In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility.

BACKGROUND: In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a treatment for unexplained subfertility but is invasive, expensive, and associated with risks. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IVF versus expectant management, unstimulated intrauterine insemination (IUI), and IUI with ovarian stimulation using gonadotropins, clomiphene citrate (CC), or letrozole in improving pregnancy outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched following databases from inception to November 2021, with no language restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL. We searched reference lists of articles and conference abstracts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness of IVF for unexplained subfertility with expectant management, unstimulated IUI, and stimulated IUI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods. MAIN RESULTS: IVF versus expectant management (two RCTs) We are uncertain whether IVF improves live birth rate (LBR) and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) compared to expectant management (odds ratio (OR) 22.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.56 to 189.37; 1 RCT; 51 women; very low-quality evidence; OR 3.24, 95% CI 1.07 to 9.8; 2 RCTs; 86 women; I2 = 80%; very low-quality evidence). Adverse effects were not reported. Assuming 4% LBR and 12% CPR with expectant management, these would be 8.8% to 9% and 13% to 58% with IVF. IVF versus unstimulated IUI (two RCTs) IVF may improve LBR compared to unstimulated IUI (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.19 to 5.12; 2 RCTs; 156 women; I2 = 60%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there is a difference between IVF and IUI for multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.04 to 27.29; 1 RCT; 43 women; very low-quality evidence) and miscarriage rate (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.14 to 21.25; 1 RCT; 43 women; very low-quality evidence). No study reported ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Assuming 16% LBR, 3% MPR, and 6% miscarriage rate with unstimulated IUI, these outcomes would be 18.5% to 49%, 0.1% to 46%, and 0.9% to 58% with IVF. IVF versus IUI + ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins (6 RCTs), CC (1 RCT), or letrozole (no RCTs) Stratified analysis was based on pretreatment status. Treatment-naive women There may be little or no difference in LBR between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.61; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.92; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I2 = 54%; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 2.51, 95% CI 0.96 to 6.55; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 42% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles) and 26% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle), LBR would be 39% to 54% and 24% to 51% with IVF. Assuming 15% LBR with IUI + CC, LBR would be 15% to 54% with IVF. There may be little or no difference in CPR between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.59; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 4.59, 95% CI 1.86 to 11.35; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 3.58, 95% CI 1.51 to 8.49; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 48% CPR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles) and 17% with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle), CPR would be 44% to 60% and 28% to 70% with IVF. Assuming 21% CPR with IUI + CC, CPR would be 29% to 69% with IVF. There may be little or no difference in multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.77; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.58; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.41; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference in OHSS between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins with 1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles (OR 6.86, 95% CI 0.35 to 134.59; 1 RCT; 207 women; very low-quality evidence); and there may be little or no difference in OHSS with 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.16; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.24 to 9.57; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference in miscarriage rate between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins with 1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.04; 1 RCT; 207 women; very low-quality evidence); and there may be little or no difference with 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.02; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.54 to 4.05; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). In women pretreated with IUI + CC IVF may improve LBR compared with IUI + gonadotropins (OR 3.90, 95% CI 2.32 to 6.57; 1 RCT; 280 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 22% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins, LBR would be 39% to 65% with IVF. IVF may improve CPR compared with IUI + gonadotropins (OR 14.13, 95% CI 7.57 to 26.38; 1 RCT; 280 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 30% CPR with IUI + gonadotropins, CPR would be 76% to 92% with IVF. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: IVF may improve LBR over unstimulated IUI. Data should be interpreted with caution as overall evidence quality was low.

Number of oocytes and IVF outcomes: Real-world evidence.

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are gold standard to study the effect of an intervention and establish causation between the treatment and outcomes. However, RCTs have the disadvantage of being expensive, entailing high resource investments and involving only selected patient populations under experimental settings. Real-world evidence (RWE) from real-world data (RWD) involves a heterogenous patient population in real-world settings. RWE is less expensive and quicker than RCTs; it can provide complimentary evidence if methodological challenges, such as residual confounding and susceptibility to bias, are considered when interpreting the findings. This review examines RWE regarding the association between the number of oocytes following ovarian stimulation and IVF outcomes into shaping current IVF practices.

Treatment algorithms for high responders: What we can learn from randomized controlled trials, real-world data and models.

