Effectiveness of recombinant human FSH: recombinant human LH combination treatment versus recombinant human FSH alone for assisted reproductive technology in women aged 35-40 years.

RESEARCH QUESTION: According to real-world data, is recombinant human FSH (r-hFSH) combined with recombinant human LH (r-hLH) or r-hFSH alone more effective for women of advanced maternal age (AMA) in terms of live birth? DESIGN: Non-interventional study comparing the effectiveness of r-hFSH and recombinant r-hLH (2:1 ratio) versus r-hFSH alone for ovarian stimulation during ART treatment in women aged 35-40 years, using real-world data from the Deutsches IVF-Register. RESULTS: Overall clinical pregnancy (29.8%, 95% CI 28.2 to 31.6 versus 27.8%, 95% CI 26.5 to 29.2) and live birth (20.3%, 95% CI 18.7 to 21.8 versus 18.0%, 95% CI 16.6 to 19.4) rates were not significantly different between the combined r-hFSH and r-hLH group and the r-hFSH alone group (P = 0.269 and P = 0.092, respectively). Treatment effect was significantly higher for combined r-hFSH and r-hLH compared with r-hFSH alone for clinical pregnancy (33.1%, 95% CI 31.0 to 35.0 versus 28.5%, 95% CI 26.6 to 30.4; P = 0.001, not adjusted for multiplicity) and live birth (22.5%, 95% CI 20.5 to 24.2 versus 19.4%, 95% CI 17.6 to 20.9; P = 0.014, not adjusted for multiplicity) in a post-hoc analysis of women with five to 14 oocytes retrieved (used as a surrogate for normal ovarian reserve), highlighting the potential benefits of combined r-hFSH and r-hLH for ovarian stimulation in women aged 35-40 years with normal ovarian reserve. CONCLUSIONS: Women of AMA with normal ovarian response benefit from treatment with combined r-hFSH and r-hLH in a 2:1 ratio versus r-hFSH alone in terms of live birth rate. The effectiveness of treatments is best assessed by RCTs; however, real-world data are valuable for examining the effectiveness of fertility treatment, especially among patient groups that are not well represented in clinical trials.

Can AMH levels predict the need to step up FSH dose for controlled ovarian stimulation following a long GnRH agonist protocol in PCOS women?

BACKGROUND: To explore the role of anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) in predicting the need to step up recombinant FSH (rFSH) dose following long GnRH agonist protocol in IVF/ICSI cycles of polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) women. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study of 825 PCOS women undergoing long GnRH agonist protocol enrolled from Jan 2019 to Dec 2021. The daily rFSH dose at which the first response to rFSH were recorded. The dose at which the first response to rFSH was based on folliculometry during follow up in which two or more follicles reached ≥ 11 mm. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was done to investigate the ability of AMH to predict the need to step up initial rFSH dose. RESULTS: PCOS women who needed to step up initial rFSH dose had a significantly higher AMH compared with those didn't step up initial rFSH dose (11.37 ± 3.25ng/ml vs. 8.69 ± 3.16ng/ml, p < 0.001). In multivariate logistic regression analysis, increased AMH level was an independent factor for the need to step up initial rFSH dose in PCOS patients after adjusted for confounding factors. ROC curve analysis showed AMH could predict the need to step up initial rFSH dose (AUC = 0.738, 95%CI: 0.704-0.773), having 75.4% specificity and 63% sensitivity when the threshold AMH concentration was 9.30ng/ml. 58.8% PCOS women with AMH > 9.30 ng/ml required increased rFSH dose compared to 18.8% of women with AMH ≤ 9.30ng/ml (p < 0.001). Although the clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate were not significantly different, there was a higher incidence of OHSS among women with AMH > 9.30 ng/ml vs. AMH ≤ 9.30ng/ml (20.8% vs. 15.3%, p = 0.043). CONCLUSION: PCOS women with AMH > 9.30 ng/ml were resistant to rFSH stimulation and require increased dose for the cycle recruitment of ovarian follicles.

Comparative clinical outcome following individualized follitropin delta dosing in Chinese women undergoing ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization /intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

BACKGROUND: To compare the efficacy and safety of follitropin delta in its individualized fixed-dose regimen with follitropin alfa in a conventional adjustable dosing regimen in Chinese women.  METHODS: This was a subgroup analysis of the randomized, multi-center, assessor-blind, non-inferiority trial (GRAPE) including 759 Chinese women (aged 20-40 years) recruited in 16 reproductive medicine clinics in China. Women were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to be treated with either follitropin delta dose based on anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) and body weight or conventional dosing with follitropin alfa following a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy rate assessed 10-11 weeks after embryo transfer in the fresh cycle (non-inferiority margin -10.0%). RESULTS: 378 in the follitropin delta group and 381 in the follitropin alfa group were randomized and exposed. Non-inferiority was confirmed with respect to ongoing pregnancy with rates of 31.0% vs. 25.7% for follitropin delta compared to follitropin alfa, estimated mean difference of 5.1% (95% confidence interval (CI) -1.3% to 11.5%). The clinical pregnancy rate (35.4% vs. 31.5%, P = 0.239) and live birth rate (31.0% vs. 25.5%, P = 0.101) were comparable between the follitropin delta group and the follitropin alfa group. Overall, the individualized follitropin delta treatment resulted in fewer oocytes retrieved compared to follitropin alfa treatment (10.3 ± 6.2 vs. 12.5 ± 7.5, P < 0.001), which was mainly due to fewer oocytes (10.5 ± 6.4 vs. 13.9 ± 7.8) in women with AMH ≥ 15 pmol/L. Accordingly there was a lower incidence of early ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome (OHSS) and/or preventive interventions (6.1% vs. 11.0%, P = 0.013). A daily follitropin delta dose of 10.2 µg (95% CI: 9.3-11.2 µg) was estimated to provide the same number of oocytes retrieved as a starting dose of 150 IU/d of follitropin alfa. CONCLUSION: Follitropin delta in its individualized fixed-dose regimen showed similar efficacy and improved safety compared with follitropin alfa in a conventional adjustable dosing regimen in Chinese women. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03296527.

