Hormone-free vs. follicle-stimulating hormone-primed infertility treatment of women with polycystic ovary syndrome using biphasic in vitro maturation: a randomized controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: To compare oocyte maturation rates and pregnancy outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) undergoing biphasic in vitro maturation (capacitation in vitro maturation [CAPA-IVM]) with vs. without follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) priming. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded trial. SETTING: Private hospital. PATIENT(S): Women aged 18-37 years with PCOS and an indication for CAPA-IVM. INTERVENTION(S): Participants were randomized (1:1) to undergo CAPA-IVM with or without FSH priming. The FSH priming group had 2 days of FSH injections before oocyte pickup; no FSH was given in the non-FSH group. After CAPA-IVM, day-5 embryos were vitrified for transfer in a subsequent cycle. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The primary endpoint was number of matured oocytes. Secondary outcomes included rates of live birth, implantation, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, pregnancy complications, obstetric and perinatal complications, and neonatal complications. RESULT(S): The number (interquartile range) of matured oocytes did not differ significantly in the non-FSH vs. FSH group (13 [9-18] vs. 14 [7-18]; absolute difference -1 [95% confidence interval -5 to 4]); other oocyte and embryology outcomes did not differ between groups. Rates of ongoing pregnancy and live birth were 38.3% in the non-FSH group and 31.7% in the FSH group (risk ratio for both outcomes: 1.21, 95% confidence interval 0.74-1.98). Maternal complications were infrequent and occurred at a similar rate in the two groups; there were no preterm deliveries before 32 weeks gestation. CONCLUSION(S): These findings open the possibility of a new, hormone-free approach to infertility treatment of women with PCOS.

Livebirth rate after one frozen embryo transfer in ovulatory women starting with natural, modified natural, or artificial endometrial preparation in Viet Nam: an open-label randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Use of frozen embryo transfer (FET) in in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) has increased. However, the best endometrial preparation protocol for FET cycles is unclear. We compared natural and modified natural cycle strategies with an artificial cycle strategy for endometrial preparation before FET. METHODS: In this randomised, open-label study, we recruited ovulatory women aged 18-45 years at a hospital in Ho Chi Minh City, Viet Nam, who were randomly allocated (1:1:1) to natural, modified natural, or artificial cycle endometrial preparation using a computer-generated random list and block randomisation. The trial was not masked due to the nature of the study interventions. In natural cycles, no oestrogen, progesterone, or human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) was used. In modified natural cycles, hCG was used to trigger ovulation. In artificial cycles, oral oestradiol valerate (8 mg/day from day 2-4 of menstruation) and vaginal progesterone (800 mg/day starting when endometrial thickness was ≥7 mm) were used. Embryos were vitrified, and then one or two day-3 embryos or one day-5 embryo were warmed and transferred under ultrasound guidance. If the first FET cycle was cancelled, subsequent cycles were performed with artificial endometrial preparation. The primary endpoint was livebirth after one FET. This trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04804020. FINDINGS: Between March 22, 2021, and March 14, 2023, 4779 women were screened and 1428 were randomly assigned (476 to each group). 99 first FET cycles were cancelled in each of the natural and modified cycle groups, versus none in the artificial cycle group. The livebirth rate after one FET was 174 (37%) of 476 in the natural cycle strategy group, 159 (33%) of 476 in the modified natural cycle strategy group, and 162 (34%) of 476 in the artificial cycle strategy group (relative risk 1·07 [95% CI 0·87-1·33] for natural vs artificial cycle strategy, and 0·98 [0·79-1·22] for modified natural vs artificial cycle strategy). Maternal and neonatal outcomes did not differ significantly between groups, as the power to detect small differences was low. INTERPRETATION: Although the livebirth rate was similar after natural, modified natural, and artificial cycle endometrial preparation strategies in ovulatory women undergoing FET IVF, no definitive conclusions can be made regarding the comparative safety of the three approaches. FUNDING: None.