A high ovarian response to conventional ovarian stimulation (OS) is characterized by an increased number of follicles and/or oocytes compared with a normal response (10-15 oocytes retrieved). According to current definitions, a high response can be diagnosed before oocyte pick-up when >18-20 follicles ≥11-12 mm are observed on the day of ovulation triggering; high response can be diagnosed after oocyte pick-up when >18-20 oocytes have been retrieved. Women with a high response are also at high risk of early ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome (OHSS)/or late OHSS after fresh embryo transfers. Women at risk of high response can be diagnosed before stimulation based on several indices, including ovarian reserve markers (anti-Müllerian hormone [AMH] and antral follicle count [AFC], with cutoff values indicative of a high response in patients with PCOS of >3.4 ng/mL for AMH and >24 for AFC). Owing to the high proportion of high responders who are at the risk of developing OHSS (up to 30%), this educational article provides a framework for the identification and management of patients who fall into this category. The risk of high response can be greatly reduced through appropriate management, such as individualized choice of the gonadotropin starting dose, dose adjustment based on hormonal and ultrasound monitoring during OS, the choice of down-regulation protocol and ovulation trigger, and the choice between fresh or elective frozen embryo transfer. Appropriate management strategies still need to be defined for women who are predicted to have a high response and those who have an unexpected high response after starting treatment.

Effect of female body mass index on intrauterine insemination outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The prevalence of women with a raised body mass index (BMI) seeking assisted conception treatment is increasing. Findings of existing studies evaluating the effect of female BMI on intrauterine insemination (IUI) treatment outcomes remain inconsistent. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluate the effect of female BMI on IUI treatment outcomes. Two authors independently conducted data extraction and assessed study quality. Risk ratios (RR) and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the Mantel-Haenszel approach for dichotomous outcomes. 11 studies involving 23,145 IUI treatment events, comprising 21,211 cycles from 8 studies, and 1,934 participants in three studies, met the inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis. Two cohorts of women undergoing IUI treatment were compared - women with normal BMI < 25 kg/m2 were compared with a second cohort of women with a BMI category ≥ 25 kg/m2. There was no statistically significant difference in live birth rate (LBR) (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.86-1.307); clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.78-1.13); miscarriage (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.31-2.74) or ectopic pregnancy rate (RR 2.20, 95% CI 0.78-6.23). Our meta-analysis showed that a raised female BMI did not affect IUI treatment outcomes. Nevertheless, weight loss counselling should be offered to women with a raised BMI undergoing IUI, to reduce the associated obstetric morbidity.

A meta-analysis of 11 studies found that having a raised female BMI did not change IUI treatment outcomes.

Endometriosis and oocyte quality: an analysis of 13 614 donor oocyte recipient and autologous IVF cycles.

