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).

[Reduction in Helicobacter pylori infection among patients referred for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy in Santiago, Chile, between 2010-2020]. / Reducción de la infección por Helicobacter pylori en pacientes derivados a endoscopia digestiva alta en Santiago de Chile entre 2010-2020.

Latin America presents a high prevalence of Helicobacter pylori(Hp) infection. Between1996-2003, the prevalence in Santiago, Chile, was 70%; recent studies indicate a decreasein this infection. Updating the frequency of Hp is crucial due to its associated health impact. OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to describe the trend in Hp infection in patients undergoingambulatory esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) in a Chilean population. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted on patients over 18 years old who attended a first EGD with a rapid urease test between 2010-2020. Time trendswere described through time series analysis. A Poisson model was constructed to estimatethe risk of infection, adjusted for age and gender. RESULTS: 11,355 patients were included[66.9% females; mean age 52 years; Hp 41.6%]. Male gender presented a higher frequencyof Hp infection [RR 1.13; (95% CI: 1.08-1.18)].Hp frequency infection decreased significantlyfrom 45.1% in 2010 to 29% in 2020, with a 36% lower probability of Hp infection in 2020 compared to 2010 [RR 0.64;(95% CI: 0.55-0.74)]. A progressive decline in Hp infectiontrend was projected, reaching values close to 25% by year 2025. CONCLUSION: A significantreduction in Hpinfection was observed between 2010-2020. This decrease could be explained by the implementation of public health policies in the last decade associated with socio-sanitary changes.

Implementation of the updated Sydney system biopsy protocol improves the diagnostic yield of gastric preneoplastic conditions: Results from a real-world study.

BACKGROUND: The updated Sydney system biopsy protocol (USSBP) standardizes the sampling of gastric biopsies for the detection of preneoplastic conditions (e.g., gastric intestinal metaplasia [GIM]), but the real-world diagnostic yield is not well-described. AIM: To determine whether regular application of USSBP is associated with higher detection of chronic atrophic gastritis (CAG), GIM and autoimmune gastritis (AIG). METHODS: We performed a real-world retrospective study at an academic urban tertiary hospital in Chile. We manually reviewed medical records from consecutive patients undergoing esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) from January to December 2017. Seven endoscopists who performed EGDs were categorized into two groups (USSBP 'regular' and USSBP 'infrequent') based on USSBP adherence, using minimum 20% adherence as the prespecified threshold. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to estimate the odds ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the association between endoscopist groups and the likelihood of diagnosing CAG, GIM or AIG. RESULTS: 1206 patients were included in the study (mean age: 58.5; 65.3% female). The USSBP regular group demonstrated a higher likelihood of detecting CAG (20% vs. 5.3%; aOR 4.03, 95%CI: 2.69-6.03), GIM (12.2% vs. 3.4%; aOR 3.91, 95%CI: 2.39-6.42) and AIG (2.9% vs. 0.8%; aOR 6.52, 95%CI: 1.87-22.74) compared to infrequent group. Detection of advanced-stage CAG (Operative Link for Gastritis Assessment stage III/IV) was significantly higher in the USSBP regular vs. infrequent group (aOR 5.84, 95%CI: 2.23-15.31). CONCLUSIONS: Routine adherence to USSBP increases the detection rates of preneoplastic conditions, including CAG, GIM and AIG. Standardized implementation of USSBP should be considered in high gastric cancer risk populations.

Comparison of Hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 and Influenza Patients Requiring Supplemental Oxygen in a Cohort Study: Clinical Impact and Resource Consumption.

