Aneuploidy in oocytes from women of advanced maternal age: analysis of the causal meiotic errors and impact on embryo development.

STUDY QUESTION: In oocytes of advanced maternal age (AMA) women, what are the mechanisms leading to aneuploidy and what is the association of aneuploidy with embryo development? SUMMARY ANSWER: Known chromosome segregation errors such as precocious separation of sister chromatids explained 90.4% of abnormal chromosome copy numbers in polar bodies (PBs), underlying impaired embryo development. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Meiotic chromosomal aneuploidies in oocytes correlate with AMA (>35 years) and can affect over half of oocytes in this age group. This underlies the rationale for PB biopsy as a form of early preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A), as performed in the 'ESHRE STudy into the Evaluation of oocyte Euploidy by Microarray analysis' (ESTEEM) randomized controlled trial (RCT). So far, chromosome analysis of oocytes and PBs has shown that precocious separation of sister chromatids (PSSC), Meiosis II (MII) non-disjunction (ND), and reverse segregation (RS) are the main mechanisms leading to aneuploidy in oocytes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Data were sourced from the ESTEEM study, a multicentre RCT from seven European centres to assess the clinical utility of PGT-A on PBs using array comparative genomic hybridization (aCGH) in patients of AMA (36-40 years). This included data on the chromosome complement in PB pairs (PGT-A group), and on embryo morphology in a subset of embryos, up to Day 6 post-insemination, from both the intervention (PB biopsy and PGT-A) and control groups. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: ESTEEM recruited 396 AMA patients: 205 in the intervention group and 191 in the control group. Complete genetic data from 693 PB pairs were analysed. Additionally, the morphology from 1034 embryos generated from fertilized oocytes (two pronuclei) in the PB biopsy group and 1082 in the control group were used for statistical analysis. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Overall, 461/693 PB pairs showed abnormal segregation in 1162/10 810 chromosomes. The main observed abnormal segregations were compatible with PSSC in Meiosis I (MI) (n = 568/1162; 48.9%), ND of chromatids in MII or RS (n = 417/1162; 35.9%), and less frequently ND in MI (n = 65/1162; 5.6%). For 112 chromosomes (112/1162; 9.6%), we observed a chromosome copy number in the first PB (PB1) and second PB (PB2) that is not explained by any of the known mechanisms causing aneuploidy in oocytes. We observed that embryos in the PGT-A arm of the RCT did not have a significantly different morphology between 2 and 6 days post-insemination compared to the control group, indicating that PB biopsy did not affect embryo quality. Following age-adjusted multilevel mixed-effect ordinal logistic regression models performed for each embryo evaluation day, aneuploidy was associated with a decrease in embryo quality on Day 3 (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.62, 95% CI 0.43-0.90), Day 4 (aOR 0.15, 95% CI 0.06-0.39), and Day 5 (aOR 0.28, 95% CI 0.14-0.58). LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION: RS cannot be distinguished from normal segregation or MII ND using aCGH. The observed segregations were based on the detected copy number of PB1 and PB2 only and were not confirmed by the analysis of embryos. The embryo morphology assessment was static and single observer. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our finding of frequent unexplained chromosome copy numbers in PBs indicates that our knowledge of the mechanisms causing aneuploidy in oocytes is incomplete. It challenges the dogma that aneuploidy in oocytes is exclusively caused by mis-segregation of chromosomes during MI and MII. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Data were mined from a study funded by ESHRE. Illumina provided microarrays and other consumables necessary for aCGH testing of PBs. None of the authors have competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Data were mined from the ESTEEM study (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT01532284).

The HERA (Hyper-response Risk Assessment) Delphi consensus for the management of hyper-responders in in vitro fertilization.

PURPOSE: To provide agreed-upon guidelines on the management of a hyper-responsive patient undergoing ovarian stimulation (OS) METHODS: A literature search was performed regarding the management of hyper-response to OS for assisted reproductive technology. A scientific committee consisting of 4 experts discussed, amended, and selected the final statements. A priori, it was decided that consensus would be reached when ≥66% of the participants agreed, and ≤3 rounds would be used to obtain this consensus. A total of 28/31 experts responded (selected for global coverage), anonymous to each other. RESULTS: A total of 26/28 statements reached consensus. The most relevant are summarized here. The target number of oocytes to be collected in a stimulation cycle for IVF in an anticipated hyper-responder is 15-19 (89.3% consensus). For a potential hyper-responder, it is preferable to achieve a hyper-response and freeze all than aim for a fresh transfer (71.4% consensus). GnRH agonists should be avoided for pituitary suppression in anticipated hyper-responders performing IVF (96.4% consensus). The preferred starting dose in the first IVF stimulation cycle of an anticipated hyper-responder of average weight is 150 IU/day (82.1% consensus). ICoasting in order to decrease the risk of OHSS should not be used (89.7% consensus). Metformin should be added before/during ovarian stimulation to anticipated hyper-responders only if the patient has PCOS and is insulin resistant (82.1% consensus). In the case of a hyper-response, a dopaminergic agent should be used only if hCG will be used as a trigger (including dual/double trigger) with or without a fresh transfer (67.9% consensus). After using a GnRH agonist trigger due to a perceived risk of OHSS, luteal phase rescue with hCG and an attempt of a fresh transfer is discouraged regardless of the number of oocytes collected (72.4% consensus). The choice of the FET protocol is not influenced by the fact that the patient is a hyper-responder (82.8% consensus). In the cases of freeze all due to OHSS risk, a FET cycle can be performed in the immediate first menstrual cycle (92.9% consensus). CONCLUSION: These guidelines for the management of hyper-response can be useful for tailoring patient care and for harmonizing future research.