An update on the current indications for in vitro maturation.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In vitro maturation has become a significant component of modern assisted reproductive techniques. Published data have been supported for the safety and effectiveness of in vitro maturation treatment. In recent years, potential indications for in vitro maturation (IVM) have been a topic of interest and investigation. RECENT FINDINGS: Significant improvements in technique enhancement and data publication for evaluating the efficacy of IVM have been achieved. Recent studies have shown that IVM could offer several advantages over in vitro fertilization. Currently, there are growing indications for IVM beyond the commonly mentioned indication of infertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Additionally, some potential candidates might have significant advantages for IVM, such as women diagnosed with gonadotropin resistance ovary syndrome or those seeking fertility preservation. With a better understanding of IVM, from basic science to clinical practice, it can be applied safely, effectively, and affordably to a broader range of patients, making it a more accessible and patient-friendly option. SUMMARY: Despite the possibly acknowledged limitations, the potential of in vitro maturation cannot be denied. As this technique becomes increasingly accessible to patients and more continuous efforts are dedicated to advancing this technique, the impact of in vitro maturation is expected.

Thyroid Peroxidase Antibodies in Infertile Women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome.

To compare the rate of positive thyroid peroxidase antibodies (TPO Ab) between women with different polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) phenotypes and women without PCOS. This is a retrospective cohort study. Women with PCOS at My Duc Hospital between June 1, 2020, and March 27, 2021, were matched with non-PCOS women by age. TPO Ab (cut-off: 34 IU/mL) and thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) levels were measured as markers of Hashimoto thyroiditis and thyroid function, respectively. One thousand eight hundred eight infertile women were included, 904 with PCOS (mean age 29.0 ± 3.58 years) and 904 without PCOS (29.1 ± 3.4 years; controls). Women with PCOS had a higher body mass index (22.8 ± 3.84 vs. 19.9 ± 2.23 kg/m2, p < 0.001), but most were not overweight/obese. Rates of positive TPO Ab in women with versus without PCOS were 8.2% and 8.4%, respectively (p = 0.932). Rates of positive TPO Ab in patients with PCOS phenotype A, B, C, or D were not statistically different (7.5%, 2.9%, 20.0%, and 7.8%, respectively). Median TSH concentrations were similar in the PCOS and control groups (1.84 mIU/L vs. 1.78 mIU/L, respectively; p = 0.194). Based on a linear regression model, there was no correlation between either BMI or the estradiol to progesterone ratio and TPO Ab status. In a large population of infertile women with PCOS who were mostly lean patients, rates of positive TPO Ab across all four PCOS phenotypes did not differ significantly from those in women without PCOS. These findings did not support the hypothesis that PCOS is a risk factor for Hashimoto thyroiditis.

Protocol for developing a core outcome set for male infertility research: an international consensus development study.