BACKGROUND: To compare clinical characteristics, outcomes, and resource consumption of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and seasonal influenza requiring supplemental oxygen. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study conducted at a tertiary-care hospital. Patients admitted because of seasonal influenza between 2017 and 2019, or with COVID-19 between March and May 2020 requiring supplemental oxygen were compared. Primary outcome: 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes: 90-day mortality and hospitalization costs. Attempted sample size to detect an 11% difference in mortality was 187 patients per group. RESULTS: COVID-19 cases were younger (median years of age, 67; interquartile range [IQR] 54-78 vs 76 [IQR 64-83]; P < .001) and more frequently overweight, whereas influenza cases had more hypertension, immunosuppression, and chronic heart, respiratory, and renal disease. Compared with influenza, COVID-19 cases had more pneumonia (98% vs 60%, <.001), higher Modified Early Warning Score (MEWS) and CURB-65 (confusion, blood urea nitrogen, respiratory rate, systolic blood pressure, and age >65 years) scores and were more likely to show worse progression on the World Health Organization ordinal scale (33% vs 4%; P < .001). The 30-day mortality rate was higher for COVID-19 than for influenza: 15% vs 5% (P = .001). The median age of nonsurviving cases was 81 (IQR 74-88) and 77.5 (IQR 65-84) (P = .385), respectively. COVID-19 was independently associated with 30-day (hazard ratio [HR], 4.6; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2-10.4) and 90-day (HR, 5.2; 95% CI, 2.4-11.4) mortality. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses, including a subgroup considering only patients with pneumonia, did not show different trends. Regarding resource consumption, COVID-19 patients had longer hospital stays and higher critical care, pharmacy, and complementary test costs. CONCLUSIONS: Although influenza patients were older and had more comorbidities, COVID-19 cases requiring supplemental oxygen on admission had worse clinical and economic outcomes.

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

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

Recipient outcomes in an oocyte donation programme: should very young donors be excluded?

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the oocyte donor's age affect live birth rate (LBR) in recipients? DESIGN: Retrospective study of 3766 oocyte recipient cycles carried out between January 2009 and December 2018. Cycles were categorized into groups according to donor's age: <20 years (4.7%); 20-25 years (41.1%); ≥26 years (54.2%). Chi-squared test was used to evaluate differences in LBR and analysis of variance was used to test differences in embryo quality, and fertilization and embryo development rates. A generalized linear mixed model was applied to estimate the odds for each end point. RESULTS: LBR was 40.7%. When analysed according to donors' age, significant differences were found: 33.9% for the youngest group, 39.1% for the group aged 20-25 years, and 42.5% for donors aged ≥26 years (P = 0.022). When adjusting for confounding factors (recipient age, number of transferred embryos and day of embryo transfer), LBR was lower in the group aged <20 years (OR 0.70; CI 95% 0.50 to 0.99) and in the group aged 20-25 years (OR 0.85; CI 95% 0.74 to 0.98) compared with the group aged ≥26 years. No significant differences were observed in fertilization rates (74.2%, 76.1% and 77.5%) or embryo development rates (57.0%, 61.4% and 62.0%). The number of good-quality embryos transferred was significantly lower in the group aged <20 years (1.03 ± 0.71; 1.18 ± 0.69; 1.19 ± 0.67; P = 0.015). CONCLUSIONS: LBR is significantly lower when donors are younger than 25 years and, especially, when they are younger than 20 years.

Blastocyst versus cleavage embryo transfer improves cumulative live birth rates, time and cost in oocyte recipients: a randomized controlled trial.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does embryo transfer day (day 5 versus day 3) affect cumulative live birth rates (CLBR), time to live birth (TLB) and cost per live birth (CPL) in recipients of donated oocytes? STUDY DESIGN: A single-centre RCT conducted between April 2017 and August 2018. Recipients of donated oocytes were randomized to cleavage-stage (day 3) or to blastocyst-stage (day 5) embryo transfer. Eligible recipients were aged 18-50 years and in their first or second synchronous cycle. Primary outcome was CLBR (12 months from first embryo transfer), and fresh and subsequent cryopreserved transfers were considered; TLB and CPL were also analysed. RESULTS: Recipients (n = 134) were randomized to the day-3 group (n = 69) or to the day-5 group (n = 65). Day-5 transfer resulted in a 15.9% relative increase in CLBR and a significant shorter TLB compared with day-3 transfer. To reach a 50% CLBR, the day-3 group required 6 months more than the day-5 group (15.3 versus 8.9 months, respectively). The average CPL in the day-3 strategy cost 24% more than the day-5 strategy (€14817.10 versus €10959.20). Clinical pregnancy rate was 25% less in the day-3 group. The trial was prematurely stopped after poor initial results in the day-3 arm led to unplanned interim analysis. CONCLUSIONS: The transfer of blastocyst-stage embryos in recipients of donated oocytes is preferred as it leads to a higher clinical pregnancy rate, live birth rate, shorter time to pregnancy and lower costs to achieve live birth, compared with cleavage-stage embryo transfer.

