Evaluation of live birth rates and perinatal outcomes following two sequential vitrification/warming events at the zygote and blastocyst stages.

PURPOSE: To study the outcome of sequential cryopreservation-thawing of zygotes followed by the cryopreservation-thawing of blastocysts in the course of an IVF treatment on live birth rate and neonatal parameters. METHODS: Single center, retrospective chart review for the time period of 2015-2020. Clinical and perinatal outcomes were compared between frozen embryo transfer cycles utilizing twice-cryopreserved (n = 182) vs. once-cryopreserved (n = 282) embryos. Univariate and multivariable analyses were used to adjust for relevant confounders. RESULTS: After adjustment for maternal age, gravidity, parity, body mass index (BMI), paternal age, fertilization method used, the number of oocytes retrieved in the fresh cycle, fertilization rate, and transfer medium, the transfer of twice-cryopreserved embryos resulted in a reduced probability of live birth (OR, 0.52; 95% CI 0.27-0.97; p=0.041) compared to once-cryopreserved embryos. No differences in the sex ratio, the mean gestational age, the mean length at birth, or the mean birth weight were found between the two groups. CONCLUSION: The circumstantial use of sequential double vitrification-warming in course of treatment is associated with a reduced (but still reasonable) live birth rate compared to once-cryopreserved embryos. As the neonatal outcomes of twice-cryopreserved embryos are similar to once-cryopreserved embryos, this treatment option appears still valid as a rescue scenario in selected cases.

Conventional outcome reporting per IVF cycle/embryo transfer may systematically underestimate chances of success for women undergoing ART: relevant biases in registries, epidemiological studies, and guidelines.

Pre-conception counselling and management of expectations about chance of success of IVF/ICSI treatments is an integral part of fertility care. Registry data are usually used to inform patients about expected success rates of IVF/ICSI treatment, as these data should best represent real-world populations and clinical practice. In registries, the success rate of IVF/ICSI treatments is conventionally reported per treatment cycle or per embryo transfer and estimated from data for which several treatment attempts per subject have been pooled (e.g. repetitive IVF/ICSI attempts or repetitive attempts of cryotransfer). This, however, may underestimate the true mean chance of success per treatment attempt, because treatment attempts of women with a poor prognosis will usually be over-represented in a pool of treatment cycle data compared to treatment events of women with a good prognosis. Of note, this phenomenon is also a source of potential bias when comparing outcomes between fresh transfers and cryotransfers, since women can undergo a maximum of only one fresh transfer after each IVF/ICSI treatment, but potentially several cryotransfers. Herein, we use a trial dataset from 619 women, who underwent one cycle of ovarian stimulation and ICSI, a Day 5 fresh transfer and/or subsequent cryotransfers (follow-up of all cryotransfers up to 1 year after the start of stimulation), to exemplify the underestimation of the live birth rate, when not accounting for repeated transfers in the same woman. Using mixed-effect logistic regression modelling, we show that the mean live birth rate per transfer per woman in cryocycles is underestimated by the factor 0.69 (e.g. live birth rate per cryotransfer of 36% after adjustment versus 25% unadjusted). We conclude that the average chance of success of treatment cycles of women of a given age, treated in a given centre, etc., when conventionally calculated per cycle or per embryo transfer from a pool of treatment events, do not apply to an individual woman. We suggest that patients are, especially at the outset of treatment, systematically confronted with mean estimates of success per attempt that are too low. Live birth rates per transfer from datasets encompassing multiple transfers from single individuals could be more accurately reported using statistical models accounting for the correlation between cycle outcomes within women.

How effective are lifestyle interventions for overweight women trying to conceive?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To summarize and critically review the current knowledge on the effectiveness of lifestyle modifications for overweight women trying to conceive. RECENT FINDINGS: Overweight is associated with a wide spectrum of disorders, which may directly or indirectly affect fertility [from menstrual cycle irregularities to a lower chance of live birth after assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment]. Weight loss through nonpharmaceutical lifestyle interventions is achievable. Weight loss can normalize menstrual cycle irregularities and can increase fecundability. Pregnancy-associated risks, such as gestational diabetes can be decreased by preconception weight reduction. SUMMARY: Weight loss through lifestyle changes (i.e., lower caloric intake and increased physical activity), may increase fecundability and may have a positive impact on the course of pregnancy, delivery, and neonatal outcomes. Accordingly, women should be motivated to reduce their weight before conception. However, the effectiveness of life-style intervention programs for women actively seeking medical support in achieving pregnancy has not convincingly been demonstrated. In the few randomized controlled trials (RCTs), selection bias for trial participation by patient motivation may have been present, yet participant attrition was still high and mean effects were small, casting doubts on the utility of such programs in routine care. Pharmacological and surgical intervention may be more effective or necessary complements to lifestyle intervention programs.