STUDY QUESTION: Does endometriosis affect live birth following donor oocyte recipient versus autologous IVF? SUMMARY ANSWER: There was no significant difference in the live birth rate (LBR) in women with endometriosis undergoing donor oocyte recipient cycles versus autologous IVF cycles. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: For infertile women with endometriosis, IVF is often considered as a treatment option. Lower implantation and pregnancy rates have been observed following IVF in women with endometriosis. It has been debated whether the lower pregnancy rate is due to the effect on oocyte quality or the endometrium, thus affecting implantation. To delineate whether endometriosis affects oocyte quality or the endometrium, we planned a study, using a donor oocyte recipient model, where the recipients were women diagnosed with endometriosis and compared their outcomes with women who underwent autologous IVF, who had also been diagnosed with endometriosis. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA) anonymized data from 1996 to 2016 were analyzed. This comprised of a total of 758 donor oocyte recipients, where the recipients were women diagnosed with endometriosis, and 12 856 autologous IVF cycles where the women were diagnosed with endometriosis as the sole cause of infertility. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Data on all women with endometriosis undergoing donor oocyte recipient and autologous IVF cycles were analyzed to compare live birth outcomes. Logistic regression analysis was performed adjusting for number of previous IVF cycles, previous live birth, period of treatment, day of embryo transfer, number of embryos transferred and fresh or frozen embryo transfer cycle. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There was no significant difference in the LBR in women with endometriosis undergoing donor oocyte recipient fresh embryo transfer cycles compared to women undergoing autologous IVF fresh embryo transfer cycles (31.6% vs 31.0%; odds ratio (OR) 1.03, 99.5% CI 0.79-1.35). After adjusting for confounders, there was no significant difference in LBR in women with endometriosis undergoing donor oocyte recipient fresh embryo transfer cycles versus autologous fresh embryo transfer cycles (adjusted OR (aOR) 1.05, 99.5% CI 0.79-1.41).There was no significant difference in the LBR in women with endometriosis undergoing donor oocyte recipient frozen embryo transfer cycles compared to women undergoing autologous frozen embryo transfer cycles (19.6% vs 24.0%; OR 0.77, 99.5% CI 0.47-1.25). After adjusting for potential confounders, there was no significant difference in the LBR in women undergoing donor oocyte recipient frozen embryo transfer cycles compared with autologous frozen embryo transfer cycles (aOR 0.85, 99.5% CI 0.51-1.41). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although the analysis was adjusted for potential confounders, there was no information on the extent and classification of endometriosis as well as oocyte number. Furthermore, adenomyosis is thought to co-exist in women with endometriosis and may have independent pathophysiological mechanisms affecting fertility, for which there was no information. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The study shows no difference in LBR between donor oocyte recipient cycles in which all recipients had endometriosis compared to autologous IVF cycles in women with endometriosis. Therefore, this study finding suggests that there may be a minimal or no effect of oocyte quality on IVF outcomes in women with endometriosis. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: No funding was obtained. M.S.K. is an associate editor with Human Reproduction Open. He was not involved in the editorial or peer review process for the manuscript. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Outcome reporting across randomized controlled trials evaluating potential treatments for male infertility: a systematic review.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the primary outcomes and outcome measures used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating potential treatments for male infertility in the last 10 years? SUMMARY ANSWER: Outcome reporting across male infertility trials is heterogeneous with numerous definitions and measures used to define similar outcomes. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: No core outcome set for male infertility trials has been developed. Male infertility trials are unique in that they have potentially three participants, a man, a female partner and their offspring and this will likely lead to significant variation in outcome reporting in randomized trials. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: A systematic review of RCTs mapping outcomes and outcome measures evaluating potential treatments for men with infertility registered in the Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) between January 2010 and July 2021. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Abstract screening and study selection was undertaken in duplicate using a review protocol that was developed prior to commencing the review. No risk of bias assessment was undertaken as this review aims to report on outcome reporting only. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: One hundred and seventy-five RCTs were identified, and given the large number of studies we limited our review to the 100 largest trials. Seventy-nine different treatments were reported across the 100 largest RCTs including vitamin and dietary supplements (18 trials), surgical treatments (18 trials) and sperm selection techniques (22 trials). When considering the largest 100 trials (range: 80-2772 participants), 36 primary and 89 secondary outcomes were reported. Forty-seven trials reported a primary outcome and 36 trials clearly defined their primary outcome. Pregnancy outcomes were inconsistently reported and included pregnancy rate (51 trials), pregnancy loss including miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, stillbirth (9 trials) and live birth (13 trials). Trials consistently reporting the same outcome frequently used different definitions. For example, semen quality was reported by 75 trials and was defined in 7 different ways, including; the World Health Organization (WHO) 2010 criteria (32 trials), WHO 1999 criteria (18 trials), WHO 1992 criteria (3 trials), WHO 1999 and 1992 criteria (1 trial) and the Kruger strict morphology criteria (1 trial). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: We only evaluated the 100 largest trials published in the last 10 years and did not report outcomes on the remaining 75. An outcome was included as a primary outcome only if clearly stated in the manuscript and we did not contact authors to clarify this. As our review mapped outcomes and outcome measures, we did not undertake an integrity assessment of the trials included in our review. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Most randomized trials evaluating treatments for male infertility report different outcomes. Only half of the RCTs reported pregnancy rate and even fewer reported live birth; furthermore, the definitions of these outcomes varies across trials. Developing, disseminating and implementing a minimum data set, known as a core outcome set, for male infertility research could help to improve outcome selection, collection and reporting. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: A.P.-chairman of external scientific advisory committee of Cryos International Denmark ApS, member of the scientific advisory board for Cytoswim LDT and ExSeed Health. Guest lecture at the 'Insights for Fertility Conference', funded by MERK SERONO Limited. M.v.W.-holds a ZON-MW research grant. No external funding was obtained for this study.

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.

Risk of breast cancer in women treated with ovarian stimulation drugs for infertility: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the evidence addressing the association between the use of ovarian stimulation drugs and the risk of breast cancer. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. SETTING: Not applicable. PATIENT(S): Women without any previous history of breast cancer undergoing ovarian stimulation. INTERVENTION(S): Electronic databases were searched from 1990 until January 2020. All cohort studies reporting new incidences of breast cancer in infertile women using ovarian stimulating drugs were included. Treated (exposed) infertile women were compared with the unexposed general population with unexposed infertile women as controls. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): New diagnosis of breast cancer within an infertile and general population after exposure to ovarian stimulation drugs. RESULT(S): Overall, the quality of evidence was very low because of the serious risk of bias and indirectness (nonrandomized studies). There was no significant increase in the risk of breast cancer among women treated with any ovarian stimulation drug for infertility compared with that in unexposed controls from the general population and the infertile population (pooled odds ratio 1.03, 95% Confidence interval 0.86 to 1.23, 20 studies, I2 = 88.41%, very low quality of evidence). Furthermore, no significant increase in the risk of breast cancer was found with the use of clomiphene citrate or gonadotropins, alone or in combination. CONCLUSION(S): The current study found that the use of clomiphene citrate and gonadotropins in infertile women was not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer.