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

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

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

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

The effect of type of oral contraceptive pill and duration of use on fresh and cumulative live birth rates in IVF/ICSI cycles.

STUDY QUESTION: Are there any differences in the fresh (LB) and cumulative live birth rates (CLBR) of women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for IVF/ICSI following pretreatment with different types of oral contraceptive pills (OCP) for different durations as compared to no-OCP? SUMMARY ANSWER: OCP administration for an interval of 12- to 30-day treatment period and with a 5-day washout period does not affect clinical pregnancy, LB nor cumulative LB in patients undergoing COS for an IVF cycle. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The use of OCP is an effective way of treatment planning in IVF/ICSI cycles, but published evidence about its effect on pregnancy and LBR is inconsistent, some studies finding decreased rates but others no difference. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a retrospective analysis carried out in a University-affiliated tertiary centre between January 2009 and December 2017. Overall, 4116 infertile women between 18 and 45 years, who underwent their first ovarian stimulation cycle in our centre, were included. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Patients were categorised into two groups as receiving OCP (n = 3517) or not (no OCP, n = 599). All patients with OCP pretreatment initiated controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) 5 days post-pill. Overall, two types of OCP were used at the study's centre: ethinylestradiol (EE) 30 µg/desogestrel 150 µg, a third-generation progesterone; or EE 30 µg/drospirenone 3 mg, a fourth-generation progestin with mild antiandrogenic activity. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of n = 4116 patients were analysed, (OCP n = 3517 and non-OCP n = 599). The use of OCP was independently associated with a small increase in the number of oocytes retrieved after adjusting for age, BMI, use of OCP, cause of infertility, initial dose (IU), type of gonadotropin, stimulation days, total stimulation units (total IU) (ß 0.22, 95% CI 0.12-0.31). Cumulative LBRs were comparable between groups OCP versus non-OCP (32.4 versus 31.6%, P = 0.712). Following adjustment for age, BMI, infertility diagnosis, starting and total dose, type of gonadotropin, total days of stimulation, type of insemination, number of oocytes retrieved, day of transfer and number of embryos transferred in a multiple logistic analysis, patients using OCPs had a similar probability of achieving a LB as compared with patients not-using OCPs following fresh embryo transfer (ORadj 0.89, 95% CI 0.69-1.15) and a similar probability for CLBR after the use of fresh and frozen embryos (ORadj 0.94, 95% CI 0.73-1.21). No differences were observed in ovarian stimulation and clinical outcomes between drospirenone and desogestrel OCP groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Limitations are related to the retrospective nature of the study; despite the sample size, the adjustments and the multivariable regression analysis conducted, we cannot exclude the presence of confounding bias. OCP administration was not randomly assigned, not allowing to exclude the presence of selection bias. Lastly, we only used two types of OCP with durations and washout periods as per institution protocol. Therefore, we cannot exclude that longer duration of administration, a different type of OCP or different pill-free interval might have had an alternative effect on LBR or CLBR; thus, the generalizability of this study's results should be considered with caution. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our study provides reassuring evidence that the use of 12-30 days OCP for cycle programming, prior to IVF, does not decrease the chance of live birth and cumulative live birth rates. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funding was used for this study. This research was performed under the auspices of 'Càtedra d'Investigació en Obstetrícia I Ginecologia' of the Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Medicine, Hospital Universitario Dexeus, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. The authors report no conflict of interest associated with the current study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NA.

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

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

Does LH suppression by progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation compared with GnRH antagonist affect live birth rate among oocyte recipients?