Evidence-based guideline: unexplained infertility†.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the recommended management for couples presenting with unexplained infertility (UI), based on the best available evidence in the literature? SUMMARY ANSWER: The evidence-based guideline on UI makes 52 recommendations on the definition, diagnosis, and treatment of UI. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: UI is diagnosed in the absence of any abnormalities of the female and male reproductive systems after 'standard' investigations. However, a consensual standardization of the diagnostic work-up is still lacking. The management of UI is traditionally empirical. The efficacy, safety, costs, and risks of treatment options have not been subjected to robust evaluation. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for ESHRE guidelines. Following formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches, and assessments were undertaken. Papers written in English and published up to 24 October 2022 were evaluated. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Based on the available evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline development group (GDG). Following stakeholder review of an initial draft, the final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: This guideline aims to help clinicians provide the best care for couples with UI. As UI is a diagnosis of exclusion, the guideline outlined the basic diagnostic procedures that couples should/could undergo during an infertility work-up, and explored the need for additional tests. The first-line treatment for couples with UI was deemed to be IUI in combination with ovarian stimulation. The place of additional and alternative options for treatment of UI was also evaluated. The GDG made 52 recommendations on diagnosis and treatment for couples with UI. The GDG formulated 40 evidence-based recommendations-of which 29 were formulated as strong recommendations and 11 as weak-10 good practice points and two research only recommendations. Of the evidence-based recommendations, none were supported by high-quality evidence, one by moderate-quality evidence, nine by low-quality evidence, and 31 by very low-quality evidence. To support future research in UI, a list of research recommendations was provided. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Most additional diagnostic tests and interventions in couples with UI have not been subjected to robust evaluation. For a large proportion of these tests and treatments, evidence was very limited and of very low quality. More evidence is required, and the results of future studies may result in the current recommendations being revised. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in the care of couples with UI, based on the best evidence currently available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in the field. The full guideline and a patient leaflet are available in www.eshre.eu/guideline/UI. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The guideline was developed by ESHRE, who funded the guideline meetings, literature searches, and dissemination of the guideline in collaboration with the Monash University led Australian NHMRC Centre of Research Excellence in Women's Health in Reproductive Life (CREWHIRL). The guideline group members did not receive any financial incentives; all work was provided voluntarily. D.R. reports honoraria from IBSA and Novo Nordisk. B.A. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Gedeon Richter, Organon and Intas Pharma; is part of the advisory board for Organon Turkey and president of the Turkish Society of Reproductive Medicine. S.B. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Organon, Ferring, the Ostetric and Gynaecological Society of Singapore and the Taiwanese Society for Reproductive Medicine; editor and contributing author, Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG, Cambridge University Press; is part of the METAFOR and CAPE trials data monitoring committee. E.B. reports research grants from Roche diagnostics, Gedeon Richter and IBSA; speaker's fees from Merck, Ferring, MSD, Roche Diagnostics, Gedeon Richter, IBSA; E.B. is also a part of an Advisory Board of Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD, Roche Diagnostics, IBSA, Merck, Abbott and Gedeon Richter. M.M. reports consulting fees from Mojo Fertility Ltd. R.J.N. reports research grant from Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC); consulting fees from Flinders Fertility Adelaide, VinMec Hospital Hanoi Vietnam; speaker's fees from Merck Australia, Cadilla Pharma India, Ferring Australia; chair clinical advisory committee Westmead Fertility and research institute MyDuc Hospital Vietnam. T.P. is a part of the Research Council of Finland and reports research grants from Roche Diagnostics, Novo Nordics and Sigrid Juselius foundation; consulting fees from Roche Diagnostics and organon; speaker's fees from Gedeon Richter, Roche, Exeltis, Organon, Ferring and Korento patient organization; is a part of NFOG, AE-PCOS society and several Finnish associations. S.S.R. reports research grants from Roche Diagnostics, Organon, Theramex; consulting fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD and Organon; speaker's fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, MSD/Organon, Besins, Theramex, Gedeon Richter; travel support from Gedeon Richter; S.S.R. is part of the Data Safety Monitoring Board of TTRANSPORT and deputy of the ESHRE Special Interest Group on Safety and Quality in ART; stock or stock options from IVI Lisboa, Clínica de Reprodução assistida Lda; equipment/medical writing/gifts from Roche Diagnostics and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. S.K.S. reports speakers' fees from Merck, Ferring, MSD, Pharmasure. HRV reports consulting and travel fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. The other authors have nothing to disclose. DISCLAIMER: This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.).

The HERA (Hyper-response Risk Assessment) Delphi consensus definition of hyper-responders for in-vitro fertilization.

PURPOSE: To provide an agreed upon definition of hyper-response for women undergoing ovarian stimulation (OS)? METHODS: A literature search was performed regarding hyper-response to ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology. A scientific committee consisting of 5 experts discussed, amended, and selected the final statements in the questionnaire for the first round of the Delphi consensus. The questionnaire was distributed to 31 experts, 22 of whom responded (with representation selected for global coverage), each anonymous to the others. A priori, it was decided that consensus would be reached when ≥ 66% of the participants agreed and ≤ 3 rounds would be used to obtain this consensus. RESULTS: 17/18 statements reached consensus. The most relevant are summarized here. (I) Definition of a hyper-response: Collection of ≥ 15 oocytes is characterized as a hyper-response (72.7% agreement). OHSS is not relevant for the definition of hyper-response if the number of collected oocytes is above a threshold (≥ 15) (77.3% agreement). The most important factor in defining a hyper-response during stimulation is the number of follicles ≥ 10 mm in mean diameter (86.4% agreement). (II) Risk factors for hyper-response: AMH values (95.5% agreement), AFC (95.5% agreement), patient's age (77.3% agreement) but not ovarian volume (72.7% agreement). In a patient without previous ovarian stimulation, the most important risk factor for a hyper-response is the antral follicular count (AFC) (68.2% agreement). In a patient without previous ovarian stimulation, when AMH and AFC are discordant, one suggesting a hyper-response and the other not, AFC is the more reliable marker (68.2% agreement). The lowest serum AMH value that would place one at risk for a hyper-response is ≥ 2 ng/ml (14.3 pmol/L) (72.7% agreement). The lowest AFC that would place one at risk for a hyper-response is ≥ 18 (81.8% agreement). Women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) as per Rotterdam criteria are at a higher risk of hyper-response than women without PCOS with equivalent follicle counts and gonadotropin doses during ovarian stimulation for IVF (86.4% agreement). No consensus was reached regarding the number of growing follicles ≥ 10 mm that would define a hyper-response. CONCLUSION: The definition of hyper-response and its risk factors can be useful for harmonizing research, improving understanding of the subject, and tailoring patient care.

Usability, accuracy, and cost-effectiveness of a medical software for early pregnancies: a retrospective study.