Does follicular flushing increase oocyte number in poor responders? An update of a systematic review.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does flushing of the follicles at ovum retrieval increase the number of retrieved oocytes in poor-response IVF patients? DESIGN: An update of an electronic literature search was performed to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) investigating follicular flushing versus no flushing in women with a poor response to IVF treatment. No exclusion criteria for type of needle, stimulation or protocol were applied. A meta-analysis was conducted using the software RevMan 5.4. RESULTS: Six RCT were identified that had the primary objective of testing for an increase in mean number of cumulus-oocyte complexes or/and metaphase II oocytes between flushing and no flushing. A double-lumen needle was used in five trials, one study investigated a pseudo-double-lumen needle, and a conventional single-lumen needle was used in all the control groups. The main risk of bias in all the included studies is a lack of blinding of the physicians performing the puncture and incomplete data in four trials. A heterogeneity of direction and size of effect of follicular flushing on mean oocyte number retrieved was detected (I2 = 80, P = 0.0001), which precludes a synthesis of the data. Two studies showed a decrease or tendency towards a decrease in oocyte numbers, one study showed similar oocyte numbers, and one study showed a strong tendency towards increased oocyte numbers with flushing. A similar picture was seen for metaphase II oocytes (I2 = 73, P = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: It is uncertain whether follicular flushing in poor-response IVF patients affects the number of retrieved oocytes. Larger pragmatic trials are warranted to clarify the effect of flushing on oocyte numbers and clinical outcomes in poor responders and monofollicular patients.

Improving analysis of the vaginal microbiota of women undergoing assisted reproduction using nanopore sequencing.

PURPOSE: Subclinical alterations of the vaginal microbiome have been described to be associated with female infertility and may serve as predictors for failure of in vitro fertilization treatment. While large prospective studies to delineate the role of microbial composition are warranted, integrating microbiome information into clinical management depends on economical and practical feasibility, specifically on a short duration from sampling to final results. The currently most used method for microbiota analysis is either metagenomics sequencing or amplicon-based microbiota analysis using second-generation methods such as sequencing-by-synthesis approaches (Illumina), which is both expensive and time-consuming. Thus, additional approaches are warranted to accelerate the usability of the microbiome as a marker in clinical praxis. METHODS: Herein, we used a set of ten selected vaginal swabs from women undergoing assisted reproduction, comparing and performing critical optimization of nanopore-based microbiota analysis with the results from MiSeq-based data as a quality reference. RESULTS: The analyzed samples carried varying community compositions, as shown by amplicon-based analysis of the V3V4 region of the bacterial 16S rRNA gene by MiSeq sequencing. Using a stepwise procedure to optimize adaptation, we show that a close approximation of the microbial composition can be achieved within a reduced time frame and at a minimum of costs using nanopore sequencing. CONCLUSIONS: Our work highlights the potential of a nanopore-based methodical setup to support the feasibility of interventional studies and contribute to the development of microbiome-based clinical decision-making in assisted reproduction.

Lack of analytical interference of dydrogesterone in progesterone immunoassays.