RESEARCH QUESTION: Is live birth rate among recipients of donated oocytes different depending on mode of treatment for endogenous LH suppression administered to oocyte donors during ovarian stimulation? DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of recipients of freshly donated oocytes from oocyte donors who underwent ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophins at a private, university-based infertility clinic between January 2017 and March 2018. For endogenous LH suppression, oocyte donors received daily injections of gonadotrophin releasing hormone antagonist ganirelix (GNR) or daily oral 75 µg desogestrel (DSG) until triggering with 0.2 mg of triptorelin. Three hundred recipient cycles of freshly donated oocytes were included: 154 from oocyte donor DSG cycles and 146 from oocyte donor GNR cycles. RESULTS: Comparison of basal characteristics of oocyte donors showed no differences in mean age, anti-Müllerian hormone levels and body mass index between the oocyte donor DSG p and oocyte donor GNR groups, respectively. Similarly, no differences were observed among mean age of recipients and body mass index. Out of 300 fresh embryo transfers, 190 clinical pregnancies (63.3%) and 150 live births (50%) were achieved. Per embryo transfer clinical pregnancy rate was 66.2% in the DSG recipient group and 60.3% in the GNR recipient group (P = 0.338). Live birth rates were not significantly different between both groups (48.7% among DSG recipient group and 51.4% among GNR recipient group; P = 0.729). CONCLUSIONS: Live birth rate among recipients of donated oocytes does not differ depending on the mode of treatment for endogenous LH suppression administered to the oocyte donors during ovarian stimulation. This information is reassuring and will be of interest to teams using these kinds of protocols, although further research is needed.

Factors associated with serum progesterone concentrations the day before cryopreserved embryo transfer in artificial cycles.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What factors determine serum progesterone concentrations the day before cryopreserved embryo transfer in artificially prepared cycles? DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study at a university-affiliated fertility centre including infertile women under 45 years old using own oocytes who underwent a total of 685 single cryopreserved blastocyst transfers under hormonal therapy. Determinants that affected live birth rate (LBR) were analysed using a multivariate logistic regression. Univariate analysis and multivariate linear regression were used to evaluate independent factors that affect serum progesterone concentrations. RESULTS: Age (odds ratio [OR] 0.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.89-0.96), duration of oestradiol (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.92-0.99), serum progesterone concentrations (OR 1.04; 95% CI 1.01-1.08) and patients who underwent preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) (OR 2.17; 95% CI 1.55-3.03) were independently associated with LBR. After univariate analysis, determinants of progesterone concentrations were: age, weight, history of a previous cryopreserved embryo transfer with serum progesterone concentrations <10 ng/ml, and time of blood extraction. The multivariate linear regression showed that increasing age presented a positive correlation with progesterone concentrations (ß = 0.11; 95% CI 0.01-0.20). On the contrary, significant negative correlations with progesterone concentrations were shown for a previous history of serum progesterone value <10 ng/ml (ß = -3.13; 95% CI -4.45 to -1.81]), higher weight (ß = -0.05; 95% CI -0.08 to -0.01) and the time of blood sampling during the day (ß = -0.13; 95% CI -0.25 to -0.01). CONCLUSIONS: This study adds more evidence regarding the importance of serum progesterone concentrations before frozen embryo transfer (FET). It also showed that body weight, age, time of blood sampling and a history of low progesterone are determinants associated with progesterone concentrations before blastocyst FET.

Single or double embryo transfer? Decision-making process in patients participating in an oocyte donation program.

In IVF/ICSI programs, after receiving the information about the success results of single embryo transfer (SET) vs double embryo transfer (DET) and the risks of multiple pregnancy, a significant number of patients opt for SET. Up to date, no comparable studies have been published in oocyte recipients. The aim of this study was to evaluate if the counseling provided to oocyte recipients influence their decision on the number of embryos to be transferred. Fifty-five recipients expressed their preference and the relevance for the decision-making process that they attribute to certain factors through an anonymous questionnaire completed pre and post-counseling. Before counseling, 32 out of 55 recipients preferred DET, 13 preferred SET and 10 were undecided. From the 32 recipients who preferred DET, 16 (50%) maintained their preference after counseling, 13 (40.6%) changed their decision to SET and 3 (9.4%) changed to undecided (McNemar's test: p < .05). After counseling, the patients attached less importance to the probability of pregnancy and more importance to maternal and perinatal risks (p < .05). We conclude that after counseling, a significant number of recipients changed their preferences from DET to SET.

COH outcomes in breast cancer patients for fertility preservation: a comparison with the expected response by age.

