) or the time to tubing. METHODS: Prospective observational study performed in a single IVF-PGT-A setting from May 2019 to May 2021. Trophectoderm biopsies were analysed by next-generation sequencing. Mosaicism was analysed in relation to the biopsy methodology (number of laser pulses and pulling vs flicking), time elapsed from biopsy to tubing (min), and time of sample cryostorage from tubing to amplification (days). As a secondary objective, the number of laser pulses and biopsy methodology were studied in relation to clinical outcomes of transferred euploid blastocysts. RESULTS: None of the analysed variables were associated to mosaicism prevalence. Multivariable regression analysis demonstrated that mosaicism prevalence was comparable either when  > 3 laser pulses were used as compared to ≤ 3 (13.9% vs 13.8%, aOR = 0.8726 [0.60-1.28]) and pulling compared to flicking (13.1% vs 14.0%, aOR = 0.86 [0.60-1.23]). Moreover, neither the number of laser pulses during biopsy (> 3 vs ≤ 3) nor the technique used (pulling vs flicking) were associated with clinical pregnancy after the transfer of frozen-thawed euploid blastocysts (54.9% vs 55.2%, aOR = 1.05 [0.53-2.09]; 61.1% vs 52.9%, aOR = 1.11 [0.55-2.25], respectively). CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that, as long as the biopsy and tubing procedures are performed following standardized high quality procedures, no specific approach would increase the generation of artefactual mosaicism as a result of trophectoderm biopsy. Trophectoderm biopsies should be performed regardless of the methodology but always aiming on minimising blastocyst manipulation.

The effect of late-follicular phase progesterone elevation on embryo ploidy and cumulative live birth rates.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does late-follicular phase progesterone elevation have a deleterious effect on embryo euploidy, blastocyst formation rate and cumulative live birth rates (CLBR)? DESIGN: A multicentre retrospective cross-sectional study including infertile patients aged 18-40 years who underwent ovarian stimulation in a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) followed by a freeze-all strategy and euploid embryo transfer between August 2017 and December 2019. The sample was stratified according to the progesterone concentrations on the day of trigger: normal (≤1.50 ng/ml) and high (>1.50 ng/ml). Moreover, sensitivity analyses were performed to determine whether different conclusions would have been drawn if different cut-offs had been adopted. The primary outcome was the embryo euploidy rate. Secondary outcomes were the blastocyst formation rate, the number of euploid blastocysts and CLBR. RESULTS: Overall 1495 intracytoplasmic sperm injection PGT-A cycles were analysed. Late-follicular phase progesterone elevation was associated with significantly higher late-follicular oestradiol concentrations (2847.56 ± 1091.10 versus 2240.94 ± 996.37 pg/ml, P < 0.001) and significantly more oocytes retrieved (17.67 ± 8.86 versus 12.70 ± 7.00, P < 0.001). The number of euploid embryos was significantly higher in the progesterone elevation group (2.32 ± 1.74 versus 1.86 ± 1.42, P = 0.001), whereas the blastocyst formation rate (47.1% [43.7-50.5%] versus 51.0% [49.7-52.4%]), the embryo euploidy rate (48.3% [44.9-51.7%] versus 49.1% [47.7-50.6%], the live birth rate in the first frozen embryo transfer (34.1% versus 31.1%, P = 0.427) and CLBR (38.9% versus 37.0%, P = 0.637) were not significantly different between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: Euploidy rate and CLBR do not significantly differ among PGT-A cycles with and without late-follicular progesterone elevation in a freeze-all approach.

