The effect of polymorphisms in FSHR gene on late follicular phase progesterone and estradiol serum levels in predicted normoresponders.

STUDY QUESTION: Does the presence of FSHR single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) affect late follicular phase progesterone and estradiol serum levels in predicted normoresponders treated with rFSH? SUMMARY ANSWER: The presence of FSHR SNPs (rs6165, rs6166, rs1394205) had no clinically significant impact on late follicular phase serum progesterone and estradiol levels in predicted normoresponders undergoing a GnRH antagonist protocol with a fixed daily dose of 150 IU rFSH. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Previous studies have shown that late follicular phase serum progesterone and estradiol levels are significantly correlated with the magnitude of ovarian response. Several authors have proposed that individual variability in the response to ovarian stimulation (OS) could be explained by variants in FSHR. However, so far, the literature is scarce on the influence of this genetic variability on late follicular phase steroidogenic response. Our aim is to determine whether genetic variants in the FSHR gene could modulate late follicular phase serum progesterone and estradiol levels. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In this multicenter multinational prospective study conducted from November 2016 to June 2019, 366 patients from Vietnam, Belgium and Spain (166 from Europe and 200 from Asia) underwent OS followed by oocyte retrieval in a GnRH antagonist protocol with a fixed daily dose of 150 IU rFSH. All patients were genotyped for 3 FSHR SNPs (rs6165, rs6166, rs1394205) and had a serum progesterone and estradiol measurement on the day of trigger. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Included patients were predicted normal responder women <38 years old undergoing their first or second OS cycle. The prevalence of late follicular phase progesterone elevation (PE), as well as mean serum progesterone and estradiol levels on the day of trigger were compared between the different FSHR SNPs genotypes. PE was defined as >1.50 ng/ml. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The overall prevalence of PE was 15.8% (n = 58). No significant difference was found in the prevalence of PE in Caucasian and Asian patients (17.5% versus 14.5%). Estradiol levels on the day of trigger and the number of retrieved oocytes were significantly higher in patients with PE (4779 ± 6236.2 versus 3261 ± 3974.5 pg/ml, P = 0.003, and 16.1 ± 8.02 versus 13.5 ± 6.66, P = 0.011, respectively). Genetic model analysis, adjusted for patient age, body mass index, number of retrieved oocytes and continent (Asia versus Europe), revealed a similar prevalence of PE in co-dominant, dominant and recessive models for variants FSHR rs6166, rs6165 and rs1394205. No statistically significant difference was observed in the mean late follicular phase progesterone serum levels according to the genotypes of FSHR rs6166 (P = 0.941), rs6165 (P = 0.637) and rs1394205 (P = 0.114) in the bivariate analysis. Also, no difference was found in the genetic model analysis regarding mean late follicular phase progesterone levels across the different genotypes. Genetic model analysis has also revealed no statistically significant difference regarding mean estradiol levels on the day of trigger in co-dominant, dominant and recessive models for variants FSHR rs6166, rs6165 and rs1394205. Haplotype analysis revealed a statistically significant lower estradiol level on the day of trigger for rs6166/rs6165 haplotypes GA, AA and GG when compared to AG (respectively, estimated mean difference (EMD) -441.46 pg/ml (95% CI -442.47; -440.45), EMD -673.46 pg/ml (95% CI -674.26; -672.67) and EMD -582.10 pg/ml (95% CI -584.92; -579.28)). No statistically significant differences were found regarding the prevalence of PE nor late follicular phase progesterone levels according to rs6166/rs6165 haplotypes. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Results refer to a population of predicted normal responders treated with a normal/low fixed dose of 150 IU rFSH throughout the whole OS. Consequently, caution is needed before generalizing our results to all patient categories. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Based on our results, FSHR SNPs rs6165, rs6166 and rs1394205 do not have any clinically significant impact neither on late follicular phase serum progesterone nor on estradiol levels in predicted normal responders. These findings add to the controversy in the literature regarding the impact of individual genetic susceptibility in response to OS in this population. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by an unrestricted grant by Merck Sharp & Dohme (MSD, IISP56222). N.P.P. reports grants and/or personal fees from MSD, Merck Serono, Roche Diagnostics, Ferring International, Besins Healthcare, Gedeon Richter, Organon, Theramex and Institut Biochimique SA (IBSA). C.A. reports conference fees from Merck Serono, Medea and Event Planet. A.R.N., C.B., C.S., P.Q.M.M., H.T., C.B., N.L.V., M.T.H. and S.G. report no conflict of interests related to the content of this article. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03007043.

Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study.

STUDY QUESTION: Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified? SUMMARY ANSWER: The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction, and ethics, access, and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management, and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines, and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction, and ethics, access, and organization of care. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems, and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties were entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities, and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI, and IVF), and ethics, access, and organization of care, were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment, and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings, and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research, and population science. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgement, and arbitrary consensus definitions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems, and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda. STUDY FUNDING/ COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand, and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. Geoffrey Adamson reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies, and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. Hans Evers reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. Andrew Horne reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist's Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research, and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from Abbvie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma, and Roche Diagnostics. M. Louise Hull reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. Neil Johnson reports research sponsorship from Abb-Vie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics, and Vifor Pharma. José Knijnenburg reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. Richard Legro reports consultancy fees from Abbvie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. Ben Mol reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. Ernest Ng reports research sponsorship from Merck. Craig Niederberger reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring, and retains a financial interest in NexHand. Jane Stewart reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring, and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. Annika Strandell reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. Jack Wilkinson reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. Andy Vail reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and of the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from HFEA for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. Lan Vuong reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Top 10 priorities for future infertility research: an international consensus development study† ‡.

STUDY QUESTION: Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified? SUMMARY ANSWER: The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties was entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI and IVF) and ethics, access and organization of care were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research and population science. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgment and arbitrary consensus definitions. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. G.D.A. reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. A.W.H. reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist's Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma and Roche Diagnostics. M.L.H. reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. N.P.J. reports research sponsorship from AbbVie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics and Vifor Pharma. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring and retains a financial interest in NexHand. J.S. reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their 'traffic light' system for infertility treatment 'add-ons'. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.