PURPOSE: Breast cancer is the most common cancer diagnosed during childbearing age, and fertility preservation is becoming increasingly more essential. However, recent studies indicate a possible poorer response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in cancer patients than in non-cancer controls and a negative impact of BRCA mutations on female fertility. This study aims to evaluate ovarian response and the number of mature oocytes (MII) vitrified in women with breast cancer, with or without BRCA mutation, comparing them to the expected response according to an age-related nomogram. METHODS: This is a retrospective observational study involving sixty-one breast cancer patients who underwent COH for oocyte cryopreservation. The age-specific nomogram was built using 3871 patients who underwent COH due to oocyte donation, fertility preservation for non-medical reasons, or FIVET for male factor exclusively. RESULTS: The mean number of oocytes retrieved was 13.03, whereas the mean number of MII oocytes was 10.00. After the application of the z-score, no statistically significant differences were found compared with the expected response in the general population, neither by dividing patients according to the presence or absence of BRCA mutation nor according to the phase in which they initiated stimulation. CONCLUSION: The results obtained do not support the notion of a negative impact of the BRCA mutation on the ovarian response of women with breast cancer. Women with breast cancer undergoing COH for fertility preservation can expect the ovarian response predicted for their age.

Ovarian stimulation for preimplantation genetic testing.

A narrative review of the management of controlled ovarian stimulation in patients undergoing preimplantation genetic testing is presented. An electronic search was performed to identify research publications that addressed ovarian stimulation and preimplantation genetic testing published until December 2017. Studies were classified in decreasing categories: randomized controlled trials, prospective controlled trials, prospective non-controlled trials, retrospective studies and experimental studies. The aim of controlled ovarian stimulation has shifted from obtaining embryos available for transfer to yielding the maximum embryos available for biopsy to increase the odds of achieving one euploid embryo available for transfer, without the distress of inducing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome or inadequate endometrium receptivity as vitrification and deferred embryo transfer usually will be planned. The present narrative review summarizes all treatment-related variables as well as stimulation strategies after controlled ovarian stimulation that could help patients undergoing an in vitro fertilization cycle coupled with preimplantation genetic testing, including the number of oocytes needed to achieve one healthy live birth, oral contraceptive pill usage, the role of mild ovarian stimulation or random-start stimulation, the stimulation protocol and type of gonadotropin of choice, the novel progesterone protocols, agonist or dual trigger as a final oocyte maturation trigger, the accumulation of oocytes/embryos and the optimal interval before proceeding with a subsequent controlled ovarian stimulation or the optimal medication to link stimulation cycles. The discussion is being presented according to how questions are posed in clinical practice. The aim of ovarian stimulation has shifted from obtaining embryos available for transfer to yielding the maximum embryos available for biopsy to increase the odds of achieving one euploid embryo available for transfer.

Effect of embryo transfer difficulty on live birth rates studied in vitrified-warmed euploid blastocyst transfers.

RESEARCH QUESTION: The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between the different manoeuvres employed or degrees of difficulty during embryo transfer and live birth rate (LBR) in frozen euploid (blastocyst) embryo transfer (FEET). DESIGN: A retrospective, observational study of women undergoing FEET was performed. If the catheter encountered any resistance in its passage through the cervix, a stepwise approach was used. Easy embryo transfer was defined as a direct embryo transfer or use of the outer sheath of the catheter. Difficult embryo transfer was defined as when the process required the use of a Wallace Malleable Stylet (Smiths Medical International Ltd., UK) without or with additional instrumentation such as a tenaculum or uterine sound. RESULTS: The analysis involved 370 FEET. LBR was significantly lower in difficult FEET procedures compared with easy ones (54.5% versus 40.5%, P = 0.026) but significance was lost after adjustment for confounders. Use of the outer sheath use did not affect LBR. Although LBR was significantly lower when the stylet, without or with a tenaculum, was required (odds ratio [OR] 0.56, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.34-0.93; P < 0.05), no statistically significant reduction was observed after adjustment for confounders (OR 0.81, 95% CI 0.45-1.47). CONCLUSIONS: No significant reduction in LBR was observed after adjustment for confounders between difficult and easy FEET, or when use of stylet without or with a tenaculum was required for embryo transfer. The lack of significance may be due to factors such as the sample size or the use of array comparative genomic hybridization analysis. Further studies are needed to confirm these results.

Desogestrel versus antagonist injections for LH suppression in oocyte donation cycles: a crossover study.