Patient burden and healthcare resource utilization of regimens for ovarian stimulation.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Do women receiving corifollitropin alfa with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist experience less emotional and/or physical exhaustion than women receiving standard of care gonadotrophin with daily administration of GnRH agonist or antagonist? DESIGN: The CoRifollitropin EvAluation in PracTicE (CREATE) study was a prospective observational study of fertility clinics in 17 countries in Europe and the Asia-Pacific region. Women undergoing IVF were categorized by treatment. Group A received single-dose corifollitropin alfa plus a GnRH antagonist; group B received usual care daily gonadotrophin regimens with a GnRH agonist or antagonist; and group B1i received daily GnRH agonist injections. For the primary analysis, two items from the Controlled Ovarian Stimulation Impact questionnaire were used to assess the level of emotional and physical exhaustion associated with ovarian stimulation. Secondary end-points included the impact of ovarian stimulation-related healthcare resource use. RESULTS: No statistical difference was found between the percentage of participants reporting emotional exhaustion in group A (11.6%) and B (13.1%) or the percentage reporting being 'often' or 'always' physically exhausted. More participants in group B1i (16.4%) reported being emotionally exhausted 'often' or 'always' during ovarian stimulation compared with group A (11.6%; P = 0.026). Patient questionnaire scores for psychological impact were higher in group A compared with group B, indicating less negative impact (72.7 versus 70.9; P = 0.004). Group A had fewer clinic visits, physician consultations, nurse contacts and transvaginal ultrasound scans (all P < 0.001) than group B1. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with corifollitropin alfa resulted in similar or numerically small differences in psychological impact and lower clinic service use compared with daily gonadotrophin regimens.

Retrospective analysis of the use of two recombinant follitropin alfa injections in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization treatment with the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol.

AIM: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of biosimilar (Ovaleap) compared with the referenced follitropin alfa (Gonal-f), within the context of antagonistic multiple doses protocol of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) for in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) techniques. METHODS: A retrospective, monocentric study included 229 infertile women aged 22 to 43 years who underwent their first cycle of COH for the purpose of the IVF or ICSI during the period of 2017. Eligible patients underwent ovarian stimulation with either Ovaleap (n = 152) or Gonal-f (n = 77) starting at Cycle Day 2 and were receiving gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist in either fixed or flexible antagonist protocol manner. RESULTS: Ovaleap-treatment resulted in fewer number of oocytes retrieved in regard to Gonal-f-treatment, with the median of seven oocytes retrieved in the Ovaleap group versus nine in the Gonal-f group (U = 5369.5, P = 0.3079). Clinical pregnancy rate was 24.3% in the overall study sample and 31.9% in women with embryo transfer, in the Ovaleap group. Similarly, in the Gonal-f group these rates were 25.0% and 34.5%, respectively. Only four patients experienced ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, with one case in Ovaleap-treatment group and three cases in Gonal-f-treatment group. CONCLUSION: While the clinical efficacy profile favored using Gonal-f formulation of follitropin alfa, this analysis showed that there is no significant difference in the number of oocytes retrieved between Ovaleap and Gonal-f follitropin alfa formulations, used within GnRH antagonist protocols of COH.

Corifollitropin alfa for poor responders patients, a prospective randomized study.

BACKGROUND: Poor ovarian response remains one of the biggest challenges for reproductive endocrinologists. The introduction of corifollitropin alpha (CFA) offered an alternative option to other gonadotropins for its longer half-life, its more rapid achievement of the threshold and higher FSH levels. We compared two different protocols with CFA, a long agonist and a short antagonist, and a no-CFA protocol. METHODS: Patients enrolled fulfilled at least two of the followings: AFC < 5, AMH < 1,1 ng/ml, less than three oocytes in a previous cycle, age > 40 years. Ovarian stimulation with an antagonist protocol was performed either with 300 UI rFSH and 150 UI rLH or 300UI HMG. In the long agonist group, after pituitary suppression with triptorelin, CFA was given the 1-2th day of cycle and 300 UI rFSH and 150 UI rLH the 5th day. In the short antagonist group CFA was given the 1-2th day of cycle and 300 UI rFSH and 150 UI rLH the 5th day. The primary objective was the effect on the number of oocytes and MII oocytes. Secondary objective were pregnancy rates, ongoing pregnancies and ongoing pregnancies per intention to treat. RESULTS: The use of CFA resulted in a shorter lenght of stimulation and a lower number of suspended treatments. Both the CFA protocols were significantly different from the no-CFA group in the number of retrieved oocytes (p < 0,05), with a non-significant difference in favour of the long agonist protocol. Both CFA groups yielded higher pregnancy rates, especially the long protocol, due to the higher number of oocytes retrieved (p < 0,05), as implantation rates did not differ. The cumulative pregnancy rate was also different, due to the higher number of cryopreserved blastocysts (p < 0,02). CONCLUSIONS: The long agonist protocol with the addition of rFSH and rLH showed the best results in all the parameters. A short antagonist protocol with CFA was less effective, but not significantly, although provided better results compared to the no-CFA group. We suggest that a long agonist protocol with CFA and recombinant gonadotropins might be a valuable option for poor responders. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee (EudraCT2015-002817-31).