Ovarian stimulation for oocyte donation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Since its introduction in the 1980s, oocyte donation (OD) has been largely integrated into ART. Lately, both demand and the indications for OD have increased greatly. Oocyte donors are healthy and potentially fertile women undergoing voluntarily ovarian stimulation (OS). Selection of the optimal type of stimulation is of paramount importance in order to achieve the most favourable outcomes for the oocyte recipients, but most importantly for the safety of the oocyte donors. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: This is the first systematic review (SR) with the objective to summarize the current evidence on OS in oocyte donors. The scope of this SR was to evaluate the OD programme by assessing four different aspects: how to assess the ovarian response prior to stimulation; how to plan the OS (gonadotrophins; LH suppression; ovulation trigger; when to start OS); how to control for the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and other complications; and the differences between the use of fresh versus vitrified donated oocytes. SEARCH METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted in May 2020, according to PRISMA guidelines in the databases PubMed and Embase, using a string that combined synonyms for oocytes, donation, banking, freezing, complications and reproductive outcomes. Studies reporting on the safety and/or efficacy of OS in oocyte donors were identified. The quality of the included studies was assessed using ROBINS-I and ROB2. Meta-analysis was performed where appropriate. Data were combined to calculate mean differences (MD) for continuous variables and odd ratios (OR) for binary data with their corresponding 95% CIs. Heterogeneity between the included studies was assessed using I2 and tau statistics. OUTCOMES: In total, 57 manuscripts were selected for the review, out of 191 citations identified. Antral follicle count and anti-Müllerian hormone levels correlate with ovarian response to OS in OD but have limited value to discriminate donors who are likely to show either impaired or excessive response. Five randomized controlled trials compared different type of gonadotrophins as part of OS in oocyte donors; owing to high heterogeneity, meta-analysis was precluded. When comparing different types of LH control, namely GnRH antagonist versus agonist, the studies showed no differences in ovarian response. Use of progesterone primed ovarian stimulation protocols has been evaluated in seven studies: the evidence has shown little or no difference, compared to GnRH antagonist protocols, in mean number of retrieved oocytes (MD 0.23, [95% CI 0.58-1.05], n = 2147; 6 studies; I2 = 13%, P = 0.33) and in clinical pregnancy rates among recipients (OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.60-1.26], n = 2260, I2 = 72%, P < 0.01). There is insufficient evidence on long-term safety for babies born. GnRH agonist triggering is the gold standard and should be used in all oocyte donors, given the excellent oocyte retrieval rates, the practical elimination of OHSS and no differences in pregnancy rates in recipients (four studies, OR 0.86, 95%CI 0.58-1.26; I2 = 0%). OS in OD is a safe procedure with a low rate of hospitalization after oocyte retrieval. The use of a levonorgestrel intrauterine device or a progestin contraceptive pill during OS does not impact the number of oocytes retrieved or the clinical pregnancy rate in recipients. Ultrasound monitoring seems enough for an adequate follow up of the stimulation cycle in OD. Use of fresh versus vitrified donated oocytes yielded similar pregnancy outcomes. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: This update will be helpful in the clinical management of OS in OD based on the most recent knowledge and recommendations, and possibly in the management of women under 35 years undergoing oocyte vitrification for social freezing, owing to the population similarities. More clinical research is needed on OS protocols that are specifically designed for OD, especially in term of the long-term safety for newborns, effective contraception during OS, and treatment satisfaction.

Individualised luteal phase support in artificially prepared frozen embryo transfer cycles based on serum progesterone levels: a prospective cohort study.