To study whether ovarian response to corifollitropin among oocyte donors (OD) is different when oral desogestrel (DSG) is used to block the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge when compared to GnRH-antagonist use. This is a retrospective, cohort study at a private, university-based, IVF center including 35 OD. Patients underwent two stimulation cycles under corifollitropin alfa (CFT), one under an antagonist and another under DSG, between February 2015 and May 2017. In antagonist cycles, daily ganirelix was administered since a leading follicle reached 14 mm. In the DSG cycles, daily oral DSG was prescribed. The main outcome measure was oocytes retrieved. Compared to antagonist cycles, cycles under DSG received fewer injections (10.3 ± 2.8 vs. 5.0 ± 2.1, p < .001), nominally lower total supplementary gonadotropin dose (497.4 ± 338.9I U vs. 442.9 ± 332.8 IU, p=.45) with a lower total cost of medication (1018.6 ± 191.0€ vs. 813.8 ± 145.9€, p<.001). There were no differences in the total number of retrieved oocytes between groups (17.4 ± 7.5 vs. 18.6 ± 8.9, p=.34). In the corresponding oocyte recipients, clinical pregnancy rate was similar between groups: 52.0% vs. 58.6%, respectively (p=.78). ODs' stimulation's response under DSG is similar when compared to (17.4 ± 7.5 vs. 18.6 ± 8.9, p=.34) but associated with less injections and lower medication costs. The main advantage of this strategy is its simplicity, an aspect of utmost importance in the management of ODs.

Ovarian response in oocyte donation cycles under LH suppression with GnRH antagonist or desogestrel progestin: retrospective and comparative study.

Here are investigated the serum hormones in ovarian stimulation cycles of oocyte donors (OD), under endogenous luteinizing hormone (LH) suppression with GnRH antagonist (antGnRH) vs. desogestrel (DSG) (progesterone-primed [PP]). OD underwent ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins at a private, university-based, infertility center between January 2017 and March 2018. Endogenous LH peak was controlled with either daily injections of antGnRH or with daily oral 75 mcg DSG (PP) until triggering. LH and progesterone were measured at trigger and the following day. A total of 404 OD cycles were included. There were no differences in age (26.7 ± 4.9 vs. 27.1 ± 4.8 years), AMH (3.7 ± 2.1 vs. 4.1 ± 2.7 ng/ml), and body mass index (BMI) (22.4 ± 2.8 vs. 22.1 ± 3.0 kg/m2) between PP and antGnRH groups, respectively. On the day of trigger, progesterone was lower in PP compared to antGnRH (0.9 ± 0.7, vs. 1.5 ± 1.2 ng/ml, p < .001), whereas no significant differences existed in estradiol or LH. On the day after trigger, lower progesterone in PP vs. antGnRH (10.8 ± 6.0 vs. 13.4 ± 7.9 ng/ml, p=.002) was observed. No differences were observed in the number of retrieved oocytes or the clinical pregnancies among recipients. Our study shows that endocrine response to DSG differs significantly as compared to antGnRH use for the control of endogenous LH without apparent impact on number of retrieved oocytes or the clinical pregnancies among recipients.

Can anti-Müllerian hormone predict success outcomes in donor sperm inseminations?

Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) is a useful biomarker to predict the ovarian response to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for IVF. However, currently there is a lack of evidence for the role of ovarian reserve markers when there is no need of COS. The aim of this study was to evaluate the usefulness of AMH to predict the outcomes of donor sperm insemination cycles in non-infertile women. A retrospective study including 139 healthy women, who underwent 348 intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles with donor sperms under the stimulated or natural cycles, was conducted. All patients had an AMH evaluation performed before starting the first IUI attempt. AMH levels were similar in both, women who conceived and those who did not (2.00 ± 1.52 vs. 1.88 ± 1.64 ng/ml; p = .45). The area under the ROC curve in predicting pregnancy for AMH was 0.53. After adjusting for other confounding variables, the multivariate analysis revealed that AMH was not associated with pregnancy (aOR 0.89; 95% CI 0.57-1.37). We conclude that AMH is not predictive of pregnancy in healthy non-infertile women who perform IUI with donor sperm. These findings suggest the low capability of AMH to predict fertility when no COS is needed.