Suboptimal response to GnRH-agonist trigger during oocyte cryopreservation: a case series.

BACKGROUND: Random-start, controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) has advanced the field of fertility preservation, allowing patients to expedite fertility treatment and avoid further delays to their cancer therapy. This novel approach allows patients to initiate ovarian stimulation at any point, regardless of where they are in their menstrual cycle. Luteal-phase start (LPS) protocols describe treatment cycles where COS is initiated during the luteal-phase of the menstrual cycle. LPS protocols have not been studied or optimized to the same degree as conventional, early-follicular COS. Particularly, there is a paucity of evidence evaluating treatment outcomes using different trigger medications in LPS protocols. The present study aims to evaluate the efficacy of using a GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) trigger in patients undergoing oocyte cryopreservation in LPS protocols. METHODS: This descriptive case series describes two patients, recently diagnosed with cancer, who underwent oocyte cryopreservation using an LPS protocol and a GnRH-a trigger at a university-affiliated, academic center. RESULTS: The patients described in our case series both failed to adequately respond to a GnRH-a trigger, based on their serum levels of luteinizing hormone (LH) and progesterone 12 h after their GnRH-a trigger. They both required a single rescue dose of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the potential risk of a suboptimal response to a GnRH-a trigger in patients undergoing LPS, controlled ovarian stimulation for oocyte cryopreservation. This risk might be attributed to the downregulation of GnRH receptors by elevated serum progesterone levels during the luteal phase. Currently, there is insufficient evidence to recommend for or against the use of a GnRH-a trigger during LPS controlled ovarian stimulation. This case series offers a number of management strategies to mitigate this risk and emphasizes the need for further research in this area.

Effectiveness and safety of follitropin alfa (Ovaleap®) for ovarian stimulation using a GnRH antagonist protocol in real-world clinical practice: a multicenter, prospective, open, non-interventional assisted reproductive technology study.

BACKGROUND: The use of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (r-hFSH) in ovarian stimulation protocols for infertility treatment in assisted reproductive technology (ART) clinical practice is well established. More recent advancements include the availability of biosimilar r-hFSH products, which expand the choices available to healthcare practitioners and patients. Better understanding of how such a product contributes to routine clinical practice is valuable to help prescribers make informed treatment choices. The objective of this study was to examine the effectiveness and safety of ovarian stimulation (OS) with follitropin alfa (Ovaleap®) for routine IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist cycles in real-world ART clinical practice. METHODS: This non-interventional, multicenter, prospective study was initiated in 34 specialized reproductive medicine centers in Germany. Eligible women were 18-40 years old with a body mass index < 30 kg/m2, menstrual cycle 24-35 days and anti-Müllerian hormone ≥1 ng/mL, who were undergoing a first OS cycle exclusively with Ovaleap® during routine ART using a GnRH antagonist protocol. Primary effectiveness outcomes were number of retrieved oocytes after OS and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR). Secondary outcomes included fertilization rate, number of transferred embryos, live birth delivery rate, safety, and user satisfaction with the Ovaleap® pen. RESULT(S): Of 507 women screened, 463 received at least 1 dose of Ovaleap® and 439 had Visit 2 data (per protocol population; PPP). The mean(±SD) number of retrieved oocytes was 11.8 ± 7.2 (PPP). The CPR among women with documented embryo transfer was 41.3% (158/383), resulting in a live birth delivery rate of 31.6% (138/437) among PPP patients with available follow-up information. Overall, 8.6% (40/463) of women reported ≥1 adverse drug reaction. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome occurred in 23 (5.0%) patients, rated mild in 14 (3.0%), moderate in 8 (1.7%), and severe in 1 (0.2%). Patients reported high user satisfaction and high convenience with use of the Ovaleap® pen. CONCLUSION: The effectiveness and safety of OS with Ovaleap® in a GnRH antagonist protocol were extended to real-world ART clinical practice for the first time. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered on 22 June 2016 (retrospectively registered) at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02809989).

Treatment of male hypogonadism partially reverses oxidative stress in patients with hypogonadism.