STUDY QUESTION: Does an individualised luteal phase support (iLPS), according to serum progesterone (P4) level the day prior to euploid frozen embryo transfer (FET), improve pregnancy outcomes when started on the day previous to embryo transfer? SUMMARY ANSWER: Patients with low serum P4 the day prior to euploid FET can benefit from the addition of daily subcutaneous P4 injections (Psc), when started the day prior to FET, and achieve similar reproductive outcomes compared to those with initial adequate P4 levels. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The ratio between FET/IVF has spectacularly increased in the last years mainly thanks to the pursuit of an ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome free clinic and the development of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT). There is currently a big concern regarding the endometrial preparation for FET, especially in relation to serum P4 levels around the time of embryo transfer. Several studies have described impaired pregnancy outcomes in those patients with low P4 levels around the time of FET, considering 10 ng/ml as one of the most accepted reference values. To date, no prospective study has been designed to compare the reproductive outcomes between patients with adequate P4 the day previous to euploid FET and those with low, but restored P4 levels on the transfer day after iLPS through daily Psc started on the day previous to FET. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A prospective observational study was conducted at a university-affiliated fertility centre between November 2018 and January 2020 in patients undergoing PGT for aneuploidies (PGT-A) IVF cycles and a subsequent FET under hormone replacement treatment (HRT). A total of 574 cycles (453 patients) were analysed: 348 cycles (leading to 342 euploid FET) with adequate P4 on the day previous to FET, and 226 cycles (leading to 220 euploid FET) under iLPS after low P4 on the previous day to FET, but restored P4 levels on the transfer day. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Overall we included 574 HRT FET cycles (453 patients). Standard HRT was used for endometrial preparation. P4 levels were measured the day previous to euploid FET. P4 > 10.6 ng/ml was considered as adequate and euploid FET was performed on the following day (FET Group 1). P4 < 10.6 ng/ml was considered as low, iLPS was added in the form of daily Psc injections, and a new P4 analysis was performed on the following day. FET was only performed on the same day when a restored P4 > 10.6 ng/ml was achieved (98.2% of cases) (FET Group 2). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Patient's demographics and cycle parameters were comparable between both euploid FET groups (FET Group 1 and FET Group 2) in terms of age, weight, oestradiol and P4 levels and number of embryos transferred. No statistically significant differences were found in terms of clinical pregnancy rate (56.4% vs 59.1%: rate difference (RD) -2.7%, 95% CI [-11.4; 6.0]), ongoing pregnancy rate (49.4% vs 53.6%: RD -4.2%, 95% CI [-13.1; 4.7]) or live birth rate (49.1% vs 52.3%: RD -3.2%, 95% CI [-12; 5.7]). No significant differences were also found according to miscarriage rate (12.4% vs 9.2%: RD 3.2%, 95% CI [-4.3; 10.7]). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Only iLPS through daily Psc was evaluated. The time for Psc injection was not stated and no serum P4 determinations were performed once the pregnancy was achieved. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our study provides information regarding an 'opportunity window' for improved ongoing pregnancy rates and miscarriage rates through a daily Psc injection in cases of inadequate P4 levels the day previous to FET (P4 < 10.6 ng/ml) and restored values the day of FET (P4 > 10.6 ng/ml). Only euploid FET under HRT were considered, avoiding one of the main reasons of miscarriage and implantation failure and overcoming confounding factors such as female age, embryo quality or ovarian stimulation protocols. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funding was received. B.C. reports personal fees from MSD, Merck Serono, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, IBSA and Gedeon Richter outside the submitted work. N.P. reports grants and personal fees from MSD, Merck Serono, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Theramex and Besins International and personal fees from IBSA and Gedeon Richter outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03740568.

Androgens and Anti-Müllerian Hormone in Infertile Patients.

To investigate whether there is an association between androgens and ovarian reserve, expressed through anti-Mullerian hormone. This is a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of all consecutive women attending a tertiary fertility center, who presented with regular menstrual cycles. Patients had their AMH values measured with the same AMH assay (Immunotech (IOT) Beckmann Coulter assay), the same day in which androgens sampling was performed. Women with PCOS or other forms of androgen excess or untreated endocrine or metabolic disorders were excluded. A total of 942 women were included. Significant correlation was observed between total testosterone/free androgens index (FAI)/DHEAS and AMH (Spearman's r = 0.20/0.14/0.13, P value < 0.001, P value < 0.001, and P value < 0.001, respectively). After multiple linear regression analysis adjusting for confounders (age, BMI, cause of infertility, day of the menstrual cycle when the blood sample was performed), the regression slope in all participants for total testosterone predicting logAMH was 0.20 (P value < 0.001). Similarly, FAI was significantly associated with logAMH (regression coefficient = 0.04, P value = 0.04). In contrast, DHEAS was not significantly associated with logAMH. There was a significant, but weak relation between testosterone and AMH, while no significant association was observed between DHEAS and AMH. Future research is needed to elucidate whether testosterone supplementation may have any effect on ovarian function.