STUDY QUESTION: Can early pregnancies be accurately and cost-effectively diagnosed and managed using a new medical computerized tool? SUMMARY ANSWER: Compared to the standard clinical approach, retrospective implementation of the new medical software in a gynaecological emergency unit was correlated with more accurate diagnosis and more cost-effective management. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Early pregnancy complications are responsible for a large percentage of consultations, mostly in emergency units, with guidelines becoming complex and poorly known/misunderstood by practitioners. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A total of 780 gynaecological emergency consultations (446 patients), recorded between November 2018 and June 2019 in a tertiary university hospital, were retrospectively encoded in a new medical computerized tool. The inclusion criteria were a positive hCG test result, ultrasonographical visualization of gestational sac, and/or embryo corresponding to a gestational age of 14 weeks or less. Diagnosis and management suggested by the new computerized tool are named eDiagnoses, while those provided by a gynaecologist member of the emergency department staff are called medDiagnoses. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Usability was the primary endpoint, with accuracy and cost reduction, respectively, as secondary and tertiary endpoints. Identical eDiagnoses/medDiagnoses were considered as accurate. During follow-up visits, if the updated eDiagnoses and medDiagnoses became both identical to a previously discrepant eDiagnosis or medDiagnosis, this previous eDiagnosis or medDiagnosis was also considered as correct. Four double-blinded experts reviewed persistent discrepancies, determining the accurate diagnoses. eDiagnoses/medDiagnoses accuracies were compared using McNemar's Chi square test, sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Only 1 (0.1%) from 780 registered medical records lacked data for full encoding. Out of the 779 remaining consultations, 675 eDiagnoses were identical to the medDiagnoses (86.6%) and 104 were discrepant (13.4%). From these 104, 60 reached an agreement during follow-up consultations, with 59 medDiagnoses ultimately changing into the initial eDiagnoses (98%) and only one discrepant eDiagnosis turning later into the initial medDiagnosis (2%). Finally, 24 remained discrepant at all subsequent checks and 20 were not re-evaluated. Out of these 44, the majority of experts agreed on 38 eDiagnoses (86%) and 5 medDiagnoses (11%, including four twin pregnancies whose twinness was the only discrepancy). No majority was reached for one discrepant eDiagnosis/medDiagnosis (2%). In total, the accuracy of eDiagnoses was 99.1% (675 + 59 + 38 = 772 eDiagnoses out of 779), versus 87.4% (675 + 1 + 5 = 681) for medDiagnoses (P < 0.0001). Calculating all basic costs of extra consultations, extra-medications, extra-surgeries, and extra-hospitalizations induced by incorrect medDiagnoses versus eDiagnoses, the new medical computerized tool would have saved 3623.75 Euros per month. Retrospectively, the medical computerized tool was usable in almost all the recorded cases (99.9%), globally more accurate (99.1% versus 87.4%), and for all diagnoses except twinning reports, and it was more cost-effective than the standard clinical approach. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The retrospective study design is a limitation. Some observed improvements with the medical software could derive from the encoding by a rested and/or more experienced physician who had a better ultrasound interpretation. This software cannot replace clinical and ultrasonographical skills but may improve the compliance to published guidelines. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This medical computerized tool is improving. A new version considers diagnosis and management of multiple pregnancies with their specificities (potentially multiple locations, chorioamnionicity). Prospective evaluations will be required. Further developmental steps are planned, including software incorporation into ultrasound devices and integration of previously published predictive/prognostic factors (e.g. serum progesterone, corpus luteum scoring). STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funding was obtained for this study. F.B. and D.G. created the new medical software. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03993015.

Is a freeze-all policy the optimal solution to circumvent the effect of late follicular elevated progesterone? A multicentric matched-control retrospective study analysing cumulative live birth rate in 942 non-elective freeze-all cycles.

STUDY QUESTION: Is late follicular elevated progesterone (LFEP) in the fresh cycle hindering cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) when a freeze only strategy is applied? SUMMARY ANSWER: LFEP in the fresh cycle does not affect the CLBR of the frozen transfers in a freeze only approach, nor the embryo freezing rate. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Ovarian stimulation promotes the production of progesterone (P) which has been demonstrated to have a deleterious effect on IVF outcomes. While there is robust evidence that this elevation produces impaired endometrial receptivity, the impact on embryo quality remains a matter of debate. In particular, previous studies have shown that LFEP is associated with a hindered CLBR. However, most clinical insight on the effect of progesterone on embryo quality in terms of CLBRs have focused on embryo transfers performed after the fresh transfer, thus excluding the first embryo of the cohort. To be really informative on the possible detrimental effects of LFEP, evidence should be derived from freeze-all cycles where no fresh embryo transfer is performed in the presence of progesterone elevation, and the entire cohort of embryos is cryopreserved. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This was a matched case-control, multicentre (three centres), retrospective analysis including all GnRH antagonist ICSI cycles in which a freeze all (FA) policy of embryos on day 3/5/6 of embryonic development was applied between 2012 and 2018. A total of 942 patients (471 cases with elevated P and 471 matched controls with normal P values) were included in the analysis. Each patient was included only once. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The sample was divided according to the following P levels on the day of ovulation triggering: <1.50 ng/ml and ≥1.50 ng/ml. The matching of the controls was performed according to age (±1 year) and number of oocytes retrieved (±10%). The main outcome was CLBR defined as a live-born delivery after 24 weeks of gestation. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The baseline characteristics of the two groups were similar. Estradiol levels on the day of trigger were significantly higher in the elevated P group. There was no significant difference in terms of fertilisation rate between the two groups. The elevated P group had significantly more cleavage stage frozen embryos compared to the normal P group while the total number of cryopreserved blastocyst stage embryos was the same. The CLBR did not differ between the two study groups (29.3% and 28.2% in the normal versus LFEP respectively, P = 0.773), also following confounder adjustment using multivariable GEE regression analysis (accounting for age at oocyte retrieval, total dose of FSH, progesterone levels on the day of ovulation trigger, day of freezing, at least one top-quality embryo transferred and number of previous IVF cycles, as the independent variables). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This is a multicentre observational study based on a retrospective data analysis. Better extrapolation of the results could be validated by performing a prospective analysis. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first study demonstrating that LFEP in the fresh cycle does not hinder CLBR of the subsequent frozen cycles in a FA approach. Thus, a FA strategy circumvents the issue of elevated P in the late follicular phase. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No funding was received for this study. Throughout the study period and manuscript preparation, authors were supported by departmental funds from: Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Brussels, Belgium; Infertility Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy; Centro Scienze Natalità, San Raffaele Scientific Institute, Milan, Italy; and IVI-RMA, Lisbon, Portugal. E.S. has competing interests with Ferring, Merck-Serono, Theramex and Gedeon-Richter outside the submitted work. E.P. reports grants from Ferring, grants and personal fees from Merck-Serono, grants and personal fees from MSD and grants from IBSA outside the submitted work. All the other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Parameters of poor prognosis in preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the likelihood of success of a single cycle of preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic disorders (PGT-M), measured as the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) and based on various patient demographics? SUMMARY ANSWER: For all women aged ≤40 years, the CLBR was at least 10% when the number of oocytes was ≥7 (range 10-30%) or was at least 5% when the number of oocytes was ≥3 (range 5-17%). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The number of oocytes is significantly associated with the number of embryos for genetic testing and the clinical outcome in PGT-M. Embryos diagnosed as affected or embryos that remain without diagnosis cannot be used for embryo transfer. The size of the group of embryos non-suitable for transfer varies between 25% and 81%, depending on the indication. Thus, PGT-M is more likely to be more severely impacted by suboptimal ovarian response, poor fertilization and suboptimal embryo development than conventional IVF/ICSI schemes without PGT. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This was a single-centre retrospective comparative cohort study, of cycles between January 2011 and December 2015. A total number of 2265 PGT-M cycles were compared to 2833 conventional ICSI cycles. The principal aim of our study was the identification of the parameters of poor CLBR in couples undergoing PGT-M using multiplex short tandem repeat (STR) markers on blastomere biopsy DNA. The secondary aim was to compare the parameters of poor CLBR of the PGT-M population to those of couples undergoing ICSI without PGT. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The baseline characteristics of the PGT-M group were compared to the conventional ICSI group. A multiple regression analysis was applied to account for the following potential confounding factors: female age, number of previous ART cycles, number of oocytes/suitable embryos for transfer and dosage of gonadotrophins used for ovarian stimulation. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The PGT-M group was younger (female age 32.0 vs 34.5 years), had a higher number of previous ART cycles (1.1 vs 0.9 cycles) and used more gonadotrophins (2367 vs 1984 IU). Per cycle, the PGT-M group had more retrieved oocytes (11.8 vs 8.3 oocytes), fewer suitable embryos for transfer (1.7 vs 2.8 embryos) and a lower CLBR (29.4% vs 35.0%). Multiple regression analysis showed that the CLBR in the PGT-M group was significantly influenced by female age, the number of previous ART cycles, the number of oocytes and the dose of ovarian stimulation. In both groups, the predicted CLBR increased with increasing numbers of oocytes and suitable embryos. At least two retrieved oocytes or one embryo per single PGT-M cycle could confer an estimated CLBR above 10%. By assessing female age and the number of retrieved oocytes together, it was shown that for all women aged ≤40 years, the predicted CLBR per single PGT-M cycle was ≥10% when the number of oocytes was ≥7 or was ≥5% when the number of oocytes was ≥3. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Despite the large sample size, the findings are confined by limited confounder adjustment and the lack of specific PGT-M comparators. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study aimed to describe the likelihood of success of PGT-M treatment, measured as CLBR, based on various patient demographics. In a PGT-M program, couples need to be informed of the prognosis more specifically when it is futile. The table of predicted CLBRs presented in this study is a useful tool in counselling PGT-M couples for making reproductive choices. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No funding was required and there are no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Expanding the time interval between ovulation triggering and oocyte injection: does it affect the embryological and clinical outcome?

