Does dual oocyte retrieval with continuous FSH administration increase the number of mature oocytes in low responders? An open-label randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is there an increase in the total number of metaphase II (MII) oocytes between a conventional ovarian stimulation (OS) and a double uninterrupted stimulation? SUMMARY ANSWER: There is no increase in the total number of MII oocytes when comparing one conventional OS to a continuous stimulation with double oocyte aspiration. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Based on the concept of multiple follicular waves, the combination of two stimulations in the same ovarian cycle has gained interest in patients with a low ovarian reserve. This so-called dual stimulation approach is usually characterized by a discontinuation of FSH administration for ∼5 days and appears to have a favourable impact on the number of retrieved oocytes without affecting the embryo quality or ploidy status. The outcomes of dual uninterrupted OS have not yet been studied. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This was an open-label randomized controlled trial (RCT) with superiority design, performed in a single tertiary centre. Subjects were randomized with a 1:1 allocation into two groups between October 2019 and September 2021. All patients underwent a conventional stimulation with recombinant FSH. When two or more follicles of 17 mm were present, the final inclusion criterion was assessed; randomization occurred only in the presence of ≤9 follicles of ≥11 mm. In Group A, ovulation was triggered with hCG, and oocyte retrieval (OR) was performed 34-36 h later, followed by a fresh single or double embryo transfer (SET or DET) on Day 3/5. In Group B, ovulation was triggered with GnRH agonist, followed by another OS, without discontinuation of the FSH administration. In the presence of one or more follicles of ≥17 mm, the second stimulation was completed with hCG. A freeze-all strategy (Day 3/5) was applied for both retrievals, followed by transfer of one or two embryos in an artificially prepared frozen-thawed cycle. In the absence of one or more follicles of ≥17 mm after 13 additional days of stimulation, the second cycle was cancelled. All ORs were executed by a senior fertility specialist who was blinded for the first treatment, and all follicles >10 mm were aspirated, according to routine clinical practice. The primary outcome was the total number of MII oocytes. Patients were followed up until all embryos were transferred, or until live birth was achieved. Other secondary outcomes included the number of cumulus-oocyte complexes (COCs), the number of good quality embryos (Day 3/5), the ongoing pregnancy rate, and gonadotropin consumption. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Patients between 25 and 40 years old, with an anti-Müllerian hormone level of ≤1.5 ng/ml, antral follicle count of ≤6, or ≤5 oocytes after a previous stimulation, were included. At the start, 70 patients were eligible for participation in the trial, of whom 48 patients fulfilled the final inclusion criterium and were randomized. After drop-out of two patients, 23 patients were randomized to a single round of OS (Group A), and 23 patients were randomized to two uninterrupted rounds of OS (Group B). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Baseline characteristics were similar between both groups. The cumulative number of COCs and MII oocytes after completion of the second OR was similar in Group A and Group B [5.3 ± 2.7 versus 5.3 ± 3.0 (P = 0.95); 4.1 ± 2.4 versus 4.3 ± 2.7 (P = 0.77)]. Likewise, a comparable number of excellent and good quality embryos was available on Day 3 (3.0 ± 2.0 versus 2.7 ± 2.0; P = 0.63). In Group B, the cancellation rate due to insufficient response to the second round of stimulation was 39.1% (9/23). When focusing on the first stimulation in both groups, there were no significant differences regarding basal FSH, gonadotropin consumption, and the number of preovulatory follicles. After the first OR, the mean number of COC and MII oocytes was significantly higher in Group A (who had hCG triggering), compared to Group B (who had GnRH agonist triggering) [5.3 ± 2.7 versus 3.3 ± 2.2; difference 95% CI (0.54 to 3.45), P = 0.004 and 4.1 ± 2.4 versus 3.0 ± 2.2; difference 95% CI (-0.15 to 2.6), P = 0.05, respectively]. Likewise, the number of excellent and good quality embryos on Day 3 was significantly higher (3.0 ± 2.0 versus 1.9 ± 1.7; P = 0.02) in Group A. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study was powered to demonstrate superiority for the number of MII oocytes after dual stimulation. Investigating the impact of dual stimulation on pregnancy rates would have required a larger sample size. Furthermore, the heterogeneity in embryo vitrification and transfer policies precluded a correct comparison of embryologic outcomes between both groups. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first RCT investigating the role of continuous stimulation with double aspiration in low responders. Our results show no statistically significant differences in the cumulative number of MII oocytes between one conventional stimulation with fresh ET and two consecutive stimulations with a freeze-only approach. Furthermore, the observed suboptimal oocyte yield after agonist ovulation triggering in low responders in the dual uninterrupted OS group is a reason for concern and further scrutiny, given that previous RCTs have shown similar outcomes in normal and high responders after hCG and GnRH agonist triggers. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported in part by a research grant from Organon. H.T. received honoraria for lectures and presentations from Abbott, Cooper Surgical, Gedeon-Richter, Cook, Goodlife, and Ferring. L.B. received fees for lectures from Merck & Organon and support for attending ESHRE 2023. M.D.V. reports fees for lectures from Ferring, Merck, Organon, IBSA, Gedeon Richter, and Cooper Surgical and support for attending ASRM 2023. S.M. received honoraria for lectures and presentations from Abbott, Cooper Surgical, Gedeon-Richter, IBSA, and Merck. C.B. was on the Advisory board and received consulting fees from Theramex and received honoraria for lectures and presentations from Abbott, Ferring, Gedeon-Richter, IBSA, and Merck. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03846544. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 19 February 2019. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 28 October 2019.

ESHRE guideline: number of embryos to transfer during IVF/ICSI†.

STUDY QUESTION: Which clinical and embryological factors should be considered to apply double embryo transfer (DET) instead of elective single embryo transfer (eSET)? SUMMARY ANSWER: No clinical or embryological factor per se justifies a recommendation of DET instead of eSET in IVF/ICSI. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: DET is correlated with a higher rate of multiple pregnancy, leading to a subsequent increase in complications for both mother and babies. These complications include preterm birth, low birthweight, and other perinatal adverse outcomes. To mitigate the risks associated with multiple pregnancy, eSET is recommended by international and national professional organizations as the preferred approach in ART. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development and update of ESHRE guidelines. Literature searches were performed in PUBMED/MEDLINE and Cochrane databases, and relevant papers published up to May 2023, written in English, were included. Live birth rate, cumulative live birth rate, and multiple pregnancy rate were considered as critical outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were discussed until a consensus was reached within the Guideline Development Group (GDG). A stakeholder review was organized after the guideline draft was finalized. The final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The guideline provides 35 recommendations on the medical and non-medical risks associated with multiple pregnancies and on the clinical and embryological factors to be considered when deciding on the number of embryos to transfer. These recommendations include 25 evidence-based recommendations, of which 24 were formulated as strong recommendations and one as conditional, and 10 good practice points. Of the evidence-based recommendations, seven (28%) were supported by moderate-quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (three recommendations; 12%), or very low-quality evidence (15 recommendations; 60%). Owing to the lack of evidence-based research, the guideline also clearly mentions recommendations for future studies. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The guideline assessed different factors one by one based on existing evidence. However, in real life, clinicians' decisions are based on several prognostic factors related to each patient's case. Furthermore, the evidence from randomized controlled trials is too scarce to formulate high-quality evidence-based recommendations. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The guideline provides health professionals with clear advice on best practice in the decision-making process during IVF/ICSI, based on the best evidence currently available, and recommendations on relevant information that should be communicated to patients. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in the field. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, the literature searches, and the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. DPB declared receiving honoraria for lectures from Merck, Ferring, and Gedeon Richter. She is a member of ESHRE EXCO, and the Mediterranean Society for reproductive medicine and the president of the Croatian Society for Gynaecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine. CDG is the past Chair of the ESHRE EIM Consortium and a paid deputy member of the Editorial board of Human Reproduction. IR declared receiving reimbursement from ESHRE and EDCD for attending meetings. She holds an unpaid leadership role in OBBCSSR, ECDC Sohonet, and AER. KAR-W declared receiving grants for clinical researchers and funding provision to the institution from the Swedish Cancer Society (200170F), the Senior Clinical Investigator Award, Radiumhemmets Forskningsfonder (Dnr: 201313), Stockholm County Council FoU (FoUI-953912) and Karolinska Institutet (Dnr 2020-01963), NovoNordisk, Merck and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. She received consulting fees from the Swedish Ministry of Health and Welfare. She received honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, and Organon for chairmanship and lectures. She received support from Organon for attending meetings. She participated in advisory boards for Merck, Nordic countries, and Ferring. She declared receiving time-lapse equipment and grants with payment to institution for pre-clinical research from Merck pharmaceuticals and from Ferring. SS-R received research funding from Roche Diagnostics, Organon/MSD, Theramex, and Gedeo-Richter. He received consulting fees from Organon/MSD, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Merck Serono. He declared receiving honoraria for lectures from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Besins, Organon/MSD, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. He received support for attending Gedeon Richter meetings and participated in the Data Safety Monitoring Board of the T-TRANSPORT trial. He is the Deputy of ESHRE SQART special interest group. He holds stock options in IVI Lisboa and received equipment and other services from Roche Diagnostics and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. KT declared receiving payment for honoraria for giving lectures from Merck Serono and Organon. She is member of the safety advisory board of EDQM. She holds a leadership role in the ICCBBA board of directors. ZV received reimbursement from ESHRE for attending meetings. She also received research grants from ESHRE and Juhani Aaltonen Foundation. She is the coordinator of EHSRE SQART special interest group. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. DISCLAIMER: This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose (full disclaimer available at https://www.eshre.eu/Guidelines-and-Legal).