OBJECTIVES: Progesterone, a sex steroid, is measured in serum by immunoassay in a variety of clinical contexts. One potential limitation of steroid hormone immunoassays is interference caused by compounds with structural similarity to the target steroid of the assay. Dydrogesterone (DYD), an orally active stereoisomer of progesterone, is used for various indications in women's health. Herein, we report a systematic in vitro investigation of potential interference of DYD and its active metabolite 20α-dihydrodydrogesterone (DHD) in seven widely used, commercially available progesterone assays. METHODS: Routine human plasma samples were anonymized and pooled to create three graded concentration levels of progesterone (P4 high, P4 medium, P4 low). Each pooled P4 plasma sample (6-7 mL) was spiked at high, medium, and "none" concentration with DYD/DHD and was divided into 0.5 mL aliquots. The blinded aliquots were analyzed by seven different laboratories with their routine progesterone assay (six different immunoassays and one liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry assay, respectively) within the Dutch working group on endocrine laboratory diagnostics of the Dutch Foundation for Quality Assessments in Medical Laboratories. RESULTS: The sample recovery rate (P4 result obtained for sample spiked with DYD/DHD, divided by the result obtained for the corresponding sample with no DYD/DHD × 100) was within a ±10% window for the medium and high P4 concentrations, but more variable for the low P4 samples. The latter is, however, attributable to high inter- and intra-method variability at low P4 concentrations. CONCLUSIONS: This study does not indicate any relevant interference of DYD/DHD within routinely used progesterone assays.

Should any use of artificial cycle regimen for frozen-thawed embryo transfer in women capable of ovulation be abandoned: yes, but what's next for FET cycle practice and research?

Over the past decade, the use of frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) treatment cycles has increased substantially. The artificial ('programmed') cycle regimen, which suppresses ovulation, is widely used for that purpose, also in ovulatory women or women capable of ovulation, under the assumption of equivalent efficacy in terms of pregnancy achievement as compared to a natural cycle or modified natural cycle. The advantage of the artificial cycle is the easy alignment of the time point of thawing and transferring embryos with organizational necessities of the IVF laboratory, the treating doctors and the patient. However, recent data indicate that pregnancy establishment under absence of a corpus luteum as a consequence of anovulation may cause relevant maternal and fetal risks. Herein, we argue that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are not needed to aid in the clinical decision for or against routine artificial cycle regimen use in ovulatory women. We also argue that RCTs are unlikely to answer the most burning questions of interest in that context, mostly because of lack of power and precision in detecting rare but decisive adverse outcomes (e.g. pre-eclampsia risk or long-term neonatal health outcomes). We pinpoint that, instead, large-scale observational data are better suited for that purpose. Eventually, we propose that the existing understanding and evidence is sufficient already to discourage the use of artificial cycle regimens for FET in ovulatory women or women capable of ovulation, as these may cause a strong deviation from physiology, thereby putting patient and fetus at avoidable health risk, without any apparent health benefit.