There are some studies regarding the presence/absence of oxidative stress in patients with hypogonadism with limited number of parameters. We aimed to investigate the effects of male hypogonadism and its treatment on oxidative stress parameters. Thirteen male patients with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism and 20 healthy subjects were involved in the study. Patients with hypogonadism were evaluated before and after six months of therapy. Markers indicating lipid and protein oxidation, total oxidant status (TOS) and total anti-oxidant capacity (TAC) were evaluated. Control subjects had significantly higher serum testosterone levels in comparison to hypogonadal patients before the treatment period. After the treatment of hypogonadism serum testosterone levels increased significantly. Myeloperoxidase (MPO) activity, levels of advanced oxidation protein products (AOPP), total lipid hydroperoxide and protein carbonyl compounds (PCC) were similar between the control subjects and the patient group before treatment. Pyrrolized protein and TOS were significantly lower and thiol levels and TAC were significantly higher in the control subjects than in patients with hypogonadism. Treatment of hypogonadism resulted in a significant decrease in AOPP levels while a significant increase was determined in TAC. No significant change was found in MPO activity. In conclusion, patients with hypogonadism have an increased status of oxidative stress which is at least partially improved after appropriate therapy.

Influence of age on response to controlled ovarian stimulation in women with low levels of serum anti-Müllerian hormone.

This study aims at detecting and evaluating differences in quantitative response to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with high doses of gonadotropins in women with low serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). About 369 first cycles in a real-life scenario in women between 21 and 43 years old and with AMH ≤0.9 ng/ml were analyzed. Older women had a significantly worse outcome with respect to young women, not only qualitatively, but also in terms of quantitative ovarian response to COS [odd ratio (OR) to obtain at least three MII oocytes with each increasing year of female age: 0.89, 95% CI: 0.85 - 0.94; p < .001]. This study endorses that age is a significant factor when counseling patients with low AMH. AMH levels per se are not a reason to exclude patients from a COS treatment, since pregnancy and live birth can be achieved, especially in younger patients. However, with an AMH equally low, the ovarian response worsens with age, making questionable the effectiveness of a stimulation with high-dose gonadotropins in the older subgroup.

The effects of letrozole on women with endometriosis undergoing ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization.

This study aimed to analyze the effects of a new protocol with letrozole on the outcomes of in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles in women with endometriosis. This retrospective cohort study was conducted for women diagnosed with endometriosis undergoing IVF from an infertility clinic. A new protocol, combination therapy with letrozole and gonadotropin, was used from August 2016 to January 2018 ('protocol 1', n = 38). From March 2014 to July 2016, conventional IVF with gonadotropin was administered ('protocol 2', n = 26). Age and ovarian reserve were comparable between the two groups. The patients who received protocol 1 resulted in a significantly lower peak estradiol level in IVF compared with those received protocol 2 (722 ± 1076 pg/mL versus 2168 ± 1521 pg/mL, p < .001). The length of stimulation, the total dose of gonadotropin, number of oocytes retrieved, fertilization rates, and number of embryos obtained were similar between the two groups. The mean percentage of mature oocytes was lower (69.9 ± 23.7% versus 80.2 ± 21.0%, p = .029) in patients with protocol 1. While maintaining low estrogen levels, the combination therapy with letrozole and gonadotropin produce similar oocyte and embryo yield to the conventional IVF protocol in women with endometriosis.

Individualization of the starting dose of follitropin delta reduces the overall OHSS risk and/or the need for additional preventive interventions: cumulative data over three stimulation cycles.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Is individualization of dosing with follitropin delta in sequential ovarian stimulation cycles an effective preventive strategy for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome risk? If so, for which patients does an individualized strategy provide the greatest OHSS risk reduction and/or the need for additional preventive interventions? DESIGN: A secondary analysis of three ovarian stimulation cycles in IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients included in one randomized, assessor-blinded trial comparing two recombinant FSH preparations (ESTHER-1, NCT01956110), and a second trial in women undergoing up to two additional cycles (ESTHER-2, NCT01956123). Of 1326 women (aged 18-40 years) randomized and treated with follitropin delta or alfa in cycle 1, 513 continued to cycle 2 and 188 to cycle 3. Follitropin delta and alfa doses were maintained/adjusted according to ovarian response in the previous cycle. RESULTS: Individualized dosing with follitropin delta significantly reduced moderate/severe OHSS and/or preventive interventions (P=0.018) versus conventional dosing with follitropin alfa in patients undergoing up to three ovarian stimulation cycles. The greatest benefit was observed in patients in the highest anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) quartile (P=0.012). On evaluating separately, individualized dosing with follitropin delta significantly lowered the incidences of moderate/severe OHSS (P=0.036) and preventive interventions (P=0.044) versus follitropin alfa. CONCLUSION: An individualized follitropin delta dosing regimen decreased the risk of moderate/severe OHSS as well as the incidence of preventive interventions versus a conventional follitropin alfa regimen. An analysis per AMH quartile indicated that these statistically significant differences are driven mainly by patients with the highest pretreatment AMH levels.

Pituitary suppression protocol among Bologna poor responders undergoing ovarian stimulation using corifollitropin alfa: does it play any role?