Clinical outcomes from ART in predicted hyperresponders: in vitro maturation of oocytes versus conventional ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI.

STUDY QUESTION: Do ongoing pregnancy rates (OPRs) differ in predicted hyperresponders undergoing ART after IVM of oocytes compared with conventional ovarian stimulation (OS) for IVF/ICSI? SUMMARY ANSWER: One cycle of IVM is non-inferior to one cycle of OS in women with serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels ≥10 ng/ml. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Women with high antral follicle count and elevated serum AMH levels, indicating an increased functional ovarian reserve, are prone to hyperresponse during ART treatment. To avoid iatrogenic complications of OS, IVM has been proposed as a mild-approach alternative treatment in predicted hyperresponders, including women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who are eligible for ART. To date, inferior pregnancy rates from IVM compared to OS have hampered the uptake of IVM by ART clinics. However, it is unclear whether the efficiency gap between IVM and OS may differ depending on the extent of AMH elevation. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This study is a retrospective cohort analysis of clinical and laboratory data from the first completed highly purified hMG (HP-hMG) primed, non-hCG-triggered IVM or OS (FSH or HP-hMG stimulation in a GnRH antagonist protocol) cycle with ICSI in predicted hyperresponders ≤36 years of age at a tertiary referral university hospital. A total of 1707 cycles were included between January 2016 and June 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Predicted hyperresponse was defined as a serum AMH level ≥3.25 ng/ml (Elecsys® AMH, Roche Diagnostics). The primary outcome was cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate assessed 10-11 weeks after embryo transfer (ET). The predefined non-inferiority limit was -10.0%. The analysis was adjusted for AMH strata. Time-to-pregnancy, defined as the number of ET cycles until ongoing pregnancy was achieved, was a secondary outcome. Statistical analysis was performed using a multivariable regression model controlling for potential confounders. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Data from 463 IVM cycles were compared with those from 1244 OS cycles. Women in the IVM group more often had a diagnosis of Rotterdam PCOS (434/463, 93.7%) compared to those undergoing OS (522/1193, 43.8%), were significantly younger (29.5 years versus 30.5 years, P ≤ 0.001), had a higher BMI (25.7 kg/m2 versus 25.1 kg/m2, P ≤ 0.01) and higher AMH (11.6 ng/ml versus 5.3 ng/ml, P ≤ 0.001). Although IVM cycles yielded more cumulus-oocyte complexes (COCs) (24.5 versus 15.0 COC, P ≤ 0.001), both groups had similar numbers of mature oocytes (metaphase II (MII)) (11.9 MII versus 10.6 MII, P = 0.9). In the entire cohort, non-adjusted cumulative OPR from IVM was significantly lower (198/463, 42.8%) compared to OS (794/1244, 63.8%), P ≤ 0.001. When analysing OPR across different serum AMH strata, cumulative OPR in both groups converged with increasing serum AMH, and OPR from IVM was non-inferior compared to OS from serum AMH levels >10 ng/ml onwards (113/221, 51.1% (IVM); 29/48, 60.4% (OS)). The number of ETs needed to reach an ongoing pregnancy was comparable in both the IVM and the OS group (1.6 versus 1.5 ET's, P = 0.44). Multivariable regression analysis adjusting for ART type, age, BMI, oocyte number, and PCOS phenotype showed that the number of COCs was the only parameter associated with OPR in predicted hyperresponders with a serum AMH >10 ng/ml. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: These data should be interpreted with caution as the retrospective nature of the study holds the possibility of unmeasured confounding factors. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Among subfertile women who are eligible for ART, IVM, and OS resulted in comparable reproductive outcomes in a subset of women with a serum AMH ≥10 ng/ml. These findings should be corroborated by a randomised controlled trial (RCT) comparing both treatments in selected patients with elevated AMH. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There was no external funding for this study. P.D. has been consultant to Merck Healthcare KGaA (Darmstadt, Germany) from April 2021 till June 2023 and is a Merck employee (Medical Director, Global Medical Affairs Fertility) with Merck Healthcare KGAaA (Darmstadt, Germany) since July 2023. He declares honoraria for lecturing from Merck KGaA, MSD, Organon, and Ferring. The remaining authors declared no conflict of interest pertaining to this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

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

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

Pretreatment with luteal estradiol for programming antagonist cycles compared to no pretreatment in advanced age women stimulated with corifollitropin alfa: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does luteal estradiol (E2) pretreatment give a similar number of retrieved oocytes compared to no-pretreatment in advanced-aged women stimulated with corifollitropin alfa in an antagonist protocol? SUMMARY ANSWER: Programming antagonist cycles with luteal E2 gave similar number of retrieved oocytes compared to no-pretreatment in women aged 38-42 years. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Programming antagonist cycles with luteal E2 pretreatment is a valuable tool to organize the IVF procedure better and is safe without any known impact on cycle outcome. However, variable effects were observed on the number of retrieved oocytes depending on the treated population. In advanced-age women, recruitable follicles tend to decrease in number and to be more heterogeneous in size but it remains unclear if estradiol pretreatment could change the oocyte yield through its negative feed-back effect on FSH intercycle rise. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This non-blinded randomized controlled non-inferiority trial was conducted between 2016 and 2022 with centrally computerized randomization and concealed allocation. Participants were 324 women aged 38-42 years undergoing IVF treatment. The primary endpoint was the total number of retrieved oocytes. Statistical analysis was performed with one-sided alpha risk of 2.5% and 95% confidence interval (CI) with the non-inferiority of E2 pretreatment proved by a P value <0.025 and a lower delta margin of the CI within two oocytes compared to no pretreatment. Secondary endpoints were duration and total dosage of recombinant FSH, cancellation rate, percentage of oocyte pick-up (OPU) on working days, total number of metaphase II oocytes and obtained embryos, fresh transfer live birth rate, and cumulative live birth rate. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: This multicentric study enrolled women with regular cycles, weight >50 kg and body mass index <32, IVF cycle 1-2. According to randomization, micronized estradiol 2 mg twice a day was started on days 20-24 and continued until Wednesday beyond the onset of menses followed by administration of corifollitropin alfa on Friday, i.e. stimulation (S)1 or from D1-3 of a natural cycle in unpretreated patients. GnRH antagonist was started at S6 and additional FSH at S8. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Basal characteristics were similar in patients randomized in E2 pretreated (n = 164) and non-pretreated (n = 160) groups (intended to treat (ITT) population). A total of 291 patients started treatment (per protocol (PP) population), 147 in E2 pretreated group with a mean number [SD] of pre-treatment days 9.8 [2.6] and 144 in the non-pretreated group. Despite advanced age, oocyte yields ranged from 0 to 29 in both groups with a median number of 6 retrieved oocytes in accordance with a mean anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level above 1.2 ng/ml. We demonstrated the non-inferiority of E2 pretreatment with a mean difference of -0.1 oocyte 95% CI [-1.5; 1.3] P = 0.004 in the PP population and a mean difference of -0.44 oocyte [-1.84; 0.97] P = 0.014 in the ITT population. Oocyte retrieval was more often on working days in E2 pretreated patients (91.9 versus 74.2%, P < 0.001). In patients reaching OPU, the duration of stimulation was statistically significantly longer (11.7 [1.7] versus 10.8 [1.8] days, P < 0.001) and the extra FSH dosage in addition to corifollitropin alfa was statistically significantly higher (1040 [548] versus 778 [504] IU, P < 0.001) in E2 pretreated than non-pretreated patients. We did not observe any significant differences in the number of retrieved oocytes (8.4 [6.1] versus 9.1 [6.0]), in the number of Metaphase 2 oocytes (7 [5.5] versus 7.3 [5.2]) nor in the number of obtained embryos (5 [4.6] versus 5.2 [4.2]) in E2 pretreated patients compared to non-pretreated patients. The live birth rate after fresh transfer (16.2% versus 18.5%, respectively), and the cumulative live birth rate per patient (17.7% versus 22.9%, respectively) were similar in both groups. Among the PP population, 31.6% of patients fulfilled the criteria for group 4 of Poseïdon classification (AMH <1.2 ng/ml and/or antral follicle count <5). In this sub-group of patients, we observed in contrast a statistically higher number of retrieved oocytes in E2 pretreated patients compared to non-pretreated (5.1 [3.8] versus 3.4 [2.7], respectively, the mean difference of +1.7 oocyte [0.2; 3.2] P = 0.022) but without significant difference in the cumulative live birth rate per patient (15.7% versus 7.3%, respectively). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Our stimulated women older than 38 years obtained a wide range of collected oocytes suggesting very different stages of ovarian aging in both groups. E2 pretreatment is more likely to increase oocyte yield at the stage of ovarian aging characterized by asynchrony of a reduced follicular cohort. Another limitation is the sample size in sub-group analysis of patients with AMH <1.2 ng/ml. Finally, the absence of placebo for pretreatment could also introduce possible bias. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Programming antagonist cycles with luteal E2 pretreatment seems a useful tool in advanced age women to better schedule oocyte retrievals on working days. However, the potential benefit of the number of collected oocytes remains to be demonstrated in a larger population displaying the characteristics of decreased ovarian reserve encountered in Poseïdon classification. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Research grant from (MSD) Organon, France. I.C., S.D., B.B., X.M., S.G., and C.J. have no conflict of interest with this study. I.C.D. declares fees as speaker from Merck KGaA, Gedeon Richter, MSD (Organon, France), Ferring, Theramex, and IBSA and participation on advisory board from Merck KGaA. I.C.D. also declares consulting fees, and travel and meeting support from Merck KGaA. N.M. declares grants paid to their institution from MSD (Organon, France); consulting fees from MSD (Organon, France), Ferring, and Merck KGaA; honoraria from Merck KGaA, General Electrics, Genevrier (IBSA Pharma), and Theramex; support for travel and meetings from Theramex, Merck KGaG, and Gedeon Richter; and equipment paid to their institution from Goodlife Pharma. N.C. declares grants from IBSA Pharma, Merck KGaA, Ferring, and Gedeon Richter; support for travel and meetings from IBSA Pharma, Merck KGaG, MSD (Organon, France), Gedeon Richter, and Theramex; and participation on advisory board from Merck KGaA. A.G.L. declares fees as speaker from Merck KGaA, Gedeon Richter, MSD (Organon, France), Ferring, Theramex, and IBSA. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02884245. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 29 August 2016. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 4 November 2016.