Dydrogesterone and 20α-dihydrodydrogesterone plasma levels on day of embryo transfer and clinical outcome in an anovulatory programmed frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycle: a prospective cohort study.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the plasma concentrations of dydrogesterone (DYD) and its metabolite, 20α-dihydrodydrogesterone (DHD), measured on day of embryo transfer (ET) in programmed anovulatory frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles using 10 mg per os ter-in-die (tid) oral DYD, and what is the association of DYD and DHD levels with ongoing pregnancy rate? SUMMARY ANSWER: DYD and DHD plasma levels reach steady state by Day 3 of intake, are strongly correlated and vary considerably between and within individual subjects, women in the lowest quarter of DYD or DHD levels on day of FET have a reduced chance of an ongoing pregnancy. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: DYD is an oral, systemic alternative to vaginal progesterone for luteal phase support. The DYD and DHD level necessary to sustain implantation, when no endogenous progesterone is present, remains unknown. While DYD is widely used in fresh IVF cycles, circulating concentrations of DYD and DHD and inter- and intraindividual variation of plasma levels versus successful treatment have never been explored as measurement of DYD and DHD is currently only feasible by high-sensitivity chromatographic techniques such as liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectroscopy (LC-MS/MS). STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Prospective, clinical cohort study (May 2018-November 2020) (NCT03507673); university IVF-center; women (n = 217) undergoing a programmed FET cycle with 2 mg oral estradiol (tid) and, for luteal support, 10 mg oral DYD (tid); main inclusion criteria: absence of ovulatory follicle and low serum progesterone on Days 12-15 of estradiol intake; serum and plasma samples were taken on day of FET and stored at -80°C for later analysis by LC-MS/MS; in 56 patients, two or more FET cycles in the same protocol were performed. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women undergoing FET on Day 2 or Day 3 (D2, D3, cleavage) or Day 5 (D5, blastocyst) of embryonic development had blood sampling on the 3rd, 4th or 6th day of 10 mg (tid) DYD oral intake, respectively. The patient population was stratified by DYD and DHD plasma levels by percentiles (≤25th versus >25th) separately by day of ET. Ongoing pregnancy rates (a viable pregnancy at >10th gestational week) were compared between ≤25th percentile versus >25th percentile for DYD and DHD levels (adjusted for day of ET). Known predictors of outcome were screened for their effects in addition to DYD, while DYD was considered as log-concentration or dichotomized at the lower quartile. Repeated cycles were analyzed assuming some correlation between them for a given individual, namely by generalized estimating equations for prediction and generalized mixed models for an estimate of the variance component. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: After exclusion of patients with 'escape ovulation' (n = 14, 6%), detected by the presence of progesterone in serum on day of ET, and patients with no results from LC-MS/MS analysis (n = 5), n = 41 observations for cleavage stage ETs and n = 157 for blastocyst transfers were analyzed. Median (quartiles) of plasma levels of DYD and DHD were 1.36 ng/ml (0.738 to 2.17 ng/ml) and 34.0 ng/ml (19.85 to 51.65 ng/ml) on Day 2 or 3 and 1.04 ng/ml (0.707 to 1.62 ng/ml) and 30.0 ng/ml (20.8 to 43.3 ng/ml) on Day 5, respectively, suggesting that steady-state is reached already on Day 3 of intake. DHD plasma levels very weakly associated with body weight and BMI (R2 < 0.05), DYD levels with body weight, but not BMI. Levels of DYD and DHD were strongly correlated (correlation coefficients 0.936 for D2/3 and 0.892 for D5, respectively). The 25th percentile of DYD and DHD levels were 0.71 ng/ml and 20.675 ng/ml on day of ET. The ongoing pregnancy rate was significantly reduced in patients in the lower quarter of DYD or DHD levels: ≤25th percentile DYD or DHD 3/49 (6%) and 4/49 (8%) versus >25th percentile DYD or DHD 42/149 (28%) and 41/149 (27%) (unadjusted difference -22% (CI: -31% to -10%) and -19% (CI: -29% to -7%), adjusted difference -22%, 95% CI: -32 to -12, P < 0.0001). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Some inter- and intraindividual variations in DYD levels could be attributed to differences in time between last 10 mg DYD intake and blood sampling, as well as concomitant food intake, neither of which were registered in this study. Ninety percent of subjects were European-Caucasian and DYD/DHD blood concentrations should be replicated in other and larger populations. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Daily 10 mg DYD (tid) in an artificial FET cycle is potentially a suboptimal dose for a proportion of the population. Measurement of DYD or DHD levels could be used interchangeably for future studies. The pharmacokinetics of oral DYD and associated reproductive pharmacodynamics need further study. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The trial was financed by university funds, except for the cost for plasma and serum sample handling, storage and shipment, as well as the liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) analysis of DYD, DHD and progesterone, which was financially supported by Abbott Products Operations AG (Allschwil, Switzerland). Abbott Products Operations AG had no influence on the study protocol, study conduct, data analysis or data interpretation. K.N. has received honoraria and/or non-financial support (e.g. travel cost compensation) from Ferring, Gedeon-Richter, Merck and MSD. A.M. has no competing interests. R.V. has no competing interests. M.D. has received honoraria and/or non-financial support from Ferring and Merck. A.S.-M. has no competing interests. T.K.E. has received honoraria and/or non-financial support from Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Aristo Pharma, Merck. G.G. has received honoraria and/or non-financial support (e.g. travel cost compensation) from Abbott, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Guerbet, Merck, Organon, MSD, ObsEva, PregLem, ReprodWissen GmbH, Vifor and Cooper. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03507673.

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.

Prospective multicenter non-interventional real-world study to assess the patterns of use, effectiveness and safety of follitropin delta in routine clinical practice (the PROFILE study).