STUDY QUESTION: Is the time interval between ovulation triggering and oocyte denudation/injection associated with embryological and clinical outcome after ICSI? SUMMARY ANSWER: Expanding the time interval between ovulation triggering and oocyte denudation/injection is not associated with any clinically relevant impact on embryological or clinical outcome. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The optimal time interval between ovulation triggering and insemination/injection appears to be 38-39 h and most authors agree that an interval of >41 h has a negative influence on embryological and clinical pregnancy outcomes. However, in ART centres with a heavy workload, respecting these exact time intervals is frequently challenging. Therefore, we questioned to what extent a wider time interval between ovulation triggering and oocyte injection would affect embryological and clinical outcome in ICSI cycles. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A single-centre retrospective cohort analysis was performed including 8811 ICSI cycles from 2010 until 2015. Regarding the time interval between ovulation triggering and oocyte injection, seven categories were considered: <36 h, 36 h, 37 h, 38 h, 39 h, 40 h and ≥41 h. In all cases, denudation was performed immediately prior to injection. The main outcome measures were oocyte maturation, fertilization and embryo utilization rate (embryos adequate for transfer or cryopreservation) per fertilized oocyte. Clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and live birth rate (LBR) were considered as secondary outcomes. Utilization rate, CPR and LBR were subdivided into two groups according to the day of embryo transfer: Day 3 or Day 5. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: During the study period, oocyte retrieval was routinely performed 36 h post-triggering except in the <36 h group. The interval of <36 h occurred only if OR was carried out before the planned 36 h trigger interval and was followed by immediate injection. Only cycles with fresh autologous gametes were included. The exclusion criteria were: injection with testicular/epididymal sperm, managed natural cycles, conventional IVF, combined conventional IVF/ICSI, preimplantation genetic testing and IVM cycles. Female age, number of oocytes, pre-preparation sperm concentration, post-preparation sperm concentration and motility, day of transfer, number of embryos transferred and quality of the best embryo transferred were identified as potential confounders. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Among the seven interval groups, adjusted mean maturation rates ranged from 76.4% to 83.2% and differed significantly (P < 0.001). Similarly, there was a significant difference in adjusted mean fertilization rates (range 69.2-79.3%; P < 0.001). The adjusted maturation and fertilization rates were significantly higher when denudation/injection was performed >41 h post-triggering compared to 38 h post-triggering (reference group). Oocyte denudation/injection at <36 h post-triggering had no significant effect on maturation, fertilization or embryo utilization rates compared to injection at 38 h. No effect of the time interval was observed on CPRs and LBRs, after adjusting for potential confounders. When oocyte injection was performed before 36 h the adjusted analysis showed that compared to 38 h after ovulation triggering the chance of having a live birth tends to be lower although the difference was not statistically significant (odds ratio 0.533, 95% CI: 0.252-1.126; P = 0.099). Injection ≥41 h post-triggering did not affect LBR compared to injection at 38 h post-ovulation. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: As this is a large retrospective study, the influence of uncontrolled variables cannot be excluded. These results should not be extrapolated to other ART procedures such as IVM, conventional IVF or injection with testicular/epididymal sperm. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our results indicate that the optimal injection time window may be less stringent than previously thought as both embryological and clinical outcome parameters were not significantly affected in our analysis. This is reassuring for busy ART centres that might not always be able to follow strict time intervals. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No funding. The authors declare no conflict of interest related to the present study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Early pregnancy loss in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome after IVM versus standard ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI.

STUDY QUESTION: Is the incidence of early pregnancy loss (EPL) in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) higher after IVM of oocytes than after ovarian stimulation (OS) for IVF/ICSI? SUMMARY ANSWER: Women with PCOS who are pregnant after fresh embryo transfer have a higher probability of EPL following IVM, but after frozen embryo transfer (FET), no significant difference in the incidence of EPL was observed following IVM compared to OS. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: There is conflicting evidence in the current literature with regard to the risk of EPL after IVM of oocytes when compared with OS. Because of the limited sample size in previous studies, the use of different IVM systems and the possible bias introduced by patient characteristics and treatment type, firm conclusions cannot be drawn. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This was a retrospective cohort study evaluating 800 women, with a diagnosis of infertility and PCOS as defined by Rotterdam criteria, who had a first positive pregnancy test after fresh or FET following IVM or OS between January 2010 and December 2017 in a tertiary care academic medical centre. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Pregnancies after non-hCG triggered IVM following a short course of highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin were compared with those after conventional OS. The primary outcome was EPL, defined as a spontaneous pregnancy loss before 10 weeks of gestation. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: In total, 329 patients with a positive pregnancy test after IVM and 471 patients with a positive pregnancy test after OS were included. Women who were pregnant after IVM were younger (28.6 ± 3.4 years vs 29.3 ± 3.6 years, P = 0.005) and had higher serum anti-Mullerian hormone levels (11.5 ± 8.1 ng/ml vs 7.2 ± 4.1 ng/ml, P < 0.001) compared to those who were pregnant after OS. The distribution of PCOS phenotypes was significantly different among women in the IVM group compared to those in the OS group and women who were pregnant after OS had previously suffered EPL more often (28% vs 17.6%, P = 0.003). EPL was significantly higher after fresh embryo transfer following IVM compared to OS (57/122 (46.7%) vs 53/305 (17.4%), P < 0.001), while the results were comparable after FET (63/207 (30.4%) vs 60/166 (36.1%), respectively, P = 0.24). In the multivariate logistic regression analysis evaluating fresh embryo transfer cycles, IVM was the only independent factor (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 4.24, 95% CI 2.44-7.37, P < 0.001)) significantly associated with increased odds of EPL. On the other hand, when the same model was applied to FET cycles, the type of treatment (IVM vs OS) was not significantly associated with EPL (aOR 0.73, 95% CI 0.43-1.25, P = 0.25). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The current data are limited by the retrospective nature of the study and the potential of bias due to unmeasured confounders. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The increased risk of EPL after fresh embryo transfer following IVM may point towards inadequate endometrial development in IVM cycles. Adopting a freeze-all strategy after IVM seems more appropriate. Future studies are needed to ascertain the underlying cause of this observation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The Clinical IVM research has been supported by research grants from Cook Medical and Besins Healthcare. All authors declared no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