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).

Community awareness and use of anti-Müllerian hormone testing in Australia: a population survey of women.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) test usage, awareness, and perceived reasons for testing in a representative community sample of women in Australia? SUMMARY ANSWER: : Among women aged 18-55 years, 13% had heard about AMH testing and 7% had had an AMH test, with the top three reasons for testing including due to infertility investigations (51%), considering pregnancy and wanting to understand their chances (19%) or to find out if a medical condition had affected fertility (11%). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The growing availability of direct-to-consumer AMH testing has raised concerns about overuse, however as most AMH tests are paid for privately by consumers, data on test usage is not publicly available. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: National cross-sectional survey of 1773 women, conducted in January 2022. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Females aged 18-55 years were recruited from the representative 'Life in Australia' probability-based population panel and completed the survey online or by telephone. Main outcome measures included if and how participants had heard about AMH testing, whether they had ever had an AMH test, main reason for testing and test access. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 2423 women who were invited 1773 responded (73% response rate). Of these, 229 (13%) had heard about AMH testing and 124 (7%) had had an AMH test. Testing rates were highest among those currently aged 35-39 years (14%) and associated with educational attainment. Almost all accessed the test through their general practitioner or fertility specialist. Reasons for testing were: part of an infertility investigation (51%), considering pregnancy and wanting to understand chances of conceiving (19%), finding out if a medical condition had affected fertility (11%), curiosity (9%), considering egg freezing (5%), and considering delaying pregnancy (2%). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although the sample was large and mostly representative, it was over-represented by people holding a university degree and under-represented by people aged 18-24, however, we used weighted data where possible to account for this. All data were self-reported so there is a risk of recall bias. The number of survey items was also restricted, so the type of counselling women received prior to testing, reasons for declining an AMH test or test timing were not measured. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Whilst most women reported having an AMH test for appropriate reasons, about one third had it for reasons not supported by evidence. Public and clinician education about the lack of utility of AMH testing for women not undergoing infertility treatment is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This project was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Centre for Research Excellence grant (1104136) and Program grant (1113532). T.C. is supported by an NHMRC Emerging Leader Research Fellowship (2009419). B.W.M. reports research funding, consultancy and travel support from Merck. D.L. is the Medical Director of City Fertility NSW and reports consultancy for Organon, Ferring, Besins and Merck. The authors have no other competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

The human embryonic genome is karyotypically complex, with chromosomally abnormal cells preferentially located away from the developing fetus.

STUDY QUESTION: Are chromosome abnormalities detected at Day 3 post-fertilization predominantly retained in structures of the blastocyst other than the inner cell mass (ICM), where chromosomally normal cells are preferentially retained? SUMMARY ANSWER: In human embryos, aneuploid cells are sequestered away from the ICM, partly to the trophectoderm (TE) but more significantly to the blastocoel fluid within the blastocoel cavity (Bc) and to peripheral cells (PCs) surrounding the blastocyst during Day 3 to Day 5 progression. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A commonly held dogma in all diploid eukaryotes is that two gametes, each with 'n' chromosomes (23 in humans), fuse to form a '2n' zygote (46 in humans); a state that remains in perpetuity for all somatic cell divisions. Human embryos, however, display high levels of chromosomal aneuploidy in early stages that reportedly declines from Day 3 (cleavage stage) to Day 5 (blastocyst) post-fertilization. While this observation may be partly because of aneuploid embryonic arrest before blastulation, it could also be due to embryo 'normalization' to a euploid state during blastulation. If and how this normalization occurs requires further investigation. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A total of 964 cleavage-stage (Day 3) embryos underwent single-cell biopsy and diagnosis for chromosome constitution. All were maintained in culture, assessing blastulation rate, both for those assessed euploid and aneuploid. Pregnancy rate was assessed for those determined euploid, blastulated and subsequently transferred. For those determined aneuploid and blastulated (174 embryos), ICM (all 174 embryos), TE (all 174), Bc (47 embryos) and PC (38 embryos) were analyzed for chromosome constitution. Specifically, concordance with the original Day 3 diagnosis and determination if any 'normalized' to euploid karyotypes within all four structures was assessed. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: All patients (144 couples) were undergoing routine preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy in three IVF clinical settings. Cleavage-stage biopsy preceded chromosome analysis by next-generation sequencing. All patients provided informed consent. Additional molecular testing was carried out on blastocyst embryos and was analyzed for up to four embryonic structures (ICM, TE, Bc and PC). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of 463/964 embryos (48%) diagnosed as euploid at Day 3, 70% blastulated (leading to a 59% pregnancy rate) and 30% degenerated. Conversely, of the 501 (52%) diagnosed as aneuploid, 65% degenerated and 35% (174) blastulated, a highly significant difference (P < 0.0001). Of the 174 that blastulated, the ratio of '(semi)concordant-aneuploid' versus 'normalized-euploid' versus 'other-aneuploid' embryos was, respectively, 39%/57%/3% in the ICM; 49%/48%/3% in the TE; 78%/21%/0% in the PC; and 83%/10%/5% in the Bc. The TE karyotype therefore has a positive predictive value of 86.7% in determining that of the ICM, albeit with marginally higher aneuploid rates of abnormalities (P = .071). Levels of abnormality in Bc/PC were significantly higher (P < 0.0001) versus the ploidy of the ICM and TE and nearly all chromosome abnormalities were (at least partially) concordant with Day 3 diagnoses. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The results only pertain to human IVF embryos so extrapolation to the in vivo situation and to other species is not certain. We acknowledge (rather than lineage-specific survival, as we suggest here) the possibility of other mechanisms, such as lineage-specific movement of cells, during blastulation. Ethical considerations, however, make investigating this mechanism difficult on human embryos. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Mosaic human cleavage-stage embryos can differentiate into a euploid ICM where euploid cell populations predominate. Sequestering of aneuploid cells/nuclei to structures no longer involved in fetal development has important implications for preimplantation and prenatal genetic testing. These results also challenge previous fundamental understandings of mitotic fidelity in early human development and indicate a complex and fluid nature of the human embryonic genome. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was funded by Organon Pharmaceuticals and Merck Serono by grants to W.G.K. W.G.K. is also an employee of AdvaGenix, who could, potentially, indirectly benefit financially from publication of this manuscript. R.C.M. is supported by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health under award number R35GM133747. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health. D.K.G. provides paid consultancy services for Care Fertility. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: : N/A.

Androgen and inhibin B levels during ovarian stimulation before and after 8 weeks of low-dose hCG priming in women with low ovarian reserve.

STUDY QUESTION: Does 8 weeks of daily low-dose hCG administration affect androgen or inhibin B levels in serum and/or follicular fluid (FF) during the subsequent IVF/ICSI cycle in women with low ovarian reserve? SUMMARY ANSWER: Androgen levels in serum and FF, and inhibin B levels in serum, decreased following 8 weeks of hCG administration. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Recently, we showed that 8 weeks of low-dose hCG priming, in between two IVF/ICSI treatments in women with poor ovarian responder (anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) <6.29 pmol/l), resulted in more follicles of 2-5 mm and less of 6-10-mm diameter at the start of stimulation and more retrieved oocytes at oocyte retrieval. The duration of stimulation and total FSH consumption was increased in the IVF/ICSI cycle after priming. Hypothetically, hCG priming stimulates intraovarian androgen synthesis causing upregulation of FSH receptors (FSHR) on granulosa cells. It was therefore unexpected that antral follicles were smaller and the stimulation time longer after hCG priming. This might indicate a different mechanism of action than previously suggested. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Blood samples were drawn on stimulation day 1, stimulation days 5-6, trigger day, day of oocyte retrieval, and oocyte retrieval + 5 days in the IVF/ICSI cycles before and after hCG priming (the control and study cycles, respectively). FF was collected from the first aspirated follicle on both sides during oocyte retrieval in both cycles. The study was conducted as a prospective, paired, non-blinded, single-center study conducted between January 2021 and July 2021 at a tertiary care center. The 20 participants underwent two identical IVF/ICSI treatments: a control cycle including elective freezing of all blastocysts and a study cycle with fresh blastocyst transfer. The control and study cycles were separated by 8 weeks (two menstrual cycles) of hCG priming by daily injections of 260 IU recombinant hCG. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women aged 18-40 years with cycle lengths of 23-35 days and AMH <6.29 pmol/l were included. Control and study IVF/ICSI cycles were performed in a fixed GnRH-antagonist protocol. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Inhibin B was lower on stimulation day 1 after hCG priming (P = 0.05). Dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS) was significantly lower on stimulation day 1 (P = 0.03), and DHEAS and androstenedione were significantly lower on stimulation days 5-6 after priming (P = 0.02 and P = 0.02) The testosterone level in FF was significantly lower in the study cycle (P = 0.008), while the concentrations of inhibin B and androstenedione in the FF did not differ between the study and control cycles. A lower serum inhibin B in the study cycle corresponds with the antral follicles being significantly smaller after priming, and this probably led to a longer stimulation time in the study cycle. This contradicts the theory that hCG priming increases the intraovarian androgen level, which in turn causes more FSHR on developing (antral up to preovulatory) follicles. However, based on this study, we cannot rule out that an increased intra-follicular androgen level was present at initiation of the ovarian stimulation, without elevating the androgen level in serum and that an increased androgen level may have rescued some small antral follicles that would have otherwise undergone atresia by the end of the previous menstrual cycle. We retrieved significantly more oocytes in the Study cycle, and the production of estradiol per follicle ≥10-mm diameter on trigger day was comparable in the study and control cycles, suggesting that the rescued follicles were competent in terms of producing oocytes and steroid hormones. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The sample size was small, and the study was not randomized. Our study design did not allow for the measurement and comparison of androgen levels or FSHR expression in small antral follicles before and immediately after the hCG-priming period. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The results make us question the mechanism of action behind hCG priming prior to IVF. It is important to design a study with the puncture of small antral follicles before and immediately after priming to investigate the proposed hypothesis. Improved cycle outcomes, i.e. more retrieved oocytes, must be confirmed in a larger, preferably randomized study. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by an unrestricted grant from Gedeon Richter awarded to the institution. A.P. reports personal consulting fees from PregLem SA, Novo Nordisk A/S, Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, Gedeon Richter Nordics AB, Cryos International, and Merck A/S outside the submitted work and payment or honoraria for lectures from Gedeon Richter Nordics AB, Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, Merck A/S, and Theramex and Organon & Co and payment for participation in an advisory board for Preglem. Grants to the institution have been provided by Gedeon Richter Nordics AB, Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, and Merck A/S, and equipment and travel support has been given to the institution by Gedeon Richter Nordics AB. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04643925.