Objective: To observe the real-world utilization patterns, effectiveness and safety profile of follitropin delta in women ≥18 years naïve to ovarian stimulation undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Design: Prospective, multinational, multicenter, observational study. All IVF/ICSI treatment protocols were conducted according to routine clinical practice, including undertaking fresh/frozen transfers. Outcomes included use of dosing algorithm, follitropin delta dosing patterns, ovarian response, pregnancy rates and adverse drug reactions (ADRs). Results: The first ovarian stimulation cycle using follitropin delta was initiated in 944 women. Mean baseline demographics were: age, 33.5 ± 4.7 years; bodyweight, 67.1 ± 13.6 kg; anti-Müllerian hormone, 20.3 ± 16.1 pmol/L (2.84 ± 2.25 ng/mL). The dosing algorithm was used to calculate the follitropin delta daily starting dose in 893/944 women (94.5%). The mean difference between the calculated and prescribed daily dose was small (0.2 ± 1.40 µg). The mean daily starting follitropin delta dose was 10.4 ± 2.72 µg and the mean total dose administered was 104 µg. Follitropin delta dose adjustments were reported for 57/944 (6.0%) women. The mean number of retrieved oocytes was 10.1 ± 7.03. Ongoing pregnancy at 10-11 weeks was reported for 255 women (27.0% per initiated cycle and 43.1% per fresh transfer [n=592]). Cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate after fresh and/or frozen transfer was 36.4% (344/944). Four women discontinued follitropin delta due to ADRs. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) was the most frequently reported ADR (n=37 [3.9%]); most cases of OHSS were of mild or moderate intensity (n=30 [3.2%]). Conclusions: This large real-world study of follitropin delta utilization patterns confirms its good pregnancy rates while minimizing OHSS risk during first ovarian stimulation cycle.

Is oxytocin receptor antagonist administration around embryo transfer associated with IVF treatment success? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate whether the administration of an oxytocin receptor antagonist (OTR-a) around embryo transfer is associated with live birth and pregnancy achievement in IVF treatment. Multiple databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing the outcome of IVF treatment with administration of an OTR-a before, during or after embryo transfer versus administration of placebo/nil. The literature search identified 11 eligible RCT. The active compound was intravenous atosiban (n = 7), subcutaneous barusiban (n = 1) and oral nolasiban (n = 3). Clinical pregnancy rate was significantly higher in women receiving an OTR-a around embryo transfer (relative risk [RR] 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.51, P = 0.0002, I2 = 61%, n = 11 studies, n = 3611); however, live birth rate was not statistically significantly affected (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98-1.20, P = 0.11, I2 = 25%, n = 5 studies, n = 2765). A sensitivity analysis on low risk of bias studies likewise indicates a higher clinical pregnancy chance (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01-1.22, P = 0.03, I2 = 5%, n = 5 RCT, n = 2765). OTR-a administration in IVF treatment has the potential to increase IVF efficacy, although the treatment effects observed so far are small and have not been sufficiently corroborated.

The Maribor consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of performance indicators for clinical practice in ART.