To trigger or not to trigger ovulation in a natural cycle for frozen embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Is the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) following a frozen embryo transfer (FET) in a natural cycle (NC) higher after spontaneous ovulation than after triggered ovulation [natural cycle frozen embryo transfer (NC-FET) versus modified NC-FET]? SUMMARY ANSWER: The CPR did not vary significantly between the two FET preparation protocols. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Although the use of FET is continuously increasing, the most optimal endometrial preparation protocol is still under debate. For transfer in the NC specifically, conflicting results have been reported in terms of the outcome following spontaneous or triggered ovulation. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In a tertiary hospital setting, subjects were randomized with a 1:1 allocation into two groups between January 2014 and January 2019. Patients in group A underwent an NC-FET, while in group B, a modified NC-FET was performed with a subcutaneous hCG injection to trigger ovulation. In neither group was additional luteal phase support administered. All embryos were vitrified-warmed on Day 3 and transferred on Day 4 of embryonic development. The primary outcome was CPR at 7 weeks. All patients were followed further until 10 weeks of gestation when the ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) was defined by the observation of foetal cardiac activity on ultrasound scan. Other secondary outcomes included biochemical pregnancy rate, early pregnancy loss and the number of visits, blood samples and ultrasonographic examinations prior to FET. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A total of 260 patients (130 per study arm) were randomized, of whom 12 withdrew consent after study arm allocation. A total of 3 women conceived spontaneously before initiating the study cycle and 16 did not start for personal or medical reasons. Of the 229 actually commencing monitoring for the study FET cycle, 7 patients needed to be switched to a hormonal replacement treatment protocol due to the absence of follicular development, 12 had no embryo available for transfer after warming and 37 had a spontaneous LH surge before the ovulation trigger could be administered, although they were allocated to group B. Given the above, an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis was performed taking into account 248 patients (125 in group A and 123 in group B), as well as a per protocol (PP) analysis on a subset of 173 patients (110 in group A and 63 in group B). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Demographic features were evenly distributed between the study groups, as were the relevant fresh and frozen ET cycle characteristics. According to the ITT analysis, the CPR and OPR in group A (33.6% and 27.2%, respectively) and group B (29.3% and 24.4%, respectively) did not vary significantly [relative risk (RR) 0.87, 95% CI (0.60;1.26), P = 0.46 and RR 0.90, 95% CI (0.59;1.37), P = 0.61, respectively]. Biochemical pregnancy rate and early pregnancy loss were also found to be not statistically significantly different between the groups. In contrast, more clinic visits and blood samplings for cycle monitoring were required in the NC-FET group (4.05 ± 1.39) compared with the modified NC-FET group (3.03 ± 1.16, P = <0.001), while the number of ultrasound scans performed were comparable (1.70 ± 0.88 in group A versus 1.62 ± 1.04 in group B). The additional PP analysis was in line with the ITT results: CPR in group A was 36.4% versus 38.1% in group B [RR 1.05, 95% CI (0.70;1.56), P = 0.82]. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The results are limited by the high drop-out rate for the PP analysis in the modified NC-FET group as more than one-third of the subjects allocated to this group ovulated spontaneously before ovulation triggering. Nonetheless, this issue is inherent to routine clinical practice and is an important observation of an event that can only be avoided by performing a very extensive monitoring that limits the practical advantages associated with modified NC-FET. Furthermore, although this is the largest randomized controlled trial (RCT) investigating this specific research question so far, a higher sample size would allow smaller differences in clinical outcome to be detected, since currently they may be left undetected. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This RCT adds new high-quality evidence to the existing controversial literature concerning the performance of NC-FET versus modified NC-FET. Based on our results showing no statistically significant differences in clinical outcomes between the protocols, the treatment choice may be made according to the patient's and treating physician's preferences. However, the modified NC-FET strategy reduces the need for hormonal monitoring and may therefore be considered a more patient-friendly and potentially cost-effective approach. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No specific funding was available for this study. None of the authors have a conflict of interest to declare with regard to this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02145819. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 8 January 2014. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 21 January 2014.