Good practice recommendations on add-ons in reproductive medicine†.

STUDY QUESTION: Which add-ons are safe and effective to be used in ART treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER: Forty-two recommendations were formulated on the use of add-ons in the diagnosis of fertility problems, the IVF laboratory and clinical management of IVF treatment. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The innovative nature of ART combined with the extremely high motivation of the patients has opened the door to the wide application of what has become known as 'add-ons' in reproductive medicine. These supplementary options are available to patients in addition to standard fertility procedures, typically incurring an additional cost. A diverse array of supplementary options is made available, encompassing tests, drugs, equipment, complementary or alternative therapies, laboratory procedures, and surgical interventions. These options share the common aim of stating to enhance pregnancy or live birth rates, mitigate the risk of miscarriage, or expedite the time to achieving pregnancy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: ESHRE aimed to develop clinically relevant and evidence-based recommendations focusing on the safety and efficacy of add-ons currently used in fertility procedures in order to improve the quality of care for patients with infertility. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: ESHRE appointed a European multidisciplinary working group consisting of practising clinicians, embryologists, and researchers who have demonstrated leadership and expertise in the care and research of infertility. Patient representatives were included in the working group. To ensure that the guidelines are evidence-based, the literature identified from a systematic search was reviewed and critically appraised. In the absence of any clear scientific evidence, recommendations were based on the professional experience and consensus of the working group. The guidelines are thus based on the best available evidence and expert agreement. Prior to publication, the guidelines were reviewed by 46 independent international reviewers. A total of 272 comments were received and incorporated where relevant. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The multidisciplinary working group formulated 42 recommendations in three sections; diagnosis and diagnostic tests, laboratory tests and interventions, and clinical management. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Of the 42 recommendations, none could be based on high-quality evidence and only four could be based on moderate-quality evidence, implicating that 95% of the recommendations are supported only by low-quality randomized controlled trials, observational data, professional experience, or consensus of the development group. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: These guidelines offer valuable direction for healthcare professionals who are responsible for the care of patients undergoing ART treatment for infertility. Their purpose is to promote safe and effective ART treatment, enabling patients to make informed decisions based on realistic expectations. The guidelines aim to ensure that patients are fully informed about the various treatment options available to them and the likelihood of any additional treatment or test to improve the chance of achieving a live birth. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): All costs relating to the development process were covered from ESHRE funds. There was no external funding of the development process or manuscript production. K.L. reports speakers fees from Merck and was part of a research study by Vitrolife (unpaid). T.E. reports consulting fees from Gynemed, speakers fees from Gynemed and is part of the scientific advisory board of Hamilton Thorne. N.P.P. reports grants from Merck Serono, Ferring Pharmaceutical, Theramex, Gedeon Richter, Organon, Roche, IBSA and Besins Healthcare, speakers fees from Merck Serono, Ferring Pharmaceutical, Theramex, Gedeon Richter, Organon, Roche, IBSA and Besins Healthcare. S.R.H. declares being managing director of Fertility Europe, a not-for-profit organization receiving financial support from ESHRE. I.S. is a scientific advisor for and has stock options from Alife Health, is co-founder of IVFvision LTD (unpaid) and received speakers' fee from the 2023 ART Young Leader Prestige workshop in China. A.P. reports grants from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck A/S, consulting fees from Preglem, Novo Nordisk, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Gedeon Richter, Cryos and Merck A/S, speakers fees from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S, Theramex and Organon, travel fees from Gedeon Richter. The other authors disclosed no conflicts of interest. DISCLAIMER: This Good Practice Recommendations (GPRs) document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and are based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation.ESHRE GPRs should be used for information and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care or bedeemedinclusive of all proper methods of care, or be exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results.Theydo not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, or variations based on locality and facility type.Furthermore, ESHRE GPRs do not constitute or imply the endorsement, or favouring, of any of the included technologies by ESHRE.

Season at the time of oocyte collection and frozen embryo transfer outcomes.