Effect of Genetic Variants of Gonadotropins and Their Receptors on Ovarian Stimulation Outcomes: A Delphi Consensus.

Background: A Delphi consensus was conducted to evaluate the influence of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes encoding gonadotropin and gonadotropin receptors on clinical ovarian stimulation outcomes following assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment. Methods: Nine experts plus two Scientific Coordinators discussed and amended statements plus supporting references proposed by the Scientific Coordinators. The statements were distributed via an online survey to 36 experts, who voted on their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement. Consensus was reached if the proportion of participants agreeing or disagreeing with a statement was >66%. Results: Eleven statements were developed, of which two statements were merged. Overall, eight statements achieved consensus and two statements did not achieve consensus. The statements reaching consensus are summarized here. (1) SNP in the follicle stimulating hormone receptor (FSHR), rs6166 (c.2039A>G, p.Asn680Ser) (N=5 statements): Ser/Ser carriers have higher basal FSH levels than Asn/Asn carriers. Ser/Ser carriers require higher amounts of gonadotropin during ovarian stimulation than Asn/Asn carriers. Ser/Ser carriers produce fewer oocytes during ovarian stimulation than Asn/Asn or Asn/Ser carriers. There is mixed evidence supporting an association between this variant and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. (2) SNP of FSHR, rs6165 (c.919G>A, p.Thr307Ala) (N=1 statement): Few studies suggest Thr/Thr carriers require a shorter duration of gonadotropin stimulation than Thr/Ala or Ala/Ala carriers. (3) SNP of FSHR, rs1394205 (-29G>A) (N=1 statement): Limited data in specific ethnic groups suggest that A/A allele carriers may require higher amounts of gonadotropin during ovarian stimulation and produce fewer oocytes than G/G carriers. (4) SNP of FSH ß-chain (FSHB), rs10835638 (-211G>T) (N=1 statement): There is contradictory evidence supporting an association between this variant and basal FSH levels or oocyte number. (5) SNPs of luteinizing hormone ß-chain (LHB) and LH/choriogonadotropin receptor (LHCGR) genes (N=1 statement): these may influence ovarian stimulation outcomes and could represent potential future targets for pharmacogenomic research in ART, although data are still very limited. Conclusions: This Delphi consensus provides clinical perspectives from a diverse international group of experts. The consensus supports a link between some variants in gonadotropin/gonadotropin receptor genes and ovarian stimulation outcomes; however, further research is needed to clarify these findings.

Prevalence, types and possible factors influencing mosaicism in IVF blastocysts: results from a single setting.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Are intrinsic or extrinsic factors associated with embryo mosaicism prevalence in IVF cycles? DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) cycles carried out at a university-affiliated IVF clinic between October 2017 and October 2019. Trophectoderm biopsies were analysed by next generation sequencing. Mosaicism prevalence, type of anomaly and the chromosomes involved were analysed. Intrinsic and extrinsic factors potentially inducing mosaicism were studied: maternal and paternal age, antral follicle count, cumulus-oocyte complexes retrieved, female body mass index, PGT-A indication, sperm concentration, total dosage of gonadotrophins, embryo quality and day of blastocyst formation, single-step commercial media used and biopsy operator. RESULTS: Overall prevalence of mosaicism in our PGT-A setting was 13.9%. In segmental mosaicism, larger chromosomes tended to be more affected, which was not observed in whole-chromosome mosaicism. Additionally, segmental mosaicism was mostly observed in monosomy (69.6%; P < 0.01) compared with whole-chromosome mosaicism (49.7% monosomies versus 50.3% trisomies; P = 0.83). Although a high inter-patient variability was observed, only paternal age showed a positive association with mosaicism (adjusted OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.54) among the analysed variables. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest remarkable differences in the mechanisms generating segmental and whole-chromosome mosaicism, indicating that they may deserve different consideration when studying them and when prioritizing them for transfer. Male factor seems to be associated with mosaicism and may be worthy of specific assessment in future studies.