Follicular-phase endometrial scratching: a truncated randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does intentional endometrial injury (scratching) during the follicular phase of ovarian stimulation (OS) increase the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) in ART? SUMMARY ANSWER: CPR did not vary between the endometrial injury and the control group, but the trial was underpowered due to early termination because of a higher clinical miscarriage rate observed in the endometrial injury arm after a prespecified interim analysis. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Intentional endometrial injury has been put forward as an inexpensive clinical tool capable of enhancing endometrial receptivity. However, despite its widespread use, the benefit of endometrial scratching remains controversial, with several recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) being unable to confirm its added value. So far, most research has focused on endometrial scratching during the luteal phase of the cycle preceding the one with embryo transfer (ET), while only a few studies investigated in-cycle injury during the follicular phase of OS. Also, the persistence of a scratch effect in subsequent treatment cycles remains unclear and possible harms have been insufficiently studied. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This RCT was performed in a tertiary hospital setting between 3 April 2014 and 8 October 2017. A total of 200 women (100 per study arm) undergoing IVF/ICSI in a GnRH antagonist suppressed cycle followed by fresh ET were included. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants were randomized with a 1:1 allocation ratio to either undergo a pipelle endometrial biopsy between Days 6 and 8 of OS or to be in the control group.The primary outcome was CPR. Secondary outcomes included biochemical pregnancy rate, live birth rate (LBR), early pregnancy loss (biochemical pregnancy losses and clinical miscarriages), excessive procedure pain/bleeding and cumulative reproductive outcomes within 6 months of the study cycle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The RCT was stopped prematurely by the trial team after the second prespecified interim analysis raised safety concerns, namely a higher clinical miscarriage rate in the intervention group. The intention-to-treat CPR was similar between the biopsy and the control arm (respectively, 44 versus 40%, P = 0.61, risk difference = 3.6 with 95% confidence interval = -10.1;17.3), as was the LBR (respectively, 32 versus 36%, P = 0.52). The incidence of a biochemical pregnancy loss was comparable between both groups (10% in the intervention group versus 15% in the control, P = 0.49), but clinical miscarriages occurred significantly more frequent in the biopsy group (25% versus 8%, P = 0.032). In the intervention group, 3% of the patients experienced excessive procedure pain and 5% bleeding. The cumulative LBR taking into account all conceptions (spontaneous or following ART) within 6 months of randomization was not significantly different between the biopsy and the control group (54% versus 60%, respectively, P = 0.43). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The trial was stopped prematurely due to safety concerns after the inclusion of 200 of the required 360 patients. Not reaching the predefined sample size implies that definite conclusions on the outcome parameters cannot be drawn. Furthermore, the pragmatic design of the study may have limited the detection of specific subgroups of women who may benefit from endometrial scratching. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Intentional endometrial injury during the follicular phase of OS warrants further attention in future research, as it may be harmful. These findings should be taken in consideration together with the growing evidence from other RCTs that scratching may not be beneficial. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by 'Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek' (FWO, Flanders, Belgium, 11M9415N, 1524417N). None of the authors have a conflict of interest to declare with regard to this study.

Single and double embryo transfer provide similar live birth rates in frozen cycles.

Research question: Do live birth rates (LBRs) differ in frozen cycles of women who received single versus double embryo transfer?Design: Retrospective cohort study including women who underwent their first frozen embryo transfer (FET) in a tertiary referral University Hospital between 2009-2014.Results: 3601 patients were included in the analysis with 1936 (53.8%) having a single embryo transfer (SET) and 1665 (46.2%) having a double embryo transfer (DET). Overall, 657/3601 (18.24%) had a live birth. LBR were similar between SET and DET either for cleavage [100/757 (13.1%) versus 153/1032 (14.8%), p = .33] or blastocyst stage FET [256/1179 (21.7%) versus 148/633 (23.4%), p = .4). Ongoing pregnancy rates were comparable between DET and SET [316/1665 (18.9%) versus 359/1936 (18.5%)]. Multiple delivery rates were significantly higher in women with DET compared to SET [53/316 (16.7%) versus 7/359 (1.9%), p < .001]. Multivariate logistic regression analysis allowing adjustment for relevant confounders showed that the number of embryos transferred in the frozen cycle was not related to LBR.Conclusions: This is the largest study providing evidence that both SET and DET may result in similar LBR, albeit multiple pregnancy rates are significantly lower in case of SET. Therefore, SET should be the main strategy in women undergoing FET.

Do we need to measure progesterone in oocyte donation cycles? A retrospective analysis evaluating cumulative live birth rates and embryo quality.

STUDY QUESTION: Does late follicular-phase elevated serum progesterone (LFEP) during ovarian stimulation for oocyte donation have an impact on embryo quality (EQ) and cumulative live birth rate (CLBR)? SUMMARY ANSWER: LFEP does not have an influence on EQ nor CLBR in oocyte donation cycles. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Ovarian stimulation promotes the production of progesterone (P) which, when elevated during the follicular phase, has been demonstrated to have a deleterious effect in autologous fresh IVF outcomes. While there is robust evidence that this elevation results in impaired endometrial receptivity, the impact on EQ remains a matter of debate. The oocyte donation model is an excellent tool to assess the effects of LFEP on EQ from those on endometrium receptivity separately. Previous studies in oocyte donation cycles investigating the influence of elevated P on pregnancy outcomes in oocyte recipients showed conflicting results. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a retrospective analysis including all GnRH antagonist down-regulated cycles for fresh oocyte donation taking place in a tertiary referral university hospital between 2010 and 2017. A total of 397 fresh donor-recipient cycles were included. Each donor was included only once in the analysis and could be associated to a single recipient. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The sample was stratified according to serum P levels of ≤1.5 and >1.5 ng/mL on the day of ovulation triggering. The primary endpoint of the study was the top-quality embryo rate on Day 3, and the secondary outcome measure was CLBR defined as a live-born delivery beyond 24 weeks. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Three hundred ninety-seven fresh oocyte donation cycles were included in the analysis, of which 314 (79%) had a serum P ≤ 1.5 ng/mL and 83 (20.9%) had a serum P > 1.5 ng/mL. The average age of the oocyte donors was 31.4 ± 4.7 and 29.9 ± 4.5 years, respectively, for normal and elevated P (P = 0.017). The mean number of oocytes retrieved was significantly higher in the elevated P group with 16.6 ± 10.6 vs 11.5 ± 6.9 in the P ≤ 1.5 group (P < 0.001).In parallel, the total number of embryos on Day 3, as well as the number of good-quality embryos at this stage, was significantly higher in the elevated P group (6.6 ± 5.6 vs 4.15 ± 3.5 and 8.7 ± 6.3 vs 6.1 ± 4.4; respectively, P < 0.001). However, maturation and fertilization rates did not vary significantly between the two study groups and neither did the top- and good-quality embryo rate and the embryo utilization rate, all evaluated on Day 3 (P = 0.384, P = 0.405 and P = 0.645, respectively). A multivariable regression analysis accounting for P groups, age of the donor, number of retrieved oocytes and top-quality embryo rate as potential confounders showed that LFEP negatively influenced neither the top-quality embryo rate nor the CLBR. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This is an observational study based on a retrospective data analysis. Better extrapolation of the results could be validated by performing a prospective trial. Furthermore, this study was focused on oocyte donation cycles and hence the results cannot be generalized to the entire infertile population. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first study providing evidence that LFEP does not influence CLBR and is adding strong evidence to the existing literature that LFEP does not harm EQ in oocyte donation programs. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: Not applicable.

The proliferative phase endometrium in IVF/ICSI: an in-cycle molecular analysis predictive of the outcome following fresh embryo transfer.