STUDY QUESTION: Does the meteorological season at the time of oocyte retrieval affect live birth rates in subsequent frozen embryo transfers? SUMMARY ANSWER: Frozen embryo transfers resulting from oocytes retrieved in summer have 30% increased odds of live birth compared to frozen embryo transfers resulting from oocytes retrieved in autumn, regardless of the season at the time of embryo transfer. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Season at the time of frozen embryo transfer does not appear to be associated with live birth rate. One study in the northern hemisphere found increased odds of live birth with frozen embryo transfer resulting from oocytes collected in summer when compared to those collected in winter. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Retrospective cohort study including all frozen embryo transfers performed by a single clinic over eight years, from January 2013 to December 2021. There were 3659 frozen embryo transfers with embryos generated from 2155 IVF cycles in 1835 patients. Outcome data were missing for two embryo transfers, which were excluded from analysis. Outcomes were analysed by the season, temperatures, and measured duration of sunshine at the time of oocyte collection and at the time of frozen embryo transfer. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: There were no significant differences between patients with oocyte collection or embryo transfers in different seasons. Meteorological conditions on the day of oocyte collection and the day of frozen embryo transfer, and in the preceding 14- and 28-day periods, were collected including mean, minimum, and maximum temperatures, and recorded duration of sunshine hours. Clinical and embryological outcomes were analysed for their association with seasons, temperatures, and duration of sunshine with correction for repeated cycles per participant, age at the time of oocyte retrieval, and quadratic age. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Compared to frozen embryo transfers with oocyte retrieval dates in autumn, transfers with oocyte retrieval dates in summer had 30% increased odds of live birth (odds ratio (OR): 1.30, 95% CI: 1.04-1.62) which remained consistent after adjustment for season at the time of embryo transfer. A high duration of sunshine hours (in the top tertile) on the day of oocyte retrieval was associated with a 28% increase in odds of live birth compared to duration of sunshine hours in the lowest tertile (OR 1.28, 95% CI: 1.06-1.53). Temperature on the day of oocyte retrieval did not independently affect the odds of live birth. The odds of live birth were decreased by 18% when the minimum temperature on the day of embryo transfer was high, compared with low (OR: 0.82, 95% CI: 0.69-0.99), which was consistent after correction for the conditions at the time of oocyte retrieval. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This was a retrospective cohort study, however, all patients during the study period were included and data was missing for only two patients. Given the retrospective nature, causation is not proven and there are other factors that may affect live birth rates and for which we did not have data and were unable to adjust, including pollutants and behavioural factors. We were also not able to stratify results based on specific patient populations (such as poor- or hyper-responders) nor report the cumulative live birth rate per commenced cycle. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: These findings may be particularly relevant for patients planning oocyte or embryo cryopreservation. Given the increasing utilization of cryopreservation, identification of factors that influence outcomes in subsequent frozen embryo transfers has implications for future therapeutic and management options. Further studies to clarify the physiology underlying the influence of sunshine hours or season on subsequent frozen embryo transfer outcomes are required, including identification of specific populations that may benefit from these factors. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No funding was provided for this study. S.L. has received educational travel assistance from Besins, Merck and Organon outside the submitted work. R.H. is National Medical Director of City Fertility and Medical Director of Fertility Specialists of Western Australia, has received honoraria from MSD, Merck Serono, Origio and Ferring outside the submitted work, and has equity interests in CHA SMG. C.R., M.W., and E.N. declare that they have no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Recommendations from the 2023 International Evidence-based Guideline for the Assessment and Management of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome†.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the recommended assessment and management of those with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), based on the best available evidence, clinical expertise, and consumer preference? SUMMARY ANSWER: International evidence-based guidelines address prioritized questions and outcomes and include 254 recommendations and practice points, to promote consistent, evidence-based care and improve the experience and health outcomes in PCOS. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The 2018 International PCOS Guideline was independently evaluated as high quality and integrated multidisciplinary and consumer perspectives from six continents; it is now used in 196 countries and is widely cited. It was based on best available, but generally very low to low quality, evidence. It applied robust methodological processes and addressed shared priorities. The guideline transitioned from consensus based to evidence-based diagnostic criteria and enhanced accuracy of diagnosis, whilst promoting consistency of care. However, diagnosis is still delayed, the needs of those with PCOS are not being adequately met, evidence quality was low and evidence-practice gaps persist. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The 2023 International Evidence-based Guideline update reengaged the 2018 network across professional societies and consumer organizations, with multidisciplinary experts and women with PCOS directly involved at all stages. Extensive evidence synthesis was completed. Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-II (AGREEII)-compliant processes were followed. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was applied across evidence quality, feasibility, acceptability, cost, implementation and ultimately recommendation strength and diversity and inclusion were considered throughout. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: This summary should be read in conjunction with the full Guideline for detailed participants and methods. Governance included a six-continent international advisory and management committee, five guideline development groups, and paediatric, consumer, and translation committees. Extensive consumer engagement and guideline experts informed the update scope and priorities. Engaged international society-nominated panels included paediatrics, endocrinology, gynaecology, primary care, reproductive endocrinology, obstetrics, psychiatry, psychology, dietetics, exercise physiology, obesity care, public health and other experts, alongside consumers, project management, evidence synthesis, statisticians and translation experts. Thirty-nine professional and consumer organizations covering 71 countries engaged in the process. Twenty meetings and five face-to-face forums over 12 months addressed 58 prioritized clinical questions involving 52 systematic and 3 narrative reviews. Evidence-based recommendations were developed and approved via consensus across five guideline panels, modified based on international feedback and peer review, independently reviewed for methodological rigour, and approved by the Australian Government National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The evidence in the assessment and management of PCOS has generally improved in the past five years, but remains of low to moderate quality. The technical evidence report and analyses (∼6000 pages) underpins 77 evidence-based and 54 consensus recommendations, with 123 practice points. Key updates include: i) further refinement of individual diagnostic criteria, a simplified diagnostic algorithm and inclusion of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels as an alternative to ultrasound in adults only; ii) strengthening recognition of broader features of PCOS including metabolic risk factors, cardiovascular disease, sleep apnea, very high prevalence of psychological features, and high risk status for adverse outcomes during pregnancy; iii) emphasizing the poorly recognized, diverse burden of disease and the need for greater healthcare professional education, evidence-based patient information, improved models of care and shared decision making to improve patient experience, alongside greater research; iv) maintained emphasis on healthy lifestyle, emotional wellbeing and quality of life, with awareness and consideration of weight stigma; and v) emphasizing evidence-based medical therapy and cheaper and safer fertility management. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Overall, recommendations are strengthened and evidence is improved, but remains generally low to moderate quality. Significantly greater research is now needed in this neglected, yet common condition. Regional health system variation was considered and acknowledged, with a further process for guideline and translation resource adaptation provided. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The 2023 International Guideline for the Assessment and Management of PCOS provides clinicians and patients with clear advice on best practice, based on the best available evidence, expert multidisciplinary input and consumer preferences. Research recommendations have been generated and a comprehensive multifaceted dissemination and translation program supports the Guideline with an integrated evaluation program. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This effort was primarily funded by the Australian Government via the National Health Medical Research Council (NHMRC) (APP1171592), supported by a partnership with American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Endocrine Society, European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology, and European Society for Endocrinology. The Commonwealth Government of Australia also supported Guideline translation through the Medical Research Future Fund (MRFCRI000266). HJT and AM are funded by NHMRC fellowships. JT is funded by a Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) fellowship. Guideline development group members were volunteers. Travel expenses were covered by the partnering organizations. Disclosures of interest were strictly managed according to NHMRC policy and are available with the full guideline, technical evidence report, peer review and responses (www.monash.edu/medicine/mchri/pcos). Of named authors HJT, CTT, AD, LM, LR, JBoyle, AM have no conflicts of interest to declare. JL declares grant from Ferring and Merck; consulting fees from Ferring and Titus Health Care; speaker's fees from Ferring; unpaid consultancy for Ferring, Roche Diagnostics and Ansh Labs; and sits on advisory boards for Ferring, Roche Diagnostics, Ansh Labs, and Gedeon Richter. TP declares a grant from Roche; consulting fees from Gedeon Richter and Organon; speaker's fees from Gedeon Richter and Exeltis; travel support from Gedeon Richter and Exeltis; unpaid consultancy for Roche Diagnostics; and sits on advisory boards for Roche Diagnostics. MC declares travels support from Merck; and sits on an advisory board for Merck. JBoivin declares grants from Merck Serono Ltd.; consulting fees from Ferring B.V; speaker's fees from Ferring Arzneimittell GmbH; travel support from Organon; and sits on an advisory board for the Office of Health Economics. RJN has received speaker's fees from Merck and sits on an advisory board for Ferring. AJoham has received speaker's fees from Novo Nordisk and Boehringer Ingelheim. The guideline was peer reviewed by special interest groups across our 39 partner and collaborating organizations, was independently methodologically assessed against AGREEII criteria and was approved by all members of the guideline development groups and by the NHMRC.

The BISTIM study: a randomized controlled trial comparing dual ovarian stimulation (duostim) with two conventional ovarian stimulations in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF.

STUDY QUESTION: Is the total number of oocytes retrieved with dual ovarian stimulation in the same cycle (duostim) higher than with two consecutive antagonist cycles in poor responders? SUMMARY ANSWER: Based on the number of total and mature oocytes retrieved in women with poor ovarian response (POR), there is no benefit of duostim versus two consecutive antagonist cycles. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Recent studies have shown the ability to obtain oocytes with equivalent quality from the follicular and the luteal phase, and a higher number of oocytes within one cycle when using duostim. If during follicular stimulation smaller follicles are sensitized and recruited, this may increase the number of follicles selected in the consecutive luteal phase stimulation, as shown in non-randomized controlled trials (RCT). This could be particularly relevant for women with POR. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a multicentre, open-labelled RCT, performed in four IVF centres from September 2018 to March 2021. The primary outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved over the two cycles. The primary objective was to demonstrate in women with POR that two ovarian stimulations within the same cycle (first in the follicular phase, followed by a second in the luteal phase) led to the retrieval of 1.5 (2) more oocytes than the cumulative number of oocytes from two consecutive conventional stimulations with an antagonist protocol. In a superiority hypothesis, with power 0.8 alpha-risk 0.05 and a 35% cancellation rate, 44 patients were needed in each group. Patients were randomized by computer allocation. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Eighty-eight women with POR, defined using adjusted Bologna criteria (antral follicle count ≤5 and/or anti-Müllerian hormone ≤1.2 ng/ml) were randomized, 44 in the duostim group and 44 in the conventional (control) group. HMG 300 IU/day with flexible antagonist protocol was used for ovarian stimulation, except in luteal phase stimulation of the duostim group. In the duostim group, oocytes were pooled and inseminated after the second retrieval, with a freeze-all protocol. Fresh transfers were performed in the control group, frozen embryo transfers were performed in both control and duostim groups in natural cycles. Data underwent intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There was no difference between the groups regarding demographics, ovarian reserve markers, and stimulation parameters. The mean (SD) cumulative number of oocytes retrieved from two ovarian stimulations was not statistically different between the control and duostim groups, respectively, 4.6 (3.4) and 5.0 (3.4) [mean difference (MD) [95% CI] +0.4 [-1.1; 1.9], P = 0.56]. The mean cumulative numbersof mature oocytes and total embryos obtained were not significantly different between groups. The total number of embryos transferred by patient was significantly higher in the control group 1.5 (1.1) versus the duostim group 0.9 (1.1) (P = 0.03). After two cumulative cycles, 78% of women in the control group and 53.8% in the duostim group had at least one embryo transfer (P = 0.02). There was no statistical difference in the mean number of total and mature oocytes retrieved per cycle comparing Cycle 1 versus Cycle 2, both in control and duostim groups. The time to the second oocyte retrieval was significantly longer in controls, at 2.8 (1.3) months compared to 0.3 (0.5) months in the duostim group (P < 0.001). The implantation rate was similar between groups. The cumulative live birth rate was not statistically different, comparing controls versus the duostim group, 34.1% versus 17.9%, respectively (P = 0.08). The time to transfer resulting in an ongoing pregnancy did not differ in controls 1.7 (1.5) months versus the duostim group, 3.0 (1.6) (P = 0.08). No serious adverse events were reported. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The RCT was impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and the halt in IVF activities for 10 weeks. Delays were recalculated to exclude this period; however, one woman in the duostim group could not have the luteal stimulation. We also faced unexpected good ovarian responses and pregnancies after the first oocyte retrieval in both groups, with a higher incidence in the control group. However, our hypothesis was based on 1.5 more oocytes in the luteal than the follicular phase in the duostim group, and the number of patients to treat was reached in this group (N = 28). This study was only powered for cumulative number of oocytes retrieved. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first RCT comparing the outcome of two consecutive cycles, either in the same menstrual cycle or in two consecutive menstrual cycles. In routine practice, the benefit of duostim in patients with POR regarding fresh embryo transfer is not confirmed in this RCT: first, because this study demonstrates no improvement in the number of oocytes retrieved in the luteal phase after follicular phase stimulation, in contrast to previous non-randomized studies, and second, because the freeze-all strategy avoids a pregnancy with fresh embryo transfer after the first cycle. However, duostim appears to be safe for women. In duostim, the two consecutive processes of freezing/thawing are mandatory and increase the risk of wastage of oocytes/embryos. The only benefit of duostim is to shorten the time to a second retrieval by 2 weeks if accumulation of oocytes/embryos is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This is an investigator-initiated study supported by a research Grant from IBSA Pharma. N.M. declares grants paid to their institution from MSD (Organon France); consulting fees from MSD (Organon France), Ferring, and Merck KGaA; honoraria from Merck KGaA, General Electrics, Genevrier (IBSA Pharma), and Theramex; support for travel and meetings from Theramex, Merck KGaG, and Gedeon Richter; and equipment paid to their institution from Goodlife Pharma. I.A. declares honoraria from GISKIT and support for travel and meetings from GISKIT. G.P.-B. declares Consulting fees from Ferring and Merck KGaA; honoraria from Theramex, Gedeon Richter, and Ferring; payment for expert testimony from Ferring, Merck KGaA, and Gedeon Richter; and support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. N.C. declares grants from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaA, Ferring, and Gedeon Richter; support for travel and meetings from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaG, MSD (Organon France), Gedeon Richter, and Theramex; and participation on advisory board from Merck KGaA. E.D. declares support for travel and meetings from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaG, MSD (Organon France), Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Theramex, and General Electrics. C.P.-V. declares support for travel and meetings from IBSA Pharma, Merck KGaA, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, and Theramex. M.Pi. declares support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Gedeon Richetr, and Merck KGaA. M.Pa. declares honoraria from Merck KGaA, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter; support for travel and meetings from Merck KGaA, IBSA Pharma, Theramex, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, and MSD (Organon France). H.B.-G. declares honoraria from Merck KGaA, and Gedeon Richter and support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Merck KGaA, IBSA Pharma, MSD (Organon France), Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. S.G. and M.B. have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Registration number EudraCT: 2017-003223-30. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03803228. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: EudraCT: 28 July 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov: 14 January 2019. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 3 September 2018.