The freeze-all strategy versus agonist triggering with low-dose hCG for luteal phase support in IVF/ICSI for high responders: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does the freeze-all strategy in high-responders increase pregnancy rates and improve safety outcomes when compared with GnRH agonist triggering followed by low-dose hCG intensified luteal support with a fresh embryo transfer? SUMMARY ANSWER: Pregnancy rates after either fresh embryo transfer with intensified luteal phase support using low-dose hCG or the freeze-all strategy did not vary significantly; however, moderate-to-severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) occurred more frequently in the women who attempted a fresh embryo transfer. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Two strategies following GnRH agonist triggering (the freeze-all approach and a fresh embryo transfer attempt using a low-dose of hCG for intensified luteal phase support) are safer alternatives when compared with conventional hCG triggering with similar pregnancy outcomes. However, these two strategies have never been compared head-to-head in an unrestricted predicted hyper-responder population. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This study included women with an excessive response to ovarian stimulation (≥18 follicles measuring ≥11 mm) undergoing IVF/ICSI in a GnRH antagonist suppressed cycle between 2014 and 2017. Our primary outcome was clinical pregnancy at 7 weeks after the first embryo transfer. Secondary outcomes included live birth and the development of moderate-to-severe OHSS. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Following GnRH agonist triggering, women were randomized either to cryopreserve all good-quality embryos followed by a frozen embryo transfer in an subsequent artificial cycle or to perform a fresh embryo transfer with intensified luteal phase support (1500 IU hCG on the day of oocyte retrieval, plus oral estradiol 2 mg two times a day, plus 200 mg of micronized vaginal progesterone three times a day). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 212 patients (106 in each arm) were recruited in the study, with three patients (one in the fresh embryo transfer group and two in the freeze-all group) later withdrawing their consent to participate in the study. One patient in the freeze-all group became pregnant naturally (clinical pregnancy diagnosed 38 days after randomization) prior to the first frozen embryo transfer. The study arms did not vary significantly in terms of the number of oocytes retrieved and embryos produced/transferred. The intention to treat clinical pregnancy and live birth rates (with the latter excluding four cases lost to follow-up: one in the fresh transfer and three in the freeze-all arms, respectively) after the first embryo transfer did not vary significantly among the fresh embryo transfer and freeze-all study arms: 51/105 (48.6%) versus 57/104 (54.8%) and 41/104 (39.4%) versus 42/101 (41.6%), respectively (relative risk for clinical pregnancy 1.13, 95% CI 0.87-1.47; P = 0.41). However, moderate-to-severe OHSS occurred solely in the group that received low-dose hCG (9/105, 8.6%, 95% CI 3.2% to 13.9% vs 0/104, 95% CI 0 to 3.7, P < 0.01). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The sample size calculation was based on a 19% absolute difference in terms of clinical pregnancy rates, therefore smaller differences, as observed in the trial, cannot be reliably excluded as non-significant. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study offers the first comparative analysis of two common strategies applied to women performing IVF/ICSI with a high risk to develop OHSS. While pregnancy rates did not vary significantly, a fresh embryo transfer with intensified luteal phase support may still not avoid the risk of moderate-to-severe OHSS and serious consideration should be made before recommending it as a routine first-line treatment. Future trials may allow us to confirm these findings. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. No external funding was obtained for this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02148393. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 28 May 2014. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 30 May 2014.

Is ovarian response associated with adverse perinatal outcomes in GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI cycles?