STUDY QUESTION: We aim to develop, disseminate and implement a minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, for future male infertility research. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Research into male infertility can be challenging to design, conduct and report. Evidence from randomized trials can be difficult to interpret and of limited ability to inform clinical practice for numerous reasons. These may include complex issues, such as variation in outcome measures and outcome reporting bias, as well as failure to consider the perspectives of men and their partners with lived experience of fertility problems. Previously, the Core Outcome Measure for Infertility Trials (COMMIT) initiative, an international consortium of researchers, healthcare professionals and people with fertility problems, has developed a core outcome set for general infertility research. Now, a bespoke core outcome set for male infertility is required to address the unique challenges pertinent to male infertility research. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: Stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, allied healthcare professionals, scientists, researchers and people with fertility problems, will be invited to participate. Formal consensus science methods will be used, including the modified Delphi method, modified Nominal Group Technique and the National Institutes of Health's consensus development conference. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: An international steering group, including the relevant stakeholders outlined above, has been established to guide the development of this core outcome set. Possible core outcomes will be identified by undertaking a systematic review of randomized controlled trials evaluating potential treatments for male factor infertility. These outcomes will be entered into a modified Delphi method. Repeated reflection and re-scoring should promote convergence towards consensus outcomes, which will be prioritized during a consensus development meeting to identify a final core outcome set. We will establish standardized definitions and recommend high-quality measurement instruments for individual core outcomes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This work has been supported by the Urology Foundation small project award, 2021. C.L.R.B. is the recipient of a BMGF grant and received consultancy fees from Exscentia and Exceed sperm testing, paid to the University of Dundee and speaking fees or honoraria paid personally by Ferring, Copper Surgical and RBMO. S.B. received royalties from Cambridge University Press, Speaker honoraria for Obstetrical and Gynaecological Society of Singapore, Merk SMART Masterclass and Merk FERRING Forum, paid to the University of Aberdeen. Payment for leadership roles within NHS Grampian, previously paid to self, now paid to University of Aberdeen. An Honorarium is received as Editor in Chief of Human Reproduction Open. M.L.E. is an advisor to the companies Hannah and Ro. B.W.M. received an investigator grant from the NHMRC, No: GNT1176437 is a paid consultant for ObsEva and has received research funding from Ferring and Merck. R.R.H. received royalties from Elsevier for a book, consultancy fees from Glyciome, and presentation fees from GryNumber Health and Aytu Bioscience. Aytu Bioscience also funded MiOXYS systems and sensors. Attendance at Fertility 2020 and Roadshow South Africa by Ralf Henkel was funded by LogixX Pharma Ltd. R.R.H. is also Editor in Chief of Andrologia and has been an employee of LogixX Pharma Ltd. since 2020. M.S.K. is an associate editor with Human Reproduction Open. K.Mc.E. received an honoraria for lectures from Bayer and Pharmasure in 2019 and payment for an ESHRE grant review in 2019. His attendance at ESHRE 2019 and AUA 2019 was sponsored by Pharmasure and Bayer, respectively. The remaining authors declare no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative registration No: 1586. Available at www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1586. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: N/A. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: N/A.

Micronized progesterone plus dydrogesterone versus micronized progesterone alone for luteal phase support in frozen-thawed cycles (MIDRONE): a prospective cohort study.

STUDY QUESTION: Does the addition of oral dydrogesterone to vaginal progesterone as luteal phase support improve pregnancy outcomes during frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles compared with vaginal progesterone alone? SUMMARY ANSWER: Luteal phase support with oral dydrogesterone added to vaginal progesterone had a higher live birth rate and lower miscarriage rate compared with vaginal progesterone alone. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Progesterone is an important hormone that triggers secretory transformation of the endometrium to allow implantation of the embryo. During IVF, exogenous progesterone is administered for luteal phase support. However, there is wide inter-individual variation in absorption of progesterone via the vaginal wall. Oral dydrogesterone is effective and well tolerated when used to provide luteal phase support after fresh embryo transfer. However, there are currently no data on the effectiveness of luteal phase support with the combination of dydrogesterone with vaginal micronized progesterone compared with vaginal micronized progesterone after FET. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Prospective cohort study conducted at an academic infertility center in Vietnam from 26 June 2019 to 30 March 2020. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We studied 1364 women undergoing IVF with FET. Luteal support was started when endometrial thickness reached ≥8 mm. The luteal support regimen was either vaginal micronized progesterone 400 mg twice daily plus oral dydrogesterone 10 mg twice daily (second part of the study) or vaginal micronized progesterone 400 mg twice daily (first 4 months of the study). In women with a positive pregnancy test, the appropriate luteal phase support regimen was continued until 7 weeks' gestation. The primary endpoint was live birth after the first FET of the started cycle, with miscarriage <12 weeks as one of the secondary endpoints. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The vaginal progesterone + dydrogesterone group and vaginal progesterone groups included 732 and 632 participants, respectively. Live birth rates were 46.3% versus 41.3%, respectively (rate ratio [RR] 1.12, 95% CI 0.99-1.27, P = 0.06; multivariate analysis RR 1.30 (95% CI 1.01-1.68), P = 0.042), with a statistically significant lower rate of miscarriage at <12 weeks in the progesterone + dydrogesterone versus progesterone group (3.4% versus 6.6%; RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.32-0.83; P = 0.009). Birth weight of both singletons (2971.0 ± 628.4 versus 3118.8 ± 559.2 g; P = 0.004) and twins (2175.5 ± 494.8 versus 2494.2 ± 584.7; P = 0.002) was significantly lower in the progesterone plus dydrogesterone versus progesterone group. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The main limitations of the study were the open-label design and the non-randomized nature of the sequential administration of study treatments. However, our systematic comparison of the two strategies was able to be performed much more rapidly than a conventional randomized controlled trial. In addition, the single ethnicity population limits external generalizability. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our findings study suggest a role for oral dydrogesterone in addition to vaginal progesterone as luteal phase support in FET cycles to reduce the miscarriage rate and improve the live birth rate. Carefully planned prospective cohort studies with limited bias could be used as an alternative to randomized controlled clinical trials to inform clinical practice. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study received no external funding. LNV has received speaker and conference fees from Merck, grant, speaker and conference fees from Merck Sharpe and Dohme, and speaker, conference and scientific board fees from Ferring; TMH has received speaker fees from Merck, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Ferring; R.J.N. has received scientific board fees from Ferring and receives grant funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia; BWM has acted as a paid consultant to Merck, ObsEva and Guerbet, and is the recipient of grant money from an NHMRC Investigator Grant. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT0399876.