Optimising Follicular Development, Pituitary Suppression, Triggering and Luteal Phase Support During Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Delphi Consensus.

Background: A Delphi consensus was conducted to evaluate global expert opinions on key aspects of assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment. Methods: Ten experts plus the Scientific Coordinator discussed and amended statements plus supporting references proposed by the Scientific Coordinator. The statements were distributed via an online survey to 35 experts, who voted on their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement. Consensus was reached if the proportion of participants agreeing or disagreeing with a statement was >66%. Results: Eighteen statements were developed. All statements reached consensus and the most relevant are summarised here. (1) Follicular development and stimulation with gonadotropins (n = 9 statements): Recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (r-hFSH) alone is sufficient for follicular development in normogonadotropic patients aged <35 years. Oocyte number and live birth rate are strongly correlated; there is a positive linear correlation with cumulative live birth rate. Different r-hFSH preparations have identical polypeptide chains but different glycosylation patterns, affecting the biospecific activity of r-hFSH. r-hFSH plus recombinant human LH (r-hFSH:r-hLH) demonstrates improved pregnancy rates and cost efficacy versus human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) in patients with severe FSH and LH deficiency. (2) Pituitary suppression (n = 2 statements): Gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists are associated with lower rates of any grade ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and cycle cancellation versus GnRH agonists. (3) Final oocyte maturation triggering (n=4 statements): Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) represents the gold standard in fresh cycles. The efficacy of hCG triggering for frozen transfers in modified natural cycles is controversial compared with LH peak monitoring. Current evidence supports significantly higher pregnancy rates with hCG + GnRH agonist versus hCG alone, but further evidence is needed. GnRH agonist trigger, in GnRH antagonist protocol, is recommended for final oocyte maturation in women at risk of OHSS. (4) Luteal-phase support (n = 3 statements): Vaginal progesterone therapy represents the gold standard for luteal-phase support. Conclusions: This Delphi consensus provides a real-world clinical perspective on the specific approaches during the key steps of ART treatment from a diverse group of international experts. Additional guidance from clinicians on ART strategies could complement guidelines and policies, and may help to further improve treatment outcomes.

Improving Reporting of Clinical Studies Using the POSEIDON Criteria: POSORT Guidelines.

The POSEIDON (Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number) criteria were developed to help clinicians identify and classify low-prognosis patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) and provide guidance for possible therapeutic strategies to overcome infertility. Since its introduction, the number of published studies using the POSEIDON criteria has increased steadily. However, a critical analysis of existing evidence indicates inconsistent and incomplete reporting of critical outcomes. Therefore, we developed guidelines to help researchers improve the quality of reporting in studies applying the POSEIDON criteria. We also discuss the advantages of using the POSEIDON criteria in ART clinical studies and elaborate on possible study designs and critical endpoints. Our ultimate goal is to advance the knowledge concerning the clinical use of the POSEIDON criteria to patients, clinicians, and the infertility community.

Systematic review and meta-analysis of female lifestyle factors and risk of recurrent pregnancy loss.

It is known that lifestyle factors affect sporadic miscarriage, but the extent of this on RPL (recurrent pregnancy loss) is less well known. A systematic review and meta-analysis was performed to assess the associations between lifestyle factors and RPL. Studies that analysed RPL in the context of BMI, smoking, alcohol and caffeine intake were included. The primary and secondary outcomes were odds of having RPL in the general population and odds of further miscarriage, respectively. Underweight and women with BMI > 25 are at higher odds of RPL in the general population (OR 1.2, 95% CI 1.12-1.28 and OR 1.21, 95% CI 1.06-1.38, respectively). In women with RPL, having BMI > 30 and BMI > 25 has increased odds of further miscarriages (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.25-2.50 and OR 1.35, 95% CI 1.07-1.72, respectively). The quality of the evidence for our findings was low or very low. Being underweight and BMI > 25 contributes significantly to increased risk of RPL (general population). BMI > 25 or BMI > 30 increases the risk of further miscarriages (RPL population). Larger studies addressing the effects of alcohol, cigarette smoking and caffeine on the risk of RPL with optimisation of BMI in this cohort of women are now needed.