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the type of pituitary suppression protocol influence cumulative live birth rate (LBR) in Bologna poor responders treated with corifollitropin alfa (CFA)? DESIGN: Retrospective cohort analysis including poor responder patients fulfilling the Bologna criteria who underwent their first intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle using a CFA-based ovarian stimulation protocol between 2011 and 2017. The starting dose of CFA was 150 µg. The primary outcome was cumulative LBR, defined as the first delivery of a live born resulting from the fresh and all the subsequent frozen embryo transfers. RESULTS: A total of 717 cycles were divided into three groups: A (gonadotrophin-releasing hormone [GnRH] antagonist protocol, n = 407), B (long GnRH agonist protocol, n = 224) and C (short GnRH agonist protocol, n = 86). Cumulative LBR did not significantly differ between groups (20.1% versus 17.4% versus 14.0%; P = 0.35). Significantly more patients in Group A had supernumerary embryos cryopreserved (28.3% versus 18.4% versus 11.6%; P < 0.001). Days of additional highly purified human menopausal gonadotrophin 300 IU injections following CFA were significantly different between Groups A, B and C (3 versus 5 versus 3 days; P < 0.001). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the number of oocytes retrieved remained an independent predictive factor (odds ratio 1.23, 95% confidence interval 1.16-1.31) for cumulative LBR. CONCLUSIONS: Poor responders according to the Bologna criteria in whom CFA is used for ovarian stimulation had comparable cumulative LBR, irrespective of the type of pituitary suppression. An increase in number of oocytes retrieved is an independent variable related to cumulative LBR.

Luteal estradiol pretreatment of poor and normal responders during GnRH antagonist protocol.

Luteal estradiol pretreatment (LEP) to IVF protocols designed to improve follicle synchronization and retrieval of mature oocytes. We conducted a retrospective study including women undergoing IVF program who were given a course of 4 mg oral estradiol-17ß daily from day 20 of the same cycle until day 1 of their next cycle before starting an antagonist protocol, forming LEP-group but control-group started on day 3 a stimulation without pretreatment. A total is divided into 2 groups (poor (group 1, n = 148) and normal responders (group 2, n = 244)). Our findings show for group 1 a significant decrease in cancelation rate (3% vs 14%) and a significant improvement in clinical outcomes (clinical pregnancy per transfer and live birth rate respectively: 47% and 44% vs 12% and 11%). For group 2, this pretreatment could increase significantly the maturation rate (77% vs 68%). The rate of frozen embryos was improved in both groups: (group 1: 11% vs 2% and group 2: 53% vs 41%). LEP increases the frozen embryos rate whatever the nature of the ovarian response, but especially for normal responders it coordinates follicular recruitment increasing the maturation rate. In the case of poor responders, it affects positively clinical outcomes decreasing the canceled cycles.

Performance of prognostic modelling of high and low ovarian response to ovarian stimulation for IVF.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the performance of previously established regression models in predicting low and high ovarian response to 150 µg corifollitropin alfa/GnRH-antagonist ovarian stimulation in an independent dataset? SUMMARY ANSWER: The outcome of ovarian stimulation with 150 µg corifollitropin alfa in a fixed, multiple dose GnRH-antagonist protocol can be validly predicted using logistic regression models with AMH being of paramount importance. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Predictors of ovarian response have been identified in FSH/GnRH agonist protocols as well as ovarian stimulation with corifollitropin alfa/GnRH-antagonist. Multivariable response models have been established already, however, external validation of model performance has so far been lacking. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Data from a prospective, multi-centre (n = 5), multi-national, investigator-initiated, observational cohort study were analysed. Infertile women (n = 211), body weight >60 kg, were undergoing ovarian stimulation with 150 µg corifollitropin alfa in a GnRH-antagonist multiple dose protocol for transvaginal oocyte retrieval for IVF. Demographic, sonographic and endocrine parameters were prospectively assessed on cycle Day 2 or 3 of spontaneous menstruation before ovarian stimulation. Main outcomes were low (<6 oocytes) and high (>18 oocytes) ovarian response. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Firstly, previously established prediction models for low ovarian response (LOR) and high ovarian response (HOR) were tested using the original parameters. Secondly, re-estimated parameters generated from the present data were tested on the established models. Thirdly, for the development of new predictive models of both LOR and HOR, several logistic regression models were estimated. Resulting prediction models were compared by means of the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and bias-corrected Akaike's Information Criterion (AICc) to identify the most reasonable model for each scenario. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The previously established prediction models for low and high response performed remarkably well on this dataset (low response AUC 0.8879 (95% CI: 0.8185-0.9573) and high response AUC 0.8909 (95% CI: 0.8251-0.9568)). A newly developed simplified model for LOR with log-transformed AMH values and only age as another covariate showed an AUC of 0.8920 (95% CI: 0.8237-0.9603) with the lowest AICc of all models compared. For predicting HOR, we suggest a simplified model using AMH, FSH and AFC (AUC of 0.8976, 95% CI: 0.8206-0.9746). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: All analyses were done on data from women with a body weight >60 kg. The newly developed simplified models may suffer from overfitting and need to be tested in further independent data sets. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Patient selection for ovarian stimulation with corifollitropin alfa should utilize established response prediction models. The clinical impact of this needs to be evaluated in future studies. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was funded by university funds. M.O.S., T.L. and I.R.K. have nothing to declare. G.G. has received personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, Ferring, Merck-Serono, Finox, TEVA, IBSA, Glycotope, Abbott, Marckryl Pharma, VitroLife, NMC Healthcare, ReprodWissen, ZIVA and BioSilu. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

An extremely patient-friendly and efficient stimulation protocol for assisted reproductive technology in normal and high responders.