In-vitro maturation versus IVF: a cost-effectiveness analysis.

RESEARCH QUESTION: How do costs and effects of in-vitro maturation (IVM) compare to IVF in women with a high antral follicle count (AFC)? DESIGN: This cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) was based on data of a previous retrospective cohort study at IVFMD, My Duc Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. Between July 2015 and December 2017, 608 women underwent IVM and 311 women IVF. The effectiveness measure for the CEA was cumulative live birth rate (LBR) after one completed cycle including subsequent cryo-cycles within 12 months of inclusion. Data were collected on resource use related to treatment, medication and pregnancy from the case report forms. The mean costs and effects, average cost differences and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated using non-parametric bootstrap resampling to assess the effect of uncertainty in the estimates. RESULTS: Cumulative LBR after one completed cycle were 239/608 (39.3%) in the IVM group versus 155/311 (49.8%) in the IVF group (adjusted odds ratio 0.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.30-0.89). Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) did not occur in the IVM group versus 11/311 (3.5%) in the IVF group. The mean costs per couple were €4300 (95% CI €1371-18,798) for IVM and €6493 (95% CI €2204-20,136) for IVF. The ICER per additional live birth with IVF was €20,144 (95% CI €9116-50,418). Results were robust over a wide range of assumptions. CONCLUSIONS: IVM is less expensive than IVF in women with a high AFC undergoing treatment with assisted reproductive technology, while leading to a slightly lower effectiveness in terms of cumulative LBR.

Endocrine Requirements for Oocyte Maturation Following hCG, GnRH Agonist, and Kisspeptin During IVF Treatment.

Objective: The maturation of oocytes to acquire competence for fertilization is critical to the success of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. It requires LH-like exposure, provided by either human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), or gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa). More recently, the hypothalamic stimulator, kisspeptin, was used to mature oocytes. Herein, we examine the relationship between the endocrine changes following these agents and oocyte maturation. Design: Retrospective cohort study. Methods: Prospectively collected hormonal data from 499 research IVF cycles triggered with either hCG, GnRHa, or kisspeptin were evaluated. Results: HCG-levels (121 iU/L) peaked at 24 h following hCG, whereas LH-levels peaked at ~4 h following GnRHa (140 iU/L), or kisspeptin (41 iU/L). HCG-levels were negatively associated with body-weight, whereas LH rises following GnRHa and kisspeptin were positively predicted by pre-trigger LH values. The odds of achieving the median mature oocyte yield for each trigger were increased by hCG/LH level. Progesterone rise during oocyte maturation occurred precipitously following each trigger and strongly predicted the number of mature oocytes retrieved. Progesterone rise was positively associated with the hCG-level following hCG trigger, but negatively with LH rise following all three triggers. The rise in progesterone per mature oocyte at 12 h was greater following GnRHa than following hCG or kisspeptin triggers. Conclusion: The endocrine response during oocyte maturation significantly differed by each trigger. Counter-intuitively, progesterone rise during oocyte maturation was negatively associated with LH rise, even when accounting for the number of mature oocytes retrieved. These data expand our understanding of the endocrine changes during oocyte maturation and inform the design of future precision-triggering protocols.