Female causes of infertility are associated with higher risk of preterm birth and low birth weight: analysis of 117 401 singleton live births following IVF.

STUDY QUESTION: Does the cause of infertility affect the perinatal outcomes preterm birth (PTB) and low birth weight (LBW) following IVF treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER: The risk of PTB and LBW was higher with female causes of infertility-ovulatory disorders, tubal disorders and endometriosis-compared to unexplained infertility but the absolute increase in risk was low. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Infertility is associated with an increased risk of adverse perinatal outcomes. Risk of adverse perinatal outcomes is also higher following ART compared to spontaneous conceptions. Infertility can result from female and/or male factors or is unexplained when the cause cannot be delineated by standard investigations. Given that infertility and ART are contributory to the adverse perinatal outcomes, it is a matter of interest to delineate if the specific cause of infertility influences perinatal outcomes following IVF treatment. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Anonymous data were obtained from the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA). The HFEA has collected data prospectively on all ART cycles performed in the UK since 1991. Data from 1991 to 2016 comprising a total of 117 401 singleton live births following IVF with or without ICSI (IVF ± ICSI) for sole causes of infertility were analysed for PTB and LBW. Cycles having more than one cause of infertility and/or multiple births were excluded. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Data on all women undergoing stimulated IVF ± ICSI treatment cycles were analysed to compare perinatal outcomes of PTB and LBW among singleton live births based on the cause of infertility (ovulatory disorders, tubal disorders, endometriosis, male factor, unexplained). Logistic regression analysis was performed, adjusting for female age category, period of treatment, previous live births, IVF or ICSI, number of embryos transferred and fresh or frozen embryo transfer cycles. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Compared to unexplained infertility, the risk of PTB was significantly higher with ovulatory disorders (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 1.31, 99.5% CI 1.17 to 1.46); tubal disorders (aOR 1.25, 99.5% CI 1.14 to 1.38) and endometriosis (aOR 1.17, 99.5% CI 1.01 to 1.35). There was no significant difference in the risk of PTB with male factor causes compared to unexplained infertility (aOR 1.01, 99.5% CI 0.93, 1.10). The risk of LBW was significantly higher with ovulatory disorders (aOR 1. 29, 99.5% CI 1.16 to 1.44) and tubal disorders (aOR 1.12, 99.5% CI 1.02 to 1.23) and there was no increase in the risk of LBW with endometriosis (aOR 1.11, 99.5% CI 0.96 to 1.30) and male factor causes (aOR 0.94, 99.5% CI 0.87, 1.03), compared to unexplained infertility. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Although the analysis was adjusted for several important confounders, there was no information on the medical history of women during pregnancy to allow adjustment. The limitations with observational data would apply to this study, including residual confounding. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the largest study to address the causes of infertility affecting perinatal outcomes of PTB and LBW. The information is important for the management of pregnancies and the underlying reasons for the associations observed need to be further understood. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No funding was obtained. There are no competing interests to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

The predicted probability of live birth in In Vitro Fertilization varies during important stages throughout the treatment: analysis of 114,882 first cycles.

RESEARCH QUESTION: How much the variability in patients' response during in vitro fertilization (IVF) may add to the initial predicted prognosis based only on patients' basal characteristics? DESIGN: Anonymous data were obtained from the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority (HFEA). Data involving 114,882 stimulated fresh IVF cycles were retrospectively analyzed. Logistic regression was used to develop the models. RESULTS: Prediction of live birth was feasible with moderate accuracy in all of the three models; discrimination of the model based only on basal patients' characteristics (AUROC 0.61) was markedly improved adding information of number of embryos (AUROC 0.65) and, mostly, number of oocytes (AUROC 0.66). CONCLUSIONS: The addition to prediction models of parameters such as the number of embryos obtained and especially the number of oocytes retrieved can statistically significantly improve the overall prediction of live birth probabilities when based on only basal patients' characteristics. This seems to be particularly true for women after the first IVF cycle. Since ovarian response affects the probability of live birth in IVF, it is highly recommended to add markers of ovarian response to models based on basal characteristics to increase their predictive ability.

Effect of Genetic Variants of Gonadotropins and Their Receptors on Ovarian Stimulation Outcomes: A Delphi Consensus.