Psychosocial wellbeing shortly after allocation to a freeze-all strategy compared with a fresh transfer strategy in women and men: a sub-study of a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is the psychosocial wellbeing affected in women and men shortly after allocation to a freeze-all strategy with postponement of embryo transfer compared to a fresh transfer strategy? SUMMARY ANSWER: In general, psychosocial wellbeing (i.e. emotional reactions to the treatment, quality-of-life, infertility-related stress, and marital benefit) was similar in women and men allocated to a freeze-all versus those allocated to a fresh-transfer strategy 6 days after disclosure of treatment strategy (i.e. 4 days after oocyte retrieval), although women in the freeze-all group reported a slightly higher degree of depressive symptoms and mood swings compared to women in the fresh transfer group. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The use of a freeze-all strategy, i.e. freezing of the entire embryo cohort followed by elective frozen embryo transfer in subsequent cycles has increased steadily over the past decade in assisted reproductive technology (ART). This strategy essentially eliminates the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and has proven beneficial regarding some reproductive outcomes in subgroups of women. However, patients experience a longer time interval between oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer, hence a longer time to pregnancy, possibly adding additional stress to the ART treatment. So far, little focus has been on the possible psychosocial strains caused by postponement of embryo transfer. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a self-reported questionnaire based sub-study of a multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT) including 460 women and 396 male partners initiating their first, second, or third treatment cycle of invitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) from May 2016 to September 2018. This sub-study was included in the primary project protocol and project plan for the RCT, as psychosocial wellbeing was considered a secondary outcome. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women from eight public fertility clinics in Denmark and Sweden and one private clinic in Spain were randomized in a 1:1 ratio on the day of inclusion (menstrual cycle day 2 or 3) to either a freeze-all strategy with postponement of embryo transfer to a subsequent modified natural menstrual cycle or a fresh transfer strategy with embryo transfer in the hormone stimulated cycle. Treatment allocation was blinded until the day of the ovulation trigger. Women and their male partners were asked to complete a validated self-reported questionnaire 6 days after unblinding of treatment group allocation, corresponding to 4 days after oocyte retrieval, investigating their psychosocial wellbeing related to the treatment defined as emotional reactions to the treatment, quality-of-life, infertility-related stress, and marital benefit. The questionnaire included items from the Copenhagen Multi-Centre Psychosocial Infertility (COMPI) Fertility Problem Stress Scales and the COMPI Marital Benefit Measure. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups for both women and men. In total, response rates were 90.7% for women and 90.2% for men. In the freeze-all group, 207 women and 179 men completed the questionnaire compared with 204 women and 178 men in the fresh transfer group. Men in the two treatment groups did not differ in any of the explored aspects of psychosocial wellbeing (i.e. emotional reactions to the treatment, quality-of-life, infertility-related stress, and marital benefit) 6 days after disclosure of treatment strategy. Women in the freeze-all group reported a slightly higher degree of depressive symptoms (P = 0.045) and mood swings (P = 0.001) (i.e. variables included in 'emotional reactions to treatment') compared to women in the fresh transfer group. When adjusted for multiple testing, depressive symptoms were no longer significantly different between the two groups. No additional differences in psychosocial wellbeing were found. Self-reported quality-of-life during treatment was also rated as similar between the two groups in both women and men, but was slightly lower than they would rate their quality-of-life when not in fertility treatment. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although response rates were high, selection bias cannot be excluded. As this study was an RCT, we assume that psychosocial characteristics of the participants were equally distributed in the two groups, thus it is unlikely that the identified psychosocial differences between the freeze-all and fresh transfer group were present already at baseline. Furthermore, the questionnaire was completed as a one-time assessment 4 days after oocyte retrieval, thus not reflecting the whole treatment process, whereas an assessment after the full completed treatment cycle is needed to draw firm conclusions about the psychosocial consequences of the whole waiting period. However, a question posted that late would be highly biased on whether or not a pregnancy had been achieved. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The results indicate that individuals in the freeze-all group exhibited slightly higher levels of depressive symptoms and mood swings compared to those in the fresh transfer group. Nevertheless, it is important to note that any worries related to potential emotional strains stemming from delaying embryo transfer should not overshadow the adoption of a freeze-all approach in cases where it is clinically recommended. As long as patients are provided with comprehensive information about the treatment strategy before initiating the process, it is worth emphasising that other aspects of psychosocial wellbeing were comparable between the two groups. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study is part of the Reprounion collaborative study, co-financed by the European Union, Interreg V Öresund-Kattegat-Skagerrak. L.P. reports financial support from Merck A/S. H.S.N. reports grants from Freya Biosciences ApS, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, BioInnovation Institute, Ministry of Education, Novo Nordic Foundation, Augustinus Fonden, Oda og Hans Svenningsens Fond, Demant Fonden, Ole Kirks Fond and Independent Research Fund Denmark and personal fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S, Astra Zeneca, Cook Medical, IBSA Nordic and Gedeon Richter. H.S.N is founder and chairman of the Maternity Foundation and co-developed the Safe Delivery App (non-profit). N.C.F. reports grants from Gedeon Richter, Merck A/S, Cryos International and financial support from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S and Gedeon Richter. N.C.F. is chairman in the steering committee for the guideline groups for The Danish Fertility Society (non-profit). P.H. reports honoraria from Merch A/S, IBSA Nordic and Gedeon Richter. A.L.M.E. reports grants and financial support from Merck A/S and Gedeon Richter. A.P. reports grants from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S and personal fees from Preglem S.A., Novo Nordic Foundation, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Gedeon Richter, Cryos International, Merch A/S, Theramex and Organon and the lend of embryoscope to the institution from Gedeon Richter. All other authors declare no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02746562.

External validation of models for predicting cumulative live birth over multiple complete cycles of IVF treatment.

STUDY QUESTION: Can two prediction models developed using data from 1999 to 2009 accurately predict the cumulative probability of live birth per woman over multiple complete cycles of IVF in an updated UK cohort? SUMMARY ANSWER: After being updated, the models were able to estimate individualized chances of cumulative live birth over multiple complete cycles of IVF with greater accuracy. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The McLernon models were the first to predict cumulative live birth over multiple complete cycles of IVF. They were converted into an online calculator called OPIS (Outcome Prediction In Subfertility) which has 3000 users per month on average. A previous study externally validated the McLernon models using a Dutch prospective cohort containing data from 2011 to 2014. With changes in IVF practice over time, it is important that the McLernon models are externally validated on a more recent cohort of patients to ensure that predictions remain accurate. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A population-based cohort of 91 035 women undergoing IVF in the UK between January 2010 and December 2016 was used for external validation. Data on frozen embryo transfers associated with these complete IVF cycles conducted from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017 were also collected. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Data on IVF treatments were obtained from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). The predictive performances of the McLernon models were evaluated in terms of discrimination and calibration. Discrimination was assessed using the c-statistic and calibration was assessed using calibration-in-the-large, calibration slope, and calibration plots. Where any model demonstrated poor calibration in the validation cohort, the models were updated using intercept recalibration, logistic recalibration, or model revision to improve model performance. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Following exclusions, 91 035 women who underwent 144 734 complete cycles were included. The validation cohort had a similar distribution age profile to women in the development cohort. Live birth rates over all complete cycles of IVF per woman were higher in the validation cohort. After calibration assessment, both models required updating. The coefficients of the pre-treatment model were revised, and the updated model showed reasonable discrimination (c-statistic: 0.67, 95% CI: 0.66 to 0.68). After logistic recalibration, the post-treatment model showed good discrimination (c-statistic: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.74 to 0.76). As an example, in the updated pre-treatment model, a 32-year-old woman with 2 years of primary infertility has a 42% chance of having a live birth in the first complete ICSI cycle and a 77% chance over three complete cycles. In a couple with 2 years of primary male factor infertility where a 30-year-old woman has 15 oocytes collected in the first cycle, a single fresh blastocyst embryo transferred in the first cycle and spare embryos cryopreserved, the estimated chance of live birth provided by the post-treatment model is 46% in the first complete ICSI cycle and 81% over three complete cycles. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Two predictors from the original models, duration of infertility and previous pregnancy, which were not available in the recent HFEA dataset, were imputed using data from the older cohort used to develop the models. The HFEA dataset does not contain some other potentially important predictors, e.g. BMI, ethnicity, race, smoking and alcohol intake in women, as well as measures of ovarian reserve such as antral follicle count. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Both updated models show improved predictive ability and provide estimates which are more reflective of current practice and patient case mix. The updated OPIS tool can be used by clinicians to help shape couples' expectations by informing them of their individualized chances of live birth over a sequence of multiple complete cycles of IVF. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by an Elphinstone scholarship scheme at the University of Aberdeen and Aberdeen Fertility Centre, University of Aberdeen. S.B. has a commitment of research funding from Merck. D.J.M. and M.B.R. declare support for the present manuscript from Elphinstone scholarship scheme at the University of Aberdeen and Assisted Reproduction Unit at Aberdeen Fertility Centre, University of Aberdeen. D.J.M. declares grants received by University of Aberdeen from NHS Grampian, The Meikle Foundation, and Chief Scientist Office in the past 3 years. D.J.M. declares receiving an honorarium for lectures from Merck. D.J.M. is Associate Editor of Human Reproduction Open and Statistical Advisor for Reproductive BioMed Online. S.B. declares royalties from Cambridge University Press for a book. S.B. declares receiving an honorarium for lectures from Merck, Organon, Ferring, Obstetric and Gynaecological Society of Singapore, and Taiwanese Society for Reproductive Medicine. S.B. has received support from Merck, ESHRE, and Ferring for attending meetings as speaker and is on the METAFOR and CAPRE Trials Data Monitoring Committee. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Eight weeks of androgen priming by daily low-dose hCG injections before ICSI treatment in women with low ovarian reserve.