BACKGROUND: The use of oral progestin has been shown to effectively prevent luteining hormone (LH) surge during ovarian stimulation with daily human menopausal gonadotropin injections. This study was aimed to investigate the efficacy of long-acting follicle stimulating hormone (long-acting FSH; corifollitropin alfa, Elonva®) use in progestin-primed ovarian stimulation for normal and high responders undergoing IVF/ICSI. METHODS: This is a retrospective and proof-of-concept study. We developed an extremely patient-friendly protocol to be applied to forty-five normal or high responders, in which a single injection of corifollitropin alfa (Elonva®) was administered and medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) was taken orally every day from the day after Elonva injection to the day of trigger. Seven days after Elonva injection, folliculometry and hormone tests were performed, followed by short-acting daily FSH/LH injections, if needed, until the day before trigger. Duration of stimulation, number of injections and visits before trigger, incidence of premature LH surge, the number of oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate, cleavage rate, the rate of day 2 good embryos available, and cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate per retrieval were assessed. RESULTS: The average age of the population was 34.7 years. Duration of stimulation was 9.4 days in average. Before trigger, only 3.6 injection shots and 1.4 visits were needed on average. There was no case of premature LH surge. Number of oocytes retrieved was 13.7, fertilization rate was 79.04%, cleavage rate was 91.11%, and day 2 good embryo rate was 64.34%, in average respectively. There was no case of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. The cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate per oocyte retrieval achieved a satisfactory level as 53.1%. CONCLUSIONS: Our protocol consisting of long-acting FSH injection and oral MPA preventing LH surge reduces the number of injections and visits to an extreme and achieves a satisfactory reproductive outcome, and, therefore, is a really patient-friendly and effective approach to ovarian stimulation.

Predicting live birth for poor ovarian responders: the PROsPeR concept.

RESEARCH QUESTION: A number of live-birth predictive models are available, and despite clinical interest these are rarely used owing to poor performance. In addition, no predictive models specifically for poor ovarian responders (POR) are available. The aim of the current project was to develop a clinically applicable tool for predicting live birth for PORs receiving recombinant human FSH [r-hFSH]. DESIGN: A model was developed to predict live birth in PORs receiving r-hFSH, using data from the ESPART trial. Initially, two models were developed separately: one for patients with data from a previous assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycle and one for ART treatment-naïve patients. Subsequently, the simplified Poor Responder Outcome Prediction (PROsPeR) concept was derived. RESULTS: PROsPeR considers three predictors and categorizes PORs into three scores, with predicted the live-birth rate divided by three with each worsening category. When adequately calibrated, a discrimination score up to area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUCROC) (95% CI) of 0.84 (0.79 to 0.88) was observed, which is superior to previously published models. Lower discriminations were observed when the PROsPeR model was used to evaluate the patients who received both r-hFSH and recombinant human LH in the ESPART study (AUCROC [95% CI] 0.66 [0.61 to 0.71]) and when all the patients included in the ESPART study were evaluated (AUCROC [95% CI] 0.68 [0.61 to 0.72]). CONCLUSIONS: This model, specific to PORs receiving r-hFSH, constitutes the best compromise between precision and simplicity, and is suitable for routine practice.

Non-equivalence of anti-Müllerian hormone automated assays-clinical implications for use as a companion diagnostic for individualised gonadotrophin dosing.

STUDY QUESTION: Can anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) automated immunoassays (Elecsys® and Access) be used interchangeably as a companion diagnostic for individualisation of follitropin delta dosing? SUMMARY ANSWER: The Access assay gives systematically higher AMH values than the Elecsys® assay which results in over 29% of women being misclassified to a different follitropin delta dose. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Follitropin delta is the first gonadotrophin to be licenced with a companion diagnostic, the Roche Elecsys® AMH Plus assay. Alternative automated AMH assays including the Beckman Coulter Access immunoassay are considered to provide similar results, but clarification of their suitability as an off-licence companion diagnostic for follitropin delta is required. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We systematically searched the existing literature for studies that had measured AMH using both automated assays in the same cohort of women. Individual paired patient data were acquired from each author and combined with unpublished data. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We identified five eligible prospective published studies and one additional unpublished study. A 100% response from the authors was achieved. We collected paired AMH data on samples from 848 women. Passing-Bablok regression and Bland-Altman plots were used to compare the analytical performance of the two assays. The degree of misclassification to different treatment categories was estimated should the Access AMH be used as a companion diagnostic instead of the Elecsys AMH in determining the dosing of follitropin delta. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The Passing-Bablok regression shows a linear relationship (Access = -0.05 + 1.10 × Elecsys). The Access assay systematically gave higher values by an average of 10% compared with the Elecsys assay (slope = 1.10, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.12). The average of the difference between the two assays was 2.7 pmol/l. The 95% limits of agreement were -11.7 to 6.3. Overall 253 (29.3%) women would have received an inappropriate follitropin delta dose if the Beckman Coulter Access assay was used. Specifically, a substantial proportion of women (ranging from 49% to 90% depending on the AMH category) would receive a lower dose of follitropin delta based on the Access AMH assay. Up to 10% (ranging from 2.5% to 10%) of women with high ovarian reserve would have been misclassified to a greater dose of follitropin delta based on the Access AMH assay. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: We compared the values of the two principal automated assays, extrapolation of our findings to other automated AMH assays would require similar comprehensive examination. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: An international standard for the calibration of the automated AMH assays is warranted to facilitate efficient use of AMH as a companion diagnostic. The variable calibration of alternative automated AMH assays may adversely impact on the performance of the follitropin delta dosing algorithm. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No formal funding has been received for this study. SI is funded by a UK Medical Research Council skills development fellowship (MR/N015177/1). SMN has received speakers fees, travel to meetings and participated in advisory Boards for Beckman Coulter, IBSA, Ferring Pharmaecuticals, Finox, Merck Serono, Merck and Roche Diagnostics. SMN has received research support from Ansh laboratories, Beckman Coulter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Roche Diagnostics. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Efficacy and safety of follitropin alfa/lutropin alfa in ART: a randomized controlled trial in poor ovarian responders.