STUDY QUESTION: Is it possible to define a set of performance indicators (PIs) for clinical work in ART, which can create competency profiles for clinicians and for specific clinical process steps? SUMMARY ANSWER: The current paper recommends six PIs to be used for monitoring clinical work in ovarian stimulation for ART, embryo transfer, and pregnancy achievement: cycle cancellation rate (before oocyte pick-up (OPU)) (%CCR), rate of cycles with moderate/severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (%mosOHSS), the proportion of mature (MII) oocytes at ICSI (%MII), complication rate after OPU (%CoOPU), clinical pregnancy rate (%CPR), and multiple pregnancy rate (%MPR). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: PIs are objective measures for evaluating critical healthcare domains. In 2017, ART laboratory key PIs (KPIs) were defined. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: A list of possible indicators was defined by a working group. The value and limitations of each indicator were confirmed through assessing published data and acceptability was evaluated through an online survey among members of ESHRE, mostly clinicians, of the special interest group Reproductive Endocrinology. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: The online survey was open for 5 weeks and 222 replies were received. Statements (indicators, indicator definitions, or general statements) were considered accepted when ≥70% of the responders agreed (agreed or strongly agreed). There was only one round to seek levels of agreement between the stakeholders.Indicators that were accepted by the survey responders were included in the final list of indicators. Statements reaching less than 70% were not included in the final list but were discussed in the paper. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Cycle cancellation rate (before OPU) and the rate of cycles with moderate/severe OHSS, calculated on the number of started cycles, were defined as relevant PIs for monitoring ovarian stimulation. For monitoring ovarian response, trigger and OPU, the proportion of MII oocytes at ICSI and complication rate after OPU were listed as PIs: the latter PI was defined as the number of complications (any) that require an (additional) medical intervention or hospital admission (apart from OHSS) over the number of OPUs performed. Finally, clinical pregnancy rate and multiple pregnancy rate were considered relevant PIs for embryo transfer and pregnancy. The defined PIs should be calculated every 6 months or per 100 cycles, whichever comes first. Clinical pregnancy rate and multiple pregnancy rate should be monitored more frequently (every 3 months or per 50 cycles). Live birth rate (LBR) is a generally accepted and an important parameter for measuring ART success. However, LBR is affected by many factors, even apart from ART, and it cannot be adequately used to monitor clinical practice. In addition to monitoring performance in general, PIs are essential for managing the performance of staff over time, and more specifically the gap between expected performance and actual performance measured. Individual clinics should determine which indicators are key to the success in their organisation based on their patient population, protocols, and procedures, and as such, which are their KPIs. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The consensus values are based on data found in the literature and suggestions of experts. When calculated and compared to the competence/benchmark limits, prudent interpretation is necessary taking into account the specific clinical practice of each individual centre. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The defined PIs complement the earlier defined indicators for the ART laboratory. Together, both sets of indicators aim to enhance the overall quality of the ART practice and are an essential part of the total quality management. PIs are important for education and can be applied during clinical subspecialty. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This paper was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with meetings, literature searches, and dissemination. The writing group members did not receive payment.Dr G.G. reports personal fees from Merck, MSD, Ferring, Theramex, Finox, Gedeon-Richter, Abbott, Biosilu, ReprodWissen, Obseva, PregLem, and Guerbet, outside the submitted work. Dr A.D. reports personal fees from Cook, outside the submitted work; Dr S.A. reports starting a new employment in May 2020 at Vitrolife. Previously, she has been part of the Nordic Embryology Academic Team, with meetings were sponsored by Gedeon Richter. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. DISCLAIMER: This document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and where relevant based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation.The recommendations should be used for informational and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care, or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type.Furthermore, ESHREs recommendations do not constitute or imply the endorsement, recommendation, or favouring of any of the included technologies by ESHRE.

A randomised, multi-center, open trial comparing a semi-automated closed vitrification system with a manual open system in women undergoing IVF.

STUDY QUESTION: What are outcome and procedural differences when using the semi-automated closed Gavi® device versus the manual open Cryotop® method for vitrification of pronuclear (2PN) stage oocytes within an IVF program? SUMMARY ANSWER: A semi-automated closed vitrification method gives similar clinical results as compared to an exclusively manual, open system but higher procedure duration and less staff convenience. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A semi-automated closed vitrification device has been introduced to the market, however, little evaluation of its performance in a clinical setting has been conducted so far. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This prospective, randomised, open non-inferiority trial was conducted at three German IVF centers (10/2017-12/2018). Randomization was performed on day of fertilization check, stratified by center and by indication for vitrification (surplus 2PN oocytes in the context of a fresh embryo transfer (ET) cycle or 'freeze-all' of 2PN oocytes). PARTICIPANT/MATERIAL, SETTING, METHODS: The study population included subfertile women, aged 18-40 years, undergoing IVF or ICSI treatment after ovarian stimulation, with 2PN oocytes available for vitrification. The primary outcome was survival rate of 2PN oocytes at first warming procedure in a subsequent cycle and non-inferiority of 2PN survival was to be declared if the lower bound 95% CI of the mean difference in survival rate excluded a difference larger than 9.5%; secondary, descriptive outcomes included embryo development, pregnancy and live birth rate, procedure time and staff convenience. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The randomised patient population consisted of 149 patients, and the per-protocol population (patients with warming of 2PN oocytes for culture and planned ET) was 118 patients. The survival rate was 94.0% (±13.5) and 96.7% (±9.7) in the Gavi® and the Cryotop® group (weighted mean difference -1.6%, 95% CI -4.7 to 1.4, P = 0.28), respectively, indicating non-inferiority of the Gavi® vitrification/warming method for the primary outcome. Embryo development and the proportion of top-quality embryos was similar in the two groups, as were the pregnancy and live birth rate. Mean total procedure duration (vitrification and warming) was higher in the Gavi® group (81 ± 39 min vs 47 ± 15 min, mean difference 34 min, 95% CI 19 to 48). Staff convenience assessed by eight operators in a questionnaire was lower for the Gavi® system. The majority of respondents preferred the Cryotop® method because of practicality issues. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION: The study was performed in centers with long experience of manual vitrification, and the relative performance of the Gavi® system as well as the staff convenience may be higher in settings with less experience in the manual procedure. Financial costs of the two procedures were not measured along the trial. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: With increasing requirements for standardization of procedures and tissue safety, a semi-automated closed vitrification method may constitute a suitable alternative technology to the established manual open vitrification method given the equivalent clinical outcomes demonstrated herein. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The trial received no direct financial funding. The Gavi® instrument, Gavi® consumables and staff training were provided for free by the distributor (Merck, Darmstadt, Germany) during the study period. The manufacturer of the Gavi® instrument had no influence on study protocol, study conduct, data analysis, data interpretation or manuscript writing. J.H. has received honoraria and/or non-financial support from Ferring, Merck and Origio. G.G. has received honoraria and/or non-financial support from Abbott, Ferring, Finox, Gedeon Richter, Guerbet, Merck, MSD, ObsEva, PregLem, ReprodWissen GmbH and Theramex. The remaining authors have no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03287479. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 19 September 2017. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 10 October 2017.