STUDY QUESTION: Does 8 weeks of continuous low-dose hCG administration increase the proportion of antral follicles that reach the preovulatory state during ovarian stimulation (OS) in women with low ovarian reserve? SUMMARY ANSWER: The proportion of antral follicles (2-10 mm) that reached the preovulatory state did not increase. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The administration of androgens prior to OS might upregulate FSH receptor (FSHR) expression on granulosa cells, making follicles more responsive to exogenous FSH stimulation during OS. LH and hCG stimulate the local follicular androgen synthesis in theca cells and may be used as an endogenous androgen priming method. Exogenous priming by testosterone and dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) have been shown to increase the number of retrieved oocytes and live birth rate but the studies are small, and their use is associated with side effects. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A prospective, paired, non-blinded single-center study including 20 women serving as their own controls conducted between January 2021 and July 2021 at The University Hospital Copenhagen Rigshospitalet, Denmark. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants underwent two identical consecutive IVF/ICSI treatments, a Control cycle and a Study cycle, separated by ∼8 weeks (two menstrual cycles) of daily injections of 260 IU recombinant hCG (rhCG). A freeze-all strategy was applied in the Control cycle. Both IVF/ICSI cycles were performed in a fixed GnRH antagonist protocol using a daily dose of 300 IU recombinant FSH (rFSH) and GnRH antagonist 0.25 mg from stimulation days 5-6. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Follicular output rate, defined as the number of follicles >16 mm on hCG trigger day divided by the antral follicle count (2-10 mm) at baseline, did not increase after 8 weeks of hCG priming (P = 0.8). The mean number of oocytes retrieved was significantly higher after the hCG priming being 4.7 (2.8) vs 3.2 (1.7) in the Study and Control cycle, respectively (P = 0.01). The duration of stimulation was longer in the Study versus the Control cycle (P = 0.05), despite the use of identical hCG trigger criterion and similar diameters of the three biggest follicles on hCG trigger day in the two cycles (P = 0.9). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The sample size was small, and the number of oocytes retrieved was not the primary endpoint. Larger studies are needed to confirm this finding. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Long-term, low-dose rhCG administration may increase the number of oocytes retrieved during IVF/ICSI in women with low ovarian reserve, but more research is needed before firm conclusions can be drawn. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by an unrestricted grant from Gedeon Richter. A.P. reports personal consulting fees from PregLem SA, Novo Nordisk A/S, Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, Gedeon Richter Nordics AB, Cryos International, and Merck A/S outside the submitted work and payment or honoraria for lectures from Gedeon Richter Nordics AB, Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, Merck A/S, and Theramex and Organon & Co. Grants to the institution have been provided by Gedeon Richter Nordics AB, Ferring Pharmaceuticals A/S, and Merck A/S and receipt of equipment by the institution from Gedeon Richter Nordics AB is reported. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04643925.

Impact of letrozole co-treatment during ovarian stimulation on oocyte yield, embryo development, and live birth rate in women with normal ovarian reserve: secondary outcomes from the RIOT trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does letrozole (LZ) co-treatment during ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins for in IVF impact follicle recruitment, oocyte number and quality, embryo quality, or live birth rate (LBR)? SUMMARY ANSWER: No impact of LZ was found in follicle recruitment, number of oocytes, quality of embryos, or LBR. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Multi-follicle stimulation for IVF produces supra-physiological oestradiol levels. LZ is an aromatase inhibitor that lowers serum oestradiol thus reducing negative feedback and increasing the endogenous gonadotropins in both the follicular and the luteal phases, effectively normalizing the endocrine milieu during IVF treatment. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Secondary outcomes from a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial (RCT) investigating once-daily 5 mg LZ or placebo during stimulation for IVF with FSH. The RCT was conducted at four fertility clinics at University Hospitals in Denmark from August 2016 to November 2018 and pregnancy outcomes of frozen-thawed embryo transfers (FET) registered until May 2023. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: One hundred fifty-nine women with expected normal ovarian reserve (anti-Müllerian hormone 8-32 nmol/l) were randomized to either co-treatment with LZ (n = 80) or placebo (n = 79). In total 1268 oocytes were aspirated developing into 386 embryos, and morphology and morphokinetics were assessed. One hundred twenty-nine embryos were transferred in the fresh cycle and 158 embryos in a subsequent FET cycle. The effect of LZ on cumulative clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), LBR, endometrial thickness in the fresh cycle, and total FSH consumption was reported. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The proportion of usable embryos of retrieved oocytes was similar in the LZ group and the placebo group with 0.31 vs 0.36 (mean difference (MD) -0.05, 95% CI (-0.12; 0.03), P = 0.65). The size and number of aspirated follicles at oocyte retrieval were similar with 11.8 vs 10.3 follicles per patient (MD 1.5, 95% CI (-0.5; 3.1), P = 0.50), as well as the number of retrieved oocytes with 8.0 vs 7.9 oocytes (MD 0.1, 95% CI (-1.4; 1.6), P = 0.39) in the LZ and placebo groups, respectively. The chance of retrieving an oocyte from the 13 to 16 mm follicles at trigger day was 66% higher (95% CI (24%; 108%), P = 0.002) in the placebo group than in the LZ group, whilst the chance of retrieving an oocyte from the ≥17 mm follicles at trigger day was 50% higher (95% CI (2%; 98%), P = 0.04) in the LZ group than in the placebo group. The proportion of fertilized oocytes with two-pronuclei per retrieved oocytes or per metaphase II oocytes (MII) (the 2PN rates) were similar regardless of fertilization with IVF or ICSI with 0.48 vs 0.57 (MD -0.09, 95% CI (-0.24; 0.04), P = 0.51), and 0.62 vs 0.64 (MD -0.02, 95% CI (-0.13; 0.07), P = 0.78) in the LZ and placebo groups, respectively. However, the MII rate in the ICSI group was significantly lower with 0.75 vs 0.88 in the LZ vs the placebo group (MD -0.14, 95% CI (-0.22; -0.06), P = 0.03). Blastocysts on Day 5 per patient were similar with 1.5 vs 2.0, P = 0.52, as well as vitrified blastocysts per patient Day 5 with 0.8 vs 1.2 in (MD -0.4, 95% CI (-1.0; 0.2), P = 0.52) and vitrified blastocysts per patient Day 6 with 0.6 vs 0.6 (MD 0, 95% CI (-0.3; 0.3), P = 1.00) in the LZ vs placebo group, respectively. Morphologic evaluation of all usable embryos showed a similar distribution in 'Good', 'Fair', and 'Poor', in the LZ vs placebo group, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.8 95% CI (0.5; 1.3), P = 0.68 of developing a better class embryo. Two hundred and ninety-five of the 386 embryos were cultured in an embryoscope. Morphokinetic annotations showed that the odds of having a high KIDscore™ D3 Day 3 were 1.2 times higher (CI (0.8; 1.9), P = 0.68) in the LZ group vs the placebo group. The CPR per transfer was comparable with 31% vs 39% (risk-difference of 8%, 95% CI (-25%; 11%), P = 0.65) in the LZ and placebo group, respectively, as well as CPR per transfer adjusted for day of transfer, oestradiol and progesterone levels at trigger, progesterone levels mid-luteal, and number of oocytes retrieved (adjusted OR) of 0.8 (95% CI (0.4; 1.6), P = 0.72). Comparable LBR were found per transfer 28% vs 37% (MD -9%, 95% CI (-26%; 9%), P = 0.60) and per randomized women 24% vs 30% (MD of -6%, CI (-22%; 8%), P = 0.60) in the LZ group and placebo group, respectively. Furthermore, 4.8 years since the last oocyte aspiration, a total of 287 of 386 embryos have been transferred in the fresh or a subsequently FET cycle, disclosing the cumulative CPR, which is similar with 38% vs 34% (MD 95% CI (8%; 16%), P = 0.70) in the LZ vs placebo group. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Both cleavage stage and blastocyst transfer and vitrification were permitted in the protocol, making it necessary to categorize their quality and pool the results. The study was powered to detect hormonal variation but not embryo or pregnancy outcomes. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The similar utilization rate and quality of the embryos support the use of LZ co-treatment for IVF with specific indication as fertility preservation, patients with previous cancer, or poor responders. The effect of LZ on mature oocytes from different follicle sizes and LBRs should be evaluated in a meta-analysis or a larger RCT. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Funding was received from EU Interreg for ReproUnion, Sjaelland University Hospital, Denmark, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Gedeon Ricther. Roche Diagnostics contributed with assays. A.P. has received grants from Ferring, Merck Serono, and Gedeon Richter, consulting fees from Preglem, Novo Nordisk, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Cryos, & Merck A/S, speakers fees from Gedeon Richter, Ferring, Merck A/S, Theramex, & Organon, and travel support from Gedeon Richter. The remaining authors declare that they have no competing interests in the research or publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT02939898 and NCT02946684.