Background: A Delphi consensus was conducted to evaluate the influence of single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) in genes encoding gonadotropin and gonadotropin receptors on clinical ovarian stimulation outcomes following assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment. Methods: Nine experts plus two Scientific Coordinators discussed and amended statements plus supporting references proposed by the Scientific Coordinators. The statements were distributed via an online survey to 36 experts, who voted on their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement. Consensus was reached if the proportion of participants agreeing or disagreeing with a statement was >66%. Results: Eleven statements were developed, of which two statements were merged. Overall, eight statements achieved consensus and two statements did not achieve consensus. The statements reaching consensus are summarized here. (1) SNP in the follicle stimulating hormone receptor (FSHR), rs6166 (c.2039A>G, p.Asn680Ser) (N=5 statements): Ser/Ser carriers have higher basal FSH levels than Asn/Asn carriers. Ser/Ser carriers require higher amounts of gonadotropin during ovarian stimulation than Asn/Asn carriers. Ser/Ser carriers produce fewer oocytes during ovarian stimulation than Asn/Asn or Asn/Ser carriers. There is mixed evidence supporting an association between this variant and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. (2) SNP of FSHR, rs6165 (c.919G>A, p.Thr307Ala) (N=1 statement): Few studies suggest Thr/Thr carriers require a shorter duration of gonadotropin stimulation than Thr/Ala or Ala/Ala carriers. (3) SNP of FSHR, rs1394205 (-29G>A) (N=1 statement): Limited data in specific ethnic groups suggest that A/A allele carriers may require higher amounts of gonadotropin during ovarian stimulation and produce fewer oocytes than G/G carriers. (4) SNP of FSH ß-chain (FSHB), rs10835638 (-211G>T) (N=1 statement): There is contradictory evidence supporting an association between this variant and basal FSH levels or oocyte number. (5) SNPs of luteinizing hormone ß-chain (LHB) and LH/choriogonadotropin receptor (LHCGR) genes (N=1 statement): these may influence ovarian stimulation outcomes and could represent potential future targets for pharmacogenomic research in ART, although data are still very limited. Conclusions: This Delphi consensus provides clinical perspectives from a diverse international group of experts. The consensus supports a link between some variants in gonadotropin/gonadotropin receptor genes and ovarian stimulation outcomes; however, further research is needed to clarify these findings.

Concordance between systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in assisted reproduction: an overview.

STUDY QUESTION: Are systematic reviews published within a 3-year period on interventions in ART concordant in their conclusions? SUMMARY ANSWER: The majority of the systematic reviews published within a 3-year period in the field of assisted reproduction on the same topic had discordant conclusions. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have now replaced individual randomized controlled trials (RCTs) at the top of the evidence pyramid. There has been a proliferation of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, many of which suffer from methodological issues and provide varying conclusions. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: We assessed nine interventions in women undergoing ART with at least three systematic reviews each, published from January 2015 to December 2017. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: The systematic reviews which included RCTs were considered eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was extent of concordance between systematic reviews on the same topic. Secondary outcomes included assessment of quality of systematic reviews, differences in included studies in meta-analyses covering the same search period, selective reporting and reporting the quality of evidence. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Concordant results and conclusions were found in only one topic, with reviews in the remaining eight topics displaying partial discordance. The AMSTAR grading for the majority of the non-Cochrane reviews was critically low whilst it was categorized as high for all of the Cochrane reviews. For three of the nine topics, none of the included systematic reviews assessed the quality of evidence. We were unable to assess selective reporting as most of the reviews did not have a pre-specified published protocol. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: We were limited by the high proportion of reviews lacking a pre-specified protocol, which made it impossible to assess for selective reporting. Furthermore, many reviews did not specify primary and secondary outcomes which made it difficult to assess reporting bias. All the authors of this review were Cochrane review authors which may introduce some assessment bias. The categorization of the review's conclusions as beneficial, harmful or neutral was subjective, depending on the tone and wording of the conclusion section of the review. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The majority of the systematic reviews published within a 3-year period on the same topic in the field of assisted reproduction revealed discordant conclusions and suffered from serious methodological issues, hindering the process of informed healthcare decision-making. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: All the authors are Cochrane authors. M.S.K. is an editorial board member of Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility group. No grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors was obtained.

Time as an outcome measure in fertility-related clinical studies: long-awaited.

Time taken to achieve a live birth is an important consideration that is central to managing patient expectations during infertility treatment. However, time-related endpoints are not reported as standard in the majority of fertility-related clinical studies and there is no internationally recognized consensus definition for such endpoints. There is, therefore, a need for meaningful discussions around the selection of appropriate time-related treatment outcome measures for studies evaluating fertility treatments that will be relevant to diverse stakeholders (e.g. patients, healthcare professionals, clinical scientists, authorities and industry). Here, we provide a proposal for the evaluation of time-related outcome measures in fertility-related clinical studies, alongside associated definitions.

ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI†.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the recommended management of ovarian stimulation, based on the best available evidence in the literature? SUMMARY ANSWER: The guideline development group formulated 84 recommendations answering 18 key questions on ovarian stimulation. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI has been discussed briefly in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline on fertility problems, and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist has published a statement on ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. There are, to our knowledge, no evidence-based guidelines dedicated to the process of ovarian stimulation. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. After formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 8 November 2018 and written in English were included. The critical outcomes for this guideline were efficacy in terms of cumulative live birth rate per started cycle or live birth rate per started cycle, as well as safety in terms of the rate of occurrence of moderate and/or severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline group. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the guideline group and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The guideline provides 84 recommendations: 7 recommendations on pre-stimulation management, 40 recommendations on LH suppression and gonadotrophin stimulation, 11 recommendations on monitoring during ovarian stimulation, 18 recommendations on triggering of final oocyte maturation and luteal support and 8 recommendations on the prevention of OHSS. These include 61 evidence-based recommendations-of which only 21 were formulated as strong recommendations-and 19 good practice points and 4 research-only recommendations. The guideline includes a strong recommendation for the use of either antral follicle count or anti-Müllerian hormone (instead of other ovarian reserve tests) to predict high and poor response to ovarian stimulation. The guideline also includes a strong recommendation for the use of the GnRH antagonist protocol over the GnRH agonist protocols in the general IVF/ICSI population, based on the comparable efficacy and higher safety. For predicted poor responders, GnRH antagonists and GnRH agonists are equally recommended. With regards to hormone pre-treatment and other adjuvant treatments (metformin, growth hormone (GH), testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone, aspirin and sildenafil), the guideline group concluded that none are recommended for increasing efficacy or safety. LIMITATIONS REASON FOR CAUTION: Several newer interventions are not well studied yet. For most of these interventions, a recommendation against the intervention or a research-only recommendation was formulated based on insufficient evidence. Future studies may require these recommendations to be revised. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in ovarian stimulation, based on the best evidence available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to promote further studies in ovarian stimulation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. F.B. reports research grant from Ferring and consulting fees from Merck, Ferring, Gedeon Richter and speaker's fees from Merck. N.P. reports research grants from Ferring, MSD, Roche Diagnositics, Theramex and Besins Healthcare; consulting fees from MSD, Ferring and IBSA; and speaker's fees from Ferring, MSD, Merck Serono, IBSA, Theramex, Besins Healthcare, Gedeon Richter and Roche Diagnostics. A.L.M reports research grants from Ferring, MSD, IBSA, Merck Serono, Gedeon Richter and TEVA and consulting fees from Roche, Beckman-Coulter. G.G. reports consulting fees from MSD, Ferring, Merck Serono, IBSA, Finox, Theramex, Gedeon-Richter, Glycotope, Abbott, Vitrolife, Biosilu, ReprodWissen, Obseva and PregLem and speaker's fees from MSD, Ferring, Merck Serono, IBSA, Finox, TEVA, Gedeon Richter, Glycotope, Abbott, Vitrolife and Biosilu. E.B. reports research grants from Gedeon Richter; consulting and speaker's fees from MSD, Ferring, Abbot, Gedeon Richter, Merck Serono, Roche Diagnostics and IBSA; and ownership interest from IVI-RMS Valencia. P.H. reports research grants from Gedeon Richter, Merck, IBSA and Ferring and speaker's fees from MSD, IBSA, Merck and Gedeon Richter. J.U. reports speaker's fees from IBSA and Ferring. N.M. reports research grants from MSD, Merck and IBSA; consulting fees from MSD, Merck, IBSA and Ferring and speaker's fees from MSD, Merck, IBSA, Gedeon Richter and Theramex. M.G. reports speaker's fees from Merck Serono, Ferring, Gedeon Richter and MSD. S.K.S. reports speaker's fees from Merck, MSD, Ferring and Pharmasure. E.K. reports speaker's fees from Merck Serono, Angellini Pharma and MSD. M.K. reports speaker's fees from Ferring. T.T. reports speaker's fees from Merck, MSD and MLD. The other authors report no conflicts of interest. 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.) †ESHRE Pages content is not externally peer reviewed. The manuscript has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

COVID-19 and assisted reproductive technology services: repercussions for patients and proposal for individualized clinical management.