Clinical Efficacy of Follitropin Alfa in GnRH-Antagonist Protocols: A Prospective Observational Phase IV Study on the Use of Biosimilar Follitropin Alfa r-hFSH in Assisted Reproductive Technology in a Routine Care Setting.

BACKGROUND: This phase IV routine care study evaluated ovarian responses when using a biosimilar follitropin alfa r-hFSH (Bemfola®) for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment who were pituitary-suppressed with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist. METHODS: This multicenter, prospective, non-comparative, non-interventional study (Germany/Austria) was conducted with 885 women (Mean age of 34.0±4.4 years) for whom COS with Bemfola® and GnRH-antagonist for pituitary suppression were applied as part of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment with/without intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) observing routine clinical-practice protocols. Primary endpoint was the number of retrieved cumulus-oocyte-complexes (COCs). RESULTS: Among 986 ART cycles, COS was given for 9.9±1.8 days (First-day r-hFSH dose of 220.7±68.9 IU; mean total dose of 2184.3±837.5 IU). It was revealed that 99.1% of cycles resulted in follicular puncture, with mean of 10.7±6.6 oocytes retrieved. Successful fertilization took place after IVF/ICSI in 93.8% of follicular punctures. Freeze-all was performed in 14.2% of cycles. Fresh embryo transfer was performed in 76.9% of cycles with follicular puncture; mean day of transfer was 3.5±1.3 and average number of transferred embryos was 1.76±0.50. Clinical pregnancy rate was 30.2% of embryo-transfer cycles and 23.4% of started cycles. Sixty-nine reports of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (7.0% of started cycles) were documented. CONCLUSION: COS with Bemfola® in GnRH-antagonist IVF/ICSI protocols in a routine care setting led to an appropriate ovarian response allowing oocyte retrieval in 99.1% of initiated cases.

Dose adjustment of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) during ovarian stimulation as part of medically-assisted reproduction in clinical studies: a systematic review covering 10 years (2007-2017).

BACKGROUND: Individualization of the follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) starting dose is considered standard clinical practice during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment. Furthermore, the gonadotropin dose is regularly adjusted during COS to avoid hyper- or hypo-ovarian response, but limited data are currently available to characterize such adjustments. This review describes the frequency and direction (increase/decrease) of recombinant-human FSH (r-hFSH) dose adjustment reported in clinical trials. METHODS: We evaluated the proportion of patients undergoing ART treatment who received ≥ 1 r-hFSH dose adjustments. The inclusion criteria included studies (published Sept 2007 to Sept 2017) in women receiving ART treatment that allowed dose adjustment within the study protocol and that reported ≥ 1 dose adjustments of r-hFSH; studies not allowing/reporting dose adjustment were excluded. Data on study design, dose adjustment and patient characteristics were extracted. Point-incidence estimates were calculated per study and overall based on pooled number of cycles with dose adjustment across studies. The Clopper-Pearson method was used to calculate 95% confidence intervals (CI) for incidence where adjustment occurred in < 10% of patients; otherwise, a normal approximation method was used. RESULTS: Initially, 1409 publications were identified, of which 318 were excluded during initial screening and 1073 were excluded after full text review for not meeting the inclusion criteria. Eighteen studies (6630 cycles) reported dose adjustment: 5/18 studies (1359 cycles) reported data for an unspecified dose adjustment (direction not defined), in 10/18 studies (3952 cycles) dose increases were reported, and in 11/18 studies (5123 cycles) dose decreases were reported. The studies were performed in women with poor, normal and high response, with one study reporting in oocyte donors and one in obese women. The median day that dose adjustment was permitted was Day 6 after the start of treatment. The point estimates for incidence (95% CI) for unspecified dose adjustment, dose increases, and dose decreases were 45.3% (42.7, 48.0), 19.2% (18.0, 20.5), and 9.5% (8.7, 10.3), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review highlights that, in studies in which dose adjustment was allowed and reported, the estimated incidence of r-hFSH dose adjustments during ovarian stimulation was up to 45%.