Relationship between lead concentration in maternal and umbilical cord blood and some neonatal outcomes in primiparous opium-dependent mothers in Zahedan, Southeast of Iran in 2022.

BACKGROUND: There are limited studies on maternal and umbilical cord blood lead levels and their relationship with each other and with pregnancy outcomes in women addicted to opium. The present study was conducted with the aim of investigating the relationship between lead concentrations in maternal blood and umbilical cord blood with some neonatal outcomes in primiparous opium-dependent mothers. METHOD: The present study is a cross-sectional and analytical research. A total of 35 mothers addicted to opium and 35 women without addiction from Zahedan city of Iran participated in this study in 2022. Convenience sampling was done, lead levels were measured and pregnancy outcomes checked by a checklist to collect information. Data analysis was done by independent t-tests, Pearson's correlation coefficient, Point-Biserial Correlation Coefficient, multivariate linear regression and multivariate logistic regression using SPSS version 26 software. RESULTS: There was a significant difference in maternal blood lead levels (24.97 ± 8.45 in addicted mothers and 7.5 ± 4.25 in healthy mothers) and in umbilical cord blood lead concentrations (18.68 ± 6.95 in the addicted group and 5.7 ± 2.84 in the healthy group) between the two groups (P < 0.0001 and P < 0.0001, respectively).The lead concentration of all the samples in the addicted group was higher than the high-risk levels. Birth weight, Apgar score, admission to NICU and need for resuscitation were significantly different between the two groups (P < 0.0001, P < 0.0001, p = 0.03 and p = 0.04, respectively). Based on the results of multivariate linear regression test, only addiction can reversely predict the birth weight (Beta= -0.74, P < 0.0001), 1-minute Apgar score (Beta = -0.47, P = 0.004) and 5th minute (Beta= -0.62, P = 0.001). According to multivariate logistic regression test, OR of none of the predictor variables was significant with the outcomes. Maternal and umbilical cord blood lead concentrations were not predictors of pregnancy outcomes. CONCLUSION: The use of opium during pregnancy leads to an increase in the level of lead in maternal blood and umbilical cord blood. Addiction increased adverse pregnancy outcomes but lead concentration did not predict pregnancy complications. It is recommended that the addiction treatment program be included in pre-pregnancy and pregnancy care plans.

[How Common are Complementary Medicine Procedures in Bavarian Acute Care Hospitals? Results of A Bavarian-wide Website Screening]. / Wie verbreitet sind komplementärmedizinische Verfahren in bayerischen Krankenhäusern? Eine Vollerhebung für Bayern mittels Website-Screening.

BACKGROUND: In Germany, complementary medicine is used by up to 62% of patients, but type and extent of in-patient complementary care are not known. The objective of this study was, therefore, to conduct a survey on complementary medicine procedures in Bavarian acute care hospitals by screening the websites of all respective facilities in order to cover a broad range of complementary procedures. METHODS: In 2020, an independent and comprehensive website screening of all 389 Bavarian acute hospitals, including all departments, was conducted by two independent raters. Complementary medicine procedures offered were analysed in total as well as separately by specialty. RESULTS: Among all 389 Bavarian acute care hospitals, 82% offered at least one and 66% at least three different complementary procedures on their website. Relaxation techniques (52%), acupuncture (44%), massage (41%), movement-, art-, and music therapy (33%, 30%, and 28%), meditative movement therapies like yoga (30%), and aromatherapy (29%) were offered most frequently. Separated by specialty, complementary procedures were most common in psychiatry/psychosomatics (relaxation techniques 69%, movement and art therapy 60% each) at 87%, and in gynaecology/obstetrics (most common acupuncture 64%, homeopathy 60%, and aromatherapy 41%) at 72%. CONCLUSION: The vast majority of Bavarian acute care hospitals also seem to conduct complementary medicine procedures in therapy, especially for psychological indications and in obstetrics and gynaecology, according to the hospital websites. How often these procedures are used in inpatient or outpatient settings as well as evidence on effectiveness of the applied procedures should be investigated in further studies.

A randomized, controlled, first-in-patient trial of choriogonadotropin beta added to follitropin delta in women undergoing ovarian stimulation in a long GnRH agonist protocol.

STUDY QUESTION: Does addition of choriogonadotropin beta (recombinant CG beta) to follitropin delta increase the number of good-quality blastocysts following ovarian stimulation in a long GnRH agonist protocol? SUMMARY ANSWER: At the doses investigated, the addition of CG beta reduced the number of intermediate follicles and related down-stream parameters including the number of oocytes and blastocysts. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: CG beta is a novel recombinant hCG (rhCG) molecule expressed by a human cell line (PER.C6®) and has a different glycosylation profile compared to urinary hCG or rhCG derived from a Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) cell line. In the first-in-human trial, the CG beta pharmacokinetics were similar between men and women. In women, the AUC and the peak serum concentration (Cmax) increased approximately dose proportionally following single and multiple daily doses. In men, a single dose of CG beta provided higher exposure with a longer half-life and proportionately higher testosterone production than CHO cell-derived rhCG. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized trial (RAINBOW) was conducted in five European countries to explore the efficacy and safety of CG beta as add-on treatment to follitropin delta in women undergoing ovarian stimulation in a long GnRH agonist protocol. Randomization was stratified by centre and age (30-37 and 38-42 years). The primary endpoint was the number of good-quality blastocysts (Grade 3 BB or higher). Subjects were randomized to receive either placebo or 1, 2, 4, 8 or 12 µg CG beta added to the daily individualized follitropin delta dose during ovarian stimulation. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In total, 620 women (30-42 years) with anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels between 5 and 35 pmol/l were randomized in equal proportions to the six treatment groups and 619 subjects started treatment. All 619 subjects were treated with an individualized dose of follitropin delta determined based on AMH (Elecsys AMH Plus Immunoassay) and body weight. Triggering with rhCG was performed when 3 follicles were ≥17 mm but no more than 25 follicles ≥12 mm were reached. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The demographic characteristics were comparable between the six treatment groups and the overall mean age, body weight and AMH were 35.6 ± 3.3 years, 65.3 ± 10.7 kg and 15.3 ± 7.0 pmol/l, respectively. The incidence of cycle cancellation (range 0-2.9%), total follitropin delta dose (mean 112 µg) and duration of stimulation (mean 10 days) were similar across the groups. At stimulation Day 6, the number and size of follicles was similar between the treatment groups, whereas at the end-of-stimulation dose-related decrease of the intermediate follicles between 12 and 17 mm was observed in comparison to the placebo group. In contrast, the number of follicles ≥17 mm was similar between the CG beta dose groups and the placebo group. A reduced number of intermediate follicles (12 to 17 mm) and fewer oocytes (mean range 9.7 to 11.2) were observed for all doses of CG beta compared to the follitropin delta only group (mean 12.5). The mean number of good-quality blastocysts was 3.3 in the follitropin delta group and ranged between 2.1 and 3.0 across the CG beta groups. The incidence of transfer cancellation was higher in the 4, 8 and 12 µg group, mostly as no blastocyst was available for transfer. In the group receiving only follitropin delta, the ongoing pregnancy rate (10-11 weeks after transfer) was 43% per started cycle versus 28-39% in CG beta groups and 49% per transfer versus 38-50% in the CG beta groups. There was no apparent effect of CG beta on the incidence of adverse events, which was 48.1% in the placebo group and 39.6-52.3% in the CG beta dose groups. In line with the number of collected oocytes, the overall ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome incidence remained lower following follitropin delta with CG beta (2.0-10.3%) compared with follitropin delta only treatment (11.5%). Regardless of the dose, CG beta was safe and well-tolerated with low risk of immunogenicity. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The effect of the unique glycosylation of CG beta and its associated potency implications in women were not known prior to this trial. Further studies will be needed to evaluate optimal doses of CG beta for this and/or different indications. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The high ongoing pregnancy rate in the follitropin delta group supports the use of individualized follitropin delta dosing in a long GnRH agonist protocol. The addition of CG beta reduced the presence of intermediate follicles with the investigated doses and negatively affected all down-stream parameters. Further clinical research will be needed to assess the optimal dose of CG beta in the optimal ratio to follitropin delta to develop this novel combination product containing both FSH and LH activity for ovarian stimulation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Copenhagen, Denmark. B.M. and P.L. are employees of Ferring Pharmaceuticals. M.F.S., H.V., C.Y.A., M.F., C.B., A.P. and Y.K. have received institutional clinical trial fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. C.B. has received payments for lectures from Organon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S and Abbott. M.F.S. has received payment for lectures from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Y.K. has received payment for lectures from Merck and travel support from Gedeon Richter. H.V. has received consulting fees from Oxo and Obseva and travel support from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck. C.Y.A. has received payment for lectures from IBSA, Switzerland. M.F and C.Y.A. were reimbursed as members of the Data Monitoring Board in this trial. M.F. has an issued patent about unitary combination of FSH and hCG (EP1633389). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2017-003810-13 (EudraCT Number). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 21 May 2018. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 13 June 2018.