The prolonged lockdown of health services providing high-complexity fertility treatments -as currently recommended by many reproductive medicine entities- is detrimental for society as a whole, and infertility patients in particular. Globally, approximately 0.3% of all infants born every year are conceived using assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatments. By contrast, the total number of COVID-19 deaths reported so far represents approximately 1.0% of the total deaths expected to occur worldwide over the first three months of the current year. It seems, therefore, that the number of infants expected to be conceived and born -but who will not be so due to the lockdown of infertility services- might be as significant as the total number of deaths attributed to the COVID-19 pandemic. We herein propose remedies that include a prognostic-stratification of more vulnerable infertility cases in order to plan a progressive restart of worldwide fertility treatments. At a time when preventing complications and limiting burdens for national health systems represent relevant issues, our viewpoint might help competent authorities and health care providers to identify patients who should be prioritized for the continuation of fertility care in a safe environment.

Management Strategies for POSEIDON Group 2.

Although individualization of ovarian stimulation aims at maximal efficacy and safety in assisted reproductive treatments, in its current form it is far from ideal in achieving the desired success in women with a low prognosis. This could be due a failure to identify such women who are likely to have a low prognosis with currently used prognostic characteristics. Introduction of the patient-oriented strategies encompassing individualized oocyte number (POSEIDON) concept reinforces recognizing such low prognosis groups and stratifying in accordance with important prognostic factors. The POSEIDON concept provides a practical approach to the management of these women and is a useful tool for both counseling and clinical management. In this commentary, we focus on likely management strategies for POSEIDON group 2 criteria.

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor administration for subfertile women undergoing assisted reproduction.

BACKGROUND: Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) seems to play an important role in the process of embryo implantation and continuation of pregnancy. It has been used during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment for subfertile women with chronically thin endometrium and those with previous multiple IVF failures. It is currently unknown whether G-CSF is effective in improving results following assisted reproductive technology (ART). OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of G-CSF in women undergoing ART. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform in February 2019. We searched reference lists of relevant articles and handsearched relevant conference proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing G-CSF administration versus no treatment or placebo in subfertile women undergoing IVF treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. The primary outcomes were live-birth rate and miscarriage rate following G-CSF administration. We have reported ongoing pregnancy rate in cases where studies did not report live birth but reported ongoing pregnancy. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate, multiple pregnancy rate, adverse events, ectopic pregnancy rate, small for gestational age at birth, abnormally adherent placenta, and congenital anomaly rate. We analysed data using risk ratio (RR), Peto odds ratio and a fixed-effect model. We assessed the quality of the evidence using the GRADE criteria. MAIN RESULTS: We included 15 trials involving 622 women who received G-CSF and 631 women who received placebo or no additional treatment during IVF. The main limitations in the quality of the evidence were inadequate reporting of study methods and high risk of performance bias due to lack of blinding. We assessed only two of the 15 included trials as at a low risk of bias. None of the trials reported the primary effectiveness outcome of live-birth rate. We are uncertain whether G-CSF administration improves ongoing pregnancy rate compared to control in subfertile women undergoing ART (RR 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 2.42; 2 RCTs; participants = 263; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with 14% ongoing pregnancy rate, G-CSF administration would be expected to result in ongoing pregnancy rates between 12% and 35%. We are uncertain whether G-CSF administration reduces miscarriage rate (Peto odds ratio 0.55, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.83; 3 RCTs; participants = 391; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence) compared to the control group in subfertile women undergoing ART. We are uncertain whether G-CSF administration improves overall clinical pregnancy rate compared to control in subfertile women undergoing ART (RR 1.63, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.01; 14 RCTs; participants = 1253; I² = 13%; very low-quality evidence). For a typical clinic with 17% clinical pregnancy rate, G-CSF administration would be expected to result in clinical pregnancy rates between 23% and 35%. In the unselected IVF population, we are uncertain whether G-CSF administration improves clinical pregnancy rate compared to the control group (RR 1.11, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.60; 3 RCTs; participants = 404; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). G-CSF administration may improve clinical pregnancy rate in women with two or more previous IVF failures compared to the control group (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.85; 7 RCTs; participants = 643; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). In subfertile women with thin endometrium undergoing ART, we are uncertain whether G-CSF administration improves clinical pregnancy rate compared to the control group (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.95 to 2.63; 4 RCTs; participants = 206; I² = 30%; low-quality evidence). No study reported on multiple pregnancy rate. Only four trials reported adverse events as an outcome, and none of them reported any major adverse events following either G-CSF administration or placebo/no treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: In subfertile women undergoing ART, we are uncertain whether the administration of G-CSF improves ongoing pregnancy or overall clinical pregnancy rates or reduces miscarriage rate compared to no treatment or placebo, whether in all women or those with thin endometrium, based on very low-quality evidence. Low-quality evidence suggests that G-CSF administration may improve clinical pregnancy rate in women with two or more IVF failures, but the included studies had unclear allocation concealment or were at high risk of performance bias.