STUDY QUESTION: How does the efficacy and safety of a fixed-ratio combination of recombinant human FSH plus recombinant human LH (follitropin alfa plus lutropin alfa; r-hFSH/r-hLH) compare with that of r-hFSH monotherapy for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in patients with poor ovarian response (POR)? SUMMARY ANSWER: The primary and secondary efficacy endpoints were comparable between treatment groups and the safety profile of both treatment regimens was favourable. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Although meta-analyses of clinical trials have suggested some beneficial effect on reproductive outcomes with r-hLH supplementation in patients with POR, the definitions of POR were heterogeneous and limit the comparability across studies. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Phase III, single-blind, active-comparator, randomized, parallel-group clinical trial. Patients were followed for a single ART cycle. A total of 939 women were randomized (1:1) to receive either r-hFSH/r-hLH or r-hFSH. Randomization, stratified by study site and participant age, was conducted via an interactive voice response system. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women classified as having POR, based on criteria incorporating the ESHRE Bologna criteria, were down-regulated with a long GnRH agonist protocol and following successful down-regulation were randomized (1:1) to COS with r-hFSH/r-hLH or r-hFSH alone. The primary efficacy endpoint was the number of oocytes retrieved following COS. Safety endpoints included the incidence of adverse events, including ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Post hoc analyses investigated safety outcomes and correlations between live birth and baseline characteristics (age and number of oocytes retrieved in previous ART treatment cycles or serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH)). The significance of the treatment effect was tested by generalized linear models (Poisson regression for counts and logistic regression for binary endpoints) adjusting for age and country. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of 949 subjects achieving down-regulation, 939 were randomized to r-hFSH/r-hLH (n = 477) or r-hFSH (n = 462) and received treatment. Efficacy assessment: In the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the mean (SD) number of oocytes retrieved (primary endpoint) was 3.3 (2.71) in the r-hFSH/r-hLH group compared with 3.6 (2.82) in the r-hFSH group (between-group difference not statistically significant). The observed difference between treatment groups (r-hFSH/r-hLH and r-hFSH, respectively) for efficacy outcomes decreased over the course of pregnancy (biochemical pregnancy rate: 17.3% versus 23.9%; clinical pregnancy rate: 14.1% versus 16.8%; ongoing pregnancy rate: 11.0% versus 12.4%; and live birth rate: 10.6% versus 11.7%). An interaction (identified post hoc) between baseline characteristics related to POR and treatment effect was noted for live birth, with r-hFSH/r-hLH associated with a higher live birth rate for patients with moderate or severe POR, whereas r-hFSH was associated with a higher live birth rate for those with mild POR. A post hoc logistic regression analysis indicated that the incidence of total pregnancy outcome failure was lower in the r-hFSH/r-hLH group (6.7%) compared with the r-hFSH group (12.4%) with an odds ratio of 0.52 (95% CI 0.33, 0.82; P = 0.005). Safety assessment: The overall proportion of patients with treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) occurring during or after r-hFSH/r-hLH or r-hFSH use (stimulation or post-stimulation phase) was 19.9% and 26.8%, respectively. There was no consistent pattern of TEAEs associated with either treatment. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Despite using inclusion criteria for POR incorporating the ESHRE Bologna criteria, further investigation is needed to determine the impact of the heterogeneity of POR in the Bologna patient population. The observed correlation between baseline clinical characteristics related to POR and live birth rate, as well as the observed differences between groups regarding total pregnancy outcome failure were from post hoc analyses, and the study was not powered for these endpoints. In addition, the attrition rate for pregnancy outcomes in this trial may not reflect general medical practice. Furthermore, as the patient population was predominantly White these results might not be applicable to other ethnicities. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: In the population of women with POR investigated in this study, although the number of oocytes retrieved was similar following stimulation with either a fixed-ratio combination of r-hFSH/r-hLH or r-hFSH monotherapy, post hoc analyses showed that there was a lower rate of total pregnancy outcome failure in patients receiving r-hFSH/r-hLH, in addition to a higher live birth rate in patients with moderate and severe POR. These findings are clinically relevant and require additional investigation. The benefit:risk balance of treatment with either r-hFSH/r-hLH or r-hFSH remains positive. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. P.H. has received honoraria for lectures and unrestricted research grants from Ferring, Merck KGaA and MSD. D.R. is a former employee of EMD Serono, a business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. J.S., J.H. and W.C. are employees of EMD Serono Research and Development Institute, a business of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. T.D.'H. and S.L. are employees of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02047227; EudraCT Number: 2013-003817-16. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: ClinicalTrials.gov: 24 January 2014; EudraCT: 19 December 2013. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 30 January 2014.