STUDY QUESTION: Does an early proliferative phase endometrial biopsy harvested during ovarian stimulation harbour information predictive of the outcome following fresh embryo transfer (ET) in that same cycle? SUMMARY ANSWER: Transcriptome analysis of the whole-tissue endometrium did not reveal significant differential gene expression (DGE) in relation to the outcome; however, the secretome profile of isolated, cultured and in vitro decidualized endometrial stromal cells (EnSCs) varied significantly between patients who had a live birth compared to those with an implantation failure following fresh ET in the same cycle as the biopsy. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: In the majority of endometrial receptivity research protocols, biopsies are harvested during the window of implantation (WOI). This, however, precludes ET in that same cycle, which is preferable as the endometrium has been shown to adapt over time. Endometrial biopsies taken during ovarian stimulation have been reported not to harm the chances of implantation, and in such biopsies DGE has been observed between women who achieve pregnancy versus those who do not. The impact of the endometrial proliferative phase on human embryo implantation remains unclear, but deserves further attention, especially since in luteal phase endometrial biopsies, a transcriptional signature predictive for repeated implantation failure has been associated with reduced cell proliferation, possibly indicating proliferative phase involvement. Isolation, culture and in vitro decidualization (IVD) of EnSCs is a frequently applied basic research technique to assess endometrial functioning, and a disordered EnSC secretome has previously been linked with failed implantation. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This study was nested in a randomized controlled trial (RCT) investigating the effect of endometrial scratching during the early follicular phase of ovarian stimulation on clinical pregnancy rates after IVF/ICSI. Of the 96 endometrial biopsies available, after eliminating those without fresh ET and after extensive matching in order to minimize the risk of potential confounding, 18 samples were retained to study two clinical groups: nine biopsies of patients with a live birth versus nine biopsies of patients with an implantation failure, both following fresh ET performed in the same cycle as the biopsy. We studied the proliferative endometrium by analysing its transcriptome and by isolating, culturing and decidualizing EnSCs in vitro. We applied this latter technique for the first time on proliferative endometrial biopsies obtained during ovarian stimulation for in-cycle outcome prediction, in an attempt to overcome inter-cycle variability. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: RNA-sequencing was performed for 18 individual whole-tissue endometrial biopsies on an Illumina HiSeq1500 machine. DGE was analysed three times using different approaches (DESeq2, EdgeR and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test, all in R). EnSC isolation and IVD was performed (for 2 and 4 days) for a subset of nine samples, after which media from undifferentiated and decidualized cultures were harvested, stored at -80°C and later assayed for 45 cytokines using a multiplex suspension bead immunoassay. The analysis was performed by partial least squares regression modelling. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: After correction for multiple hypothesis testing, DGE analysis revealed no significant differences between endometrial samples from patients who had a live birth and those with an implantation failure following fresh ET. However secretome analysis after EnSC isolation and culture, showed two distinct clusters that clearly corresponded to the two clinical groups. Upon IVD, the secretome profiles shifted from that of undifferentiated cells but the difference between the two clinical groups remained yet were muted, suggesting convergence of cytokine profiles after decidualization. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Caution is warranted due to the limited sample size of the study and the in vitro nature of the EnSC experiment. Validation on a larger scale is necessary, however, hard to fulfil given the very limited availability of in-cycle proliferative endometrial biopsies outside a RCT setting. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: These data support the hypothesis that the endometrium should be assessed not only during the WOI and that certain endometrial dysfunctionalities can probably be detected early in a cycle by making use of the proliferative phase. This insight opens new horizons for the development of endometrial tests, whether diagnostic or predictive of IVF/ICSI treatment outcome. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek (FWO, Flanders, Belgium, 11M9415N, 1 524 417N), Wetenschappelijk Fonds Willy Gepts (WFWG G160, Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel, Belgium) and the National Medicine Research Council (NMRC/CG/M003/2017, Singapore). There are no conflicts of interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02061228.

Predicting suboptimal oocyte yield following GnRH agonist trigger by measuring serum LH at the start of ovarian stimulation.

STUDY QUESTION: Are the LH levels at the start of ovarian stimulation predictive of suboptimal oocyte yield from GnRH agonist triggering in GnRH antagonist down-regulated cycles? SUMMARY ANSWER: LH levels at the start of ovarian stimulation are an independent predictor of suboptimal oocyte yield following a GnRH agonist trigger. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: A GnRH agonist ovulation trigger may result in an inadequate oocyte yield in a small subset of patients. This failure can range from empty follicle syndrome to the retrieval of much fewer oocytes than expected. Suboptimal response to a GnRH agonist trigger has been defined as the presence of circulating LH levels <15 IU/l 12 h after triggering. It has been shown that patients with immeasurable LH levels on trigger day have an up to 25% risk of suboptimal response. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In this retrospective cohort study, all patients (n = 3334) who received GnRH agonist triggering (using Triptoreline 0.2 mg) for final oocyte maturation undergoing a GnRH antagonist cycle in our centre from 2011 to 2017 were included. The primary outcome of the study was oocyte yield, defined as the ratio between the total number of collected oocytes and the number of follicles with a mean diameter >10 mm prior to GnRH agonist trigger. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The endocrine profile of all patients was studied at initiation as well as at the end of ovarian stimulation. In order to evaluate whether LH levels, not only at the end but also at the start, of ovarian stimulation predicted oocyte yield, we performed multivariable regression analysis adjusting for the following confounding factors: female age, body mass index, oral contraceptives before treatment, basal and trigger day estradiol levels, starting FSH levels, use of highly purified human menopausal gonadotrophin and total gonadotropin dose. Suboptimal response to GnRH agonist trigger was defined as <10th percentile of oocyte yield. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The average age was 31.9 years, and the mean oocyte yield was 89%. The suboptimal response to GnRH agonist trigger cut-off (<10th percentile) was 45%, which was exhibited by 340 patients. Following confounder adjustment, multivariable regression analysis showed that LH levels at the initiation of ovarian stimulation remained an independent predictor of suboptimal response even in the multivariable model (adjusted OR 0.920, 95% CI 0.871-0.971). Patients with immeasurable LH levels at the start of stimulation (<0.1 IU/l) had a 45.2% risk of suboptimal response, while the risk decreased with increasing basal LH levels; baseline circulating LH <0.5 IU/L, <2 IU/L and <5 IU/L were associated with a 39.1%, 25.2% and 13.6% risk, respectively. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The main limitation of the study is its retrospective design. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the largest study of GnRH agonist trigger cycles only, since most of the previous research on the predictive value of basal LH levels was performed in dual trigger cycles. LH values should be measured prior to start of ovarian stimulation. In cases where they are immeasurable, suboptimal response to GnRH agonist trigger can be anticipated, and an individualized approach is warranted. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): There was no funding and no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Obstetric and neonatal outcome of ART in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome: IVM of oocytes versus controlled ovarian stimulation.