RESEARCH QUESTION: Is there an association between ovarian response and perinatal outcomes? DESIGN: A retrospective, single-centre cohort study including all women undergoing their first ovarian stimulation cycle in a gonadotrophin releasing hormone antagonist protocol, with a fresh embryo transfer that resulted in a singleton live birth from January 2009 to December 2015. Patients were categorized into four groups according to the number of oocytes retrieved: one to three (category 1), four to nine (category 2), 10-15 (category 3), or over 15 oocytes (category 4). RESULTS: The overall number of patients analysed was 964. No relevant statistical difference was found among neonatal outcomes across the four ovarian response categories. Neonatal weight (in grams) was comparable between all groups (3222 ± 607 versus 3254 ± 537 versus 3235 ± 575 versus 3200 ± 622; P = 0.85, in categories 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively). No statistically significant differences were found among the ovarian response categories for birth weight z-scores (taking into account neonatal sex and delivery term). The incidence of pre-term birth and low birth weight was comparable across the different ovarian response groups (P = 0.127 and P = 0.19, respectively). Finally, the occurrence of adverse obstetric outcomes did not differ among the ovarian response categories. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that the number of oocytes was not associated with neonatal birth weight. CONCLUSIONS: No association was found between ovarian response and adverse perinatal outcomes in antagonist IVF and intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Future, larger scale and prospectively designed investigations are needed to validate these results.

Low progesterone levels on the day before natural cycle frozen embryo transfer are negatively associated with live birth rates.

STUDY QUESTION: Are progesterone (P) levels on the day before natural cycle frozen embryo transfer (NC-FET) associated with live birth rate (LBR)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Regular ovulatory women undergoing NC-FET with serum P levels <10 ng/ml on the day before blastocyst transfer have a significantly lower LBR than those with serum P levels >10 ng/ml. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The importance of serum P levels around the time of embryo transfer in patients undergoing FET under artificial endometrial preparation has been well established. However, no study has analyzed the importance of serum P levels in patients undergoing FET under a true natural endometrial preparation cycle. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This was a retrospective cohort study including 294 frozen blastocyst transfers under natural cycle endometrial preparation at a university-affiliated fertility centre between January 2016 and January 2019. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: All patients had regular menstrual cycles and underwent NC-FET with their own oocytes. Only patients who had undergone serum P measurement between 8 am and 11 am on the day before FET were included. Patients did not receive any external medication for endometrial preparation or luteal phase support. Patients were divided into two groups according to serum P levels below or above 10 ng/ml on the day before FET. Univariate analysis was carried out to describe and compare the cycle characteristics with reproductive outcomes. To evaluate the effect of P, a multivariable logistic model was fitted for each outcome after adjusting for confounding variables. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Mean serum P levels on the day before FET were significantly higher in patients who had a live birth compared to those who did not (14.5 ± 7.0 vs 12.0 ± 6.6 ng/ml, 95% CI [0.83; 4.12]). The overall clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and LBR were 42.9% and 35.4%, respectively. Patients in the higher P group (>10 ng/ml) had a higher LBR (41.1% vs 25.7%: risk difference (RD) 15.4%, 95% CI [5; 26]) and CPR (48.6% vs 33.0%: RD 15.6%, 95% CI [4; 27]). Patients with higher serum P levels on the day before FET (63% of patients) had an improved LBR (odds ratio: 1.05; 95% CI [1.02; 1.09]). Women with serum P levels <10 ng/ml on the day before FET (37% of patients) had significantly higher weights (62.5 ± 9.9 vs 58.1 ± 7.1 kg, 95% CI [1.92; 6.90]) and BMI (22.9 ± 3.6 vs 21.6 ± 2.7 kg/m2, 95% CI [0.42; 2.25]) compared to patients with P levels >10 ng/ml. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The main limitation of our study is its retrospective design. Other potential limitations are the detection of LH surge through urine testing and the inclusion of patients who did and did not undergo preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies. The protocol used in our institution for monitoring NC-FET does not look for the onset of progesterone secretion by the corpus luteum, and a slow luteinisation process or delay of corpus luteum function cannot be ruled out. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We provide evidence that a minimum serum P threshold (P >10 ng/ml) might be required for improved reproductive outcomes in NC-FET. This result suggests that there are different mechanisms by which P is produced and/or distributed by each patient. This study also provides an excellent model to evaluate the impact of luteal phase defect through NC-FET. A prospective evaluation to assess whether P supplementation should be individualised according to patient's needs is necessary to support our findings. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funding was used, and there are no competing interests.