Randomized Controlled Trial of Neurokinin 3 Receptor Antagonist Fezolinetant for Treatment of Polycystic Ovary Syndrome.

CONTEXT: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), a highly prevalent endocrine disorder characterized by hyperandrogenism, is the leading cause of anovulatory infertility. OBJECTIVE: This proof-of-concept study evaluated clinical efficacy and safety of the neurokinin 3 (NK3) receptor antagonist fezolinetant in PCOS. METHODS: This was a phase 2a, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter study (EudraCT 2014-004409-34). The study was conducted at 5 European clinical centers. Women with PCOS participated in the study. Interventions included fezolinetant 60 or 180 mg/day or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary efficacy end point was change in total testosterone. Gonadotropins, ovarian hormones, safety and tolerability were also assessed. RESULTS: Seventy-three women were randomly assigned, and 64 participants completed the study. Adjusted mean (SE) changes in total testosterone from baseline to week 12 for fezolinetant 180 and 60 mg/day were -0.80 (0.13) and -0.39 (0.12) nmol/L vs -0.05 (0.10) nmol/L with placebo (P < .001 and P < .05, respectively). Adjusted mean (SE) changes from baseline in luteinizing hormone (LH) for fezolinetant 180 and 60 mg/d were -10.17 (1.28) and -8.21 (1.18) vs -3.16 (1.04) IU/L with placebo (P < .001 and P = .002); corresponding changes in follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) were -1.46 (0.32) and -0.92 (0.30) vs -0.57 (0.26) IU/L (P = .03 and P = .38), underpinning a dose-dependent decrease in the LH-to-FSH ratio vs placebo (P < .001). Circulating levels of progesterone and estradiol did not change significantly vs placebo (P > .10). Fezolinetant was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Fezolinetant had a sustained effect to suppress hyperandrogenism and reduce the LH-to-FSH ratio in women with PCOS.

Dydrogesterone as an oral alternative to vaginal progesterone for IVF luteal phase support: A systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis.

The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the evidence on the efficacy and safety of oral dydrogesterone versus micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) for luteal phase support. Embase and MEDLINE were searched for studies that evaluated the effect of luteal phase support with daily administration of oral dydrogesterone (20 to 40 mg) versus MVP capsules (600 to 800 mg) or gel (90 mg) on pregnancy or live birth rates in women undergoing fresh-cycle IVF (protocol registered at PROSPERO [CRD42018105949]). Individual participant data (IPD) were extracted for the primary analysis where available and aggregate data were extracted for the secondary analysis. Nine studies were eligible for inclusion; two studies had suitable IPD (full analysis sample: n = 1957). In the meta-analysis of IPD, oral dydrogesterone was associated with a significantly higher chance of ongoing pregnancy at 12 weeks of gestation (odds ratio [OR], 1.32; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08 to 1.61; P = 0.0075) and live birth (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.04 to 1.57; P = 0.0214) compared to MVP. A meta-analysis combining IPD and aggregate data for all nine studies also demonstrated a statistically significant difference between oral dydrogesterone and MVP (pregnancy: OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.01 to 1.34; P = 0.04; live birth: OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.03 to 1.38; P = 0.02). Safety parameters were similar between the two groups. Collectively, this study indicates that a higher pregnancy rate and live birth rate may be obtained in women receiving oral dydrogesterone versus MVP for luteal phase support.