STUDY QUESTION: Does IVM of immature oocytes retrieved from small antral follicles in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) have an impact on obstetric and neonatal outcomes compared to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Obstetric and neonatal outcomes after IVM appear to be similar to those after COS. WHAT IS KNOW ALREADY: Women with PCOS have an increased risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes and congenital malformations in their offspring. For patients with PCOS who require IVF, IVM of germinal vesicle (GV)-stage oocytes retrieved from antral follicles has been adopted as a mild approach ART, with improved pregnancy rates over the last two decades. Although reports of obstetrical and neonatal outcomes after IVM have been reassuring, the limited sample sizes in previous studies preclude firm conclusions, and further study is warranted. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a retrospective observational study analysing obstetric and neonatal data from 1036 clinical pregnancies in unique patients with PCOS who conceived following a cycle of IVM or COS between January 2010 and December 2016 in a tertiary reproductive centre. In total, 393 singleton pregnancies with a gestational age beyond 20 weeks were included. A phenotypic approach was used for the diagnosis of PCOS. Pregnancies following oocyte donation, standard IVF (as opposed to ICSI) or preimplantation genetic testing and pregnancies requiring testicular biopsy in the male partners were excluded. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS,SETTING, METHODS: Pregnancy outcomes were analysed in women with PCOS phenotype A, C or D, as defined by different combinations of the Rotterdam criteria. Data from 164 pregnancies beyond 20 weeks after IVM were compared with those from 229 pregnancies after COS. Pregnancies in the IVM group were obtained after minimal ovarian stimulation and IVF with ICSI of transvaginally collected GV oocytes that had reached the metaphase II stage in vitro after 28 to 40 h of culture. No hCG trigger was administered before oocyte retrieval. Outcome measures were analysed or reported in singleton pregnancies only and included adverse obstetric events and neonatal health parameters, in particular birthweight, prematurity, small-for-gestational age, large-for-gestational age, perinatal death and major/minor malformation rates. The incidence of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) and birthweight was analysed by multiple linear and logistic regression, adjusted for relevant treatment variables and maternal characteristics. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The IVM and the COS groups differed significantly (P < 0.001) for maternal circulating AMH levels and PCOS phenotype distribution, with more of the PCOS phenotype A in the IVM group. Pregnant women in the IVM group were younger than pregnant women in the COS group (P = 0.05). With regard to obstetric complications in singleton pregnancies, in the unadjusted analysis, mothers of infants in the IVM group more often had HDP (29/164 (17.9%) vs 22/229 (9.6%), P = 0.02) compared with mothers in the COS group. Singletons born after IVM and COS had a similar birthweight standard deviation score (SDS) (0.51 ± 0.94 after IVM vs 0.33 ± 1.05 after COS, P = 0.19). Preterm birth rate (32-36.9 weeks) and early preterm birth rate (<32 weeks) were also similar in both groups. The total malformation rate was 4.1% in singletons after IVM and 2.4% in singletons after COS. Multivariate linear regression analysis accounting for relevant confounders demonstrated that parity was the only independent predictive factor (P = 0.04) for birthweight SDS. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that BMI, parity and type of ART (IVM as opposed to COS) were significantly correlated with the incidence of HDP. Only patients with the PCOS phenotype A showed a tendency towards a higher risk of HDP in those who underwent IVM compared to those who had COS. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study is limited by its retrospective nature and loss to follow-up of a subset of children with no information regarding congenital malformations. Furthermore, the paediatricians who assessed the children after birth were not blinded for the type of ART procedure. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study provides further evidence that, compared to COS, IVM of oocytes derived from small antral follicles does not adversely affect the neonatal health of the offspring of patients with PCOS. The observed increased risk of HDP in patients with PCOS phenotype A following IVM treatment warrants further scrutiny. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Translational IVM research at Universitair Ziekenhuis Brussel (UZ Brussel) and Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) has been supported by grants from the Institute for the Promotion of Innovation by Science and Technology in Flanders (Agentschap voor Innovatie door Wetenschap en Technologie-IWT, project 110680), the Fund for Research Flanders (Fonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek-Vlaanderen-FWO, project G.0343.13) and the Belgian Foundation Against Cancer (HOPE project, Dossier C69). Clinical IVM research was supported by research grants from Cook Medical and Besins Healthcare. M.D.V. reports honoraria for lectures from Cook Medical and Besins Healthcare outside the submitted work. S.S.R. reports honoraria for lectures by MSD and Besins and research grants by MSD, Ferring and Merck Serono outside of the submitted work. C.B. reports personal fees from Merck-Serono, Ferring, IBSA, Finox, MSD and Abbott outside the submitted work. H.T. reports grants from Merck, MSD, Goodlife, Cook, Roche, Besins, Ferring, Mithra (now Allergan) and the Research Fund of Flanders (FWO) and consultancy fees from Finox, Abbott, Obseva and Ovascience outside the submitted work. The other authors have nothing to disclose.

Pregnancy after vasectomy: surgical reversal or assisted reproduction?

STUDY QUESTION: Should we opt for surgical vasovasostomy or IVF/ICSI after a vasectomy? SUMMARY ANSWER: Both options reveal acceptable pregnancy rates though the time to pregnancy was significantly lower in the immediate IVF/ICSI group. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: About 7.4% of men regret their vasectomy and express a renewed child wish. The choice between surgical vasectomy reversal or ICSI remains difficult for patients and their fertility specialist. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This study was a retrospective single-center cohort analysis of all males with a vasectomy in the past seeking treatment between 2006 and 2011 (n = 163). One group of patients opted for a reanastomosis procedure while the others opted for an immediate IVF/ICSI treatment. This included 99 males who underwent reanastomosis and 64 couples who immediately underwent ICSI treatment. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: All reanastomosis procedures were done by the same surgeon. ICSI was used in all cases where testicular sperm were extracted by fine needle aspiration (FNA) or testicular sperm extraction (TESE). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The mean male age at vasectomy was 35.5 years and 44.4 years at reanastomosis. The mean (range) obstructive interval was 9.53 years (1-27). No significant differences were found between the two groups in female patient characteristics, such as age and parity. In the reversal group, the crude cumulative delivery rate (CDR) was 49.5%. However, in the 45 patients of this group who attempted to conceive spontaneously ('primary reanastomosis' pathway), the crude CDR was 40.0%. The remaining 54 patients (the 'switchers' pathway) who underwent a reversal procedure and later switched to ART, had a crude CDR of 57.4%. Of these, four patients opted for insemination, including two who later decided to switch to IVF/ICSI. The 64 patients who immediately underwent IVF/ICSI ('primary IVF/ICSI' pathway) had a crude CDR of 43.8% and an expected CDR of 51.6%. The difference in delivery rates between the primary reanastomosis group (40.0%) and the primary IVF/ICSI group (43.8%) was not statistically significant. Time to pregnancy was significantly shorter in the primary IVF/ICSI pathway, at 8.2 versus 16.3 months in the reanastomosis group. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study population was rather small. Furthermore, the study may be limited by the fact that the reason for the renewed child wish in most cases was a new relationship with another woman, a factor which may also play a role in the cause of infertility. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Recanalisation of the vas seems to be a reasonable alternative for patients who do not wish to undergo immediate IVF/ICSI. In those who opt for ART immediately, the cumulative pregnancy rates seem comparable but the pregnancies occurred earlier. STUDY FUNDING, COMPETING INTEREST(S): No funding was used for this study. There is no conflict of interest for this study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.