Corifollitropin alfa followed by highly purified HMG versus recombinant FSH in young poor ovarian responders: a multicentre randomized controlled clinical trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does administration of corifollitropin alfa followed by highly purified (hp) HMG result in higher ongoing pregnancy rates compared with daily recombinant FSH (rFSH) in young poor responders? SUMMARY ANSWER: Corifollitropin alfa followed by hp-HMG does not increase ongoing pregnancy rates compared with rFSH in young poor responders, although more supernumerary cryopreserved embryos were obtained with corifollitropin alfa and hp-HMG. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Poor ovarian response remains one of the main therapeutic challenges in women undergoing ovarian stimulation, given that very low live birth rates of 6% have been reported in this particular group of infertile patients. Nevertheless, concerns have been raised that a degree of heterogeneity remains, as the prognostic effect of individual factors is still unclear, particularly for the young poor responder group. The rationale for conducting the current randomized trial was based on the results of a previous pilot study demonstrating promising results with the administration of hp-HMG following corifollitropin alpha in women younger than 40 years of age, fulfilling the 'Bologna' criteria. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A multicenter, phase III, superiority, randomized trial was conducted using a parallel two-arm design. The study included 152 patients younger than 40 years old and fulfilling the 'Bologna' criteria for poor ovarian response, from one tertiary referral centre in Europe and one tertiary referral centre in Asia. Enrolment was performed from March 2013 to May 2016. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Eligible patients were randomized to either administration of 150 µg corifollitropin alfa followed by 300 IU hp-HMG (Group A) or to 300 IU of daily recombinant FSH (Group B) in a fixed GnRH antagonist protocol. The randomization sequence was created using a computer generated randomization list stratified by centre, using 1:1 allocation. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy rate (defined as the presence of an intrauterine gestational sac with an embryonic pole demonstrating cardiac activity at 9-10 weeks of gestation). Secondary outcomes included embryo cryopreservation rates, clinical and biochemical pregnancy rates and number of oocytes retrieved. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Overall, 152 poor ovarian responders defined by the 'Bologna' criteria were included in the study. Using an intention-to treat analysis, the ongoing pregnancy rates did not differ significantly between Group A 11/77 (14.3%) and Group B 11/70 (15.7%), absolute difference: -0.4 (-11.5 to 10.8), OR = 0.9 (0.4-2.4). Biochemical and clinical pregnancy rates, live birth rates and the number of oocytes retrieved were also comparable between the two groups. Nevertheless, more patients in the corifollitropin alfa group had cryopreserved embryos compared to the rFSH group [22 (28.6%) versus 10 (14.3%), OR = 2.4 (1.01-5.5)]. Incidentally, Asian patients had significantly lower cancellation rates compared to European poor responders [2/64 (3.1%) versus 17/83 (20.4%), OR = 0.12 (0.03-0.5)]. This discrepancy could be explained by the fact that Asian women were better prognosis patients than European patients, with significantly lower FSH [9.8 (5.3) versus 11.5 (5.4), P = 0.017] and significantly higher AMH [1.1 (0.9) versus 0.4 (0.3), P-value <0.001] levels. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Ongoing pregnancy rates close to 14% for both treatment groups differ significantly from the hypothesized primary outcome rates used in the power calculation. Therefore, our randomized trial might have been underpowered to detect smaller differences. The use of multiple secondary outcomes and multiple comparisons could have increased a Type 1 error. Finally, although the chance of selection biases remains low given the nature of the infertile population, the open-label design could have been a limitation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Poor ovarian response represents a challenge and although a specific protocol may have increased the number of cryopreserved embryos, no difference was observed in ongoing pregnancy rates. Our study, being one of the largest RCTs in 'Bologna' criteria poor responders, highlights that baseline characteristics may play a crucial role in clinical prognosis of this population. Given that ovarian stimulation using novel protocols does not seem to significantly increase pregnancy rates even in young women, we suggest that future clinical research should focus on increasing the number of recruitable follicles and on oocyte quality rather than evaluating different stimulation protocols. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No external funding was used for this study. P.D., N.L.V., N.A.V.H., A.V., M.T.H., M.C., A.T.L. and A.V.V. have no conflict of interest to report. C.B. has received unrestricted research grants from MSD and Ferring as well as honoraria for lectures from Abbott, MSD, Merck and Ferring. P.H has received unrestricted research grants from MSD, Merck and Ferring as well as honoraria for lectures from Merck, MSD and IBSA. H.T. has received unrestricted research grants from MSD, Merck, Ferring, Cook, Roche Diagnostics, Besins International and Goodlife as well as consultation fees for research project in female infertility from Merck Finox, Abbott and ObsEva. N.P.P. has received unrestricted research grants from MSD, Ferring, Roche Diagnostics and Besins International as well as honoraria for lectures from MSD, Merck and Ferring. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The EUDRACT number of the trial was 2013-000583-29 and the study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01816321). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 19 February 2013. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT ENROLMENT: 28 February 2013.