In-vitro maturation of oocytes versus conventional IVF in women with infertility and a high antral follicle count: a randomized non-inferiority controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is one cycle of IVM non-inferior to one cycle of conventional in IVF with respect to live birth rates in women with high antral follicle counts (AFCs)? SUMMARY ANSWER: We could not demonstrate non-inferiority of IVM compared with IVF. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IVF with ovarian hyperstimulation has limitations in some subgroups of women at high risk of ovarian stimulation, such as those with polycystic ovary syndrome. IVM is an alternative ART for these women. IVM may be a feasible alternative to IVF in women with a high AFC, but there is a lack of data from randomized clinical trials comparing IVM with IVF in women at high risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This single-center, randomized, controlled non-inferiority trial was conducted at an academic infertility center in Vietnam from January 2018 to April 2019. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In total, 546 women with an indication for ART and a high AFC (≥24 follicles in both ovaries) were randomized to the IVM (n = 273) group or the IVF (n = 273) group; each underwent one cycle of IVM with a prematuration step versus one cycle of IVF using a standard gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist triggering. The primary endpoint was live birth rate after the first embryo transfer. The non-inferiority margin for IVM versus IVF was -10%. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Live birth after the first embryo transfer occurred in 96 women (35.2%) in the IVM group and 118 women (43.2%) in the IVF group (absolute risk difference -8.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -16.6%, 0.5%). Cumulative ongoing pregnancy rates at 12 months after randomization were 44.0% in the IVM group and 62.6% in the IVF group (absolute risk difference -18.7%; 95% CI -27.3%, -10.1%). Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome did not occur in the IVM group, versus two cases in the IVF group. There were no statistically significant differences between the IVM and IVF groups with respect to the occurrence of pregnancy complications, obstetric and perinatal complications, preterm delivery, birth weight and neonatal complications. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The main limitation of the study was its open-label design. In addition, the findings are only applicable to IVM conducted using the prematuration step protocol used in this study. Finally, the single ethnicity population limits the external generalizability of the findings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our randomized clinical trial compares live birth rates after IVM and IVF. Although IVM is a viable and safe alternative to IVF that may be suitable for some women seeking a mild ART approach, the current study findings approach inferiority for IVM compared with IVF when cumulative outcomes are considered. Future research should incorporate multiple cycles of IVM in the study design to estimate cumulative fertility outcomes and better inform clinical decision-making. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was partly supported by Ferring grant number 000323 and funded by the Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED) and by the Fund for Research Flanders (FWO). LNV has received speaker and conference fees from Merck, grant, speaker and conference fees from Merck Sharpe and Dohme, and speaker, conference and scientific board fees from Ferring; TMH has received speaker fees from Merck, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Ferring; RJN has received conference and scientific board fees from Ferring, is a minor shareholder in an IVF company, and receives grant funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia; BWM has acted as a paid consultant to Merck, ObsEva and Guerbet, and is the recipient of grant money from an NHMRC Investigator Grant; RBG reports grants and fellowships from the NHMRC of Australia; JS reports lecture fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Biomérieux, Besins Female Healthcare and Merck, grants from Fund for Research Flanders (FWO), and is co-inventor on granted patents on CAPA-IVM methodology in the US (US10392601B2) and Europe (EP3234112B1); TDP, VQD, VNAH, NHG, AHL, THP and RW have no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03405701 (www.clinicaltrials.gov). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 16 January 2018. DATE OF FIRST PATENT'S ENROLMENT: 25 January 2018.