Levothyroxine for a high-normal TSH in unexplained infertility.

OBJECTIVE: Unexplained infertility affects nearly one-third of infertile couples. Women with unexplained infertility are more likely to have a high-normal thyroid-stimulating hormone level (TSH: 2.5-5 mIU/L) compared to women with severe male factor infertility. Practice guidelines vary on whether treatment should be initiated for TSH levels >2.5 mIU/L in women attempting conception because the effects of treating a high-normal TSH level with levothyroxine are not known. We evaluated conception and live birth rates in women with unexplained infertility and high-normal TSH levels. DESIGN, PATIENTS AND MEASUREMENTS: Retrospective study including 96 women evaluated for unexplained infertility at a large academic medical centre between 1 January 2000 and 30 June 2017 with high-normal TSH (TSH: 2.5-5 mIU/L and within the normal range of the assay) who were prescribed (n = 31) or not prescribed (n = 65) levothyroxine. Conception and live birth rates were assessed. RESULTS: The conception rate in the levothyroxine group was 100% compared to 90% in the untreated group (p = .086 unadjusted; p < .05 adjusted for age; p = .370 adjusted for TSH; p = .287 adjusted for age and TSH). The live birth rate was lower in the levothyroxine group (63%) compared to the untreated group (84%) (p = .05 unadjusted; p = .094 adjusted for age; p = .035 adjusted for TSH; p = .057 adjusted for age and TSH). CONCLUSIONS: Women with unexplained infertility and high-normal TSH levels treated with levothyroxine had a higher rate of conception but lower live birth rate compared to untreated women, with the limitation of a small sample size. These findings assert the need for prospective, randomized studies to determine whether treatment with levothyroxine in women with unexplained infertility and high-normal TSH is beneficial.

Vitrification preservation of good-quality blastocysts for more than 5 years reduces implantation and live birth rates.

STUDY QUESTION: Does vitrification cryopreservation of embryos for more than 5 years affect the pregnancy outcomes after frozen embryo transfer (FET)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Vitrification cryopreservation of good-quality blastocysts for more than 5 years is associated with a decrease in the implantation rate (IR) and live birth rate (LBR). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Previous studies have predominantly focused on embryos cryopreserved for relatively short durations (less than 5 years), yet the impact of extended cryopreservation duration on pregnancy outcomes remains a controversial issue. There is a relative scarcity of data regarding the efficacy and safety of storing embryos for 5 years or longer. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This retrospective study involved 36 665 eligible vitrified-thawed embryo transfer cycles from 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2022, at a single fertility center in China. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Patients were divided into three groups according to embryo storage time: Group 1 consisted of 31 565 cycles, with storage time of 0-2 years; Group 2 consisted of 4458 cycles, with a storage time of 2-5 years; and Group 3 included 642 cycles, with storage time exceeding 5 years. The main outcome measures were IR and LBR. Secondary outcome variables included rates of biochemical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, and miscarriage, as well as neonatal outcomes. Reproductive outcomes were analyzed as binary variables. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to explore the effect of preservation time on pregnancy outcomes after correcting for confounding factors. In addition, we also assessed neonatal outcomes, such as large for gestational age (LGA) and small for gestational age (SGA). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: IRs in the three groups (0-2, 2-5, and >5 years) were 37.37%, 39.03%, and 35.78%, respectively (P = 0.017), and LBRs in the three groups were 37.29%, 39.09%, and 34.91%, respectively (P = 0.028). After adjustment for potential confounding factors, compared with the 0-2 years storage group, prolonged embryo vitrification preservation time (2-5 years or >5 years) did not affect secondary outcomes such as rates of biochemical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, and miscarriage (P > 0.05). But cryopreservation of embryos for more than 5 years reduced the IR (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.82, 95% CI 0.69-0.97, P = 0.020) and LBR (aOR 0.76, 95% CI 0.64-0.91, P = 0.002). Multivariate stratified analysis also showed that prolonging the cryopreservation time of blastocysts (>5 years) reduced the IR (aOR 0.78, 95% CI 0.62-0.98, P = 0.033) and LBR (aOR 0.68, 95% CI 0.53-0.87, P = 0.002). However, no effect on cleavage embryos was observed (P > 0.05). We further conducted stratified analyses based on the number and quality of frozen blastocysts transferred, and the results showed that the FET results after transfers of good-quality blastocysts in the >5 years storage group were negatively affected. However, the storage time of non-good-quality blastocysts was not significantly associated with pregnancy outcomes. Regarding the neonatal outcomes (of singletons), embryo vitrification preservation time had no effect on preterm birth rates, fetal birth weight, or neonatal sex ratios. However, as the storage time increased, rates of SGA (5.60%, 4.10%, and 1.18%) decreased, while rates of LGA (5.22%, 6.75%, and 9.47%) increased (P < 0.05). After adjusting for confounding factors, the increase in LGA and the decrease in SGA were significantly correlated with the duration of storage time. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This was a retrospective study using data from a single fertility center, even though the data had been adjusted, our findings still need to be validated in further studies. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: With the full implementation of the two-child policy in China, there may be more patients whose embryos have been frozen for a longer time in the future. Patients should be aware that the IR and LBR of blastocysts are negatively affected when the cryopreservation time is longer than 5 years. Couples may therefore consider shortening the time until FET treatment. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported by the National Nature Science Foundation of China (No. 82101672), Science and Technology Projects in Guangzhou (No. 2024A03J0180), General Guidance Program for Western Medicine of Guangzhou Municipal Health Commission (No. 20231A011096), and the Medical Key Discipline of Guangzhou (2021-2023). None of the authors have any conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

A modified flexible GnRH antagonist protocol using antagonist early cessation and a gonadotropin step-down approach improves live birth rates in fresh cycles: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Can pregnancy outcomes following fresh elective single embryo transfer (eSET) in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocols increase using a gonadotropin (Gn) step-down approach with cessation of GnRH antagonist on the day of hCG administration (hCG day) in patients with normal ovarian response? SUMMARY ANSWER: The modified GnRH antagonist protocol using the Gn step-down approach and cessation of GnRH antagonist on the hCG day is effective in improving live birth rates (LBRs) per fresh eSET cycle. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Currently, there is no consensus on optimal GnRH antagonist regimens. Studies have shown that fresh GnRH antagonist cycles result in poorer pregnancy outcomes than the long GnRH agonist (GnRHa) protocol. Endometrial receptivity is a key factor that contributes to this phenomenon. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: An open label randomized controlled trial (RCT) was performed between November 2021 and August 2022. There were 546 patients allocated to either the modified GnRH antagonist or the conventional antagonist protocol at a 1:1 ratio. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Both IVF and ICSI cycles were included, and the sperm samples used were either fresh or frozen from the partner, or from frozen donor ejaculates. The primary outcome was the LBRs per fresh SET cycle. Secondary outcomes included rates of implantation, clinical and ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), as well as clinical outcomes of ovarian stimulation. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Baseline demographic features were not significantly different between the two ovarian stimulation groups. However, in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the LBRs in the modified antagonist group were significantly higher than in the conventional group (38.1% [104/273] vs. 27.5% [75/273], relative risk 1.39 [95% CI, 1.09-1.77], P = 0.008). Using a per-protocol (PP) analysis which included all the patients who received an embryo transfer, the LBRs in the modified antagonist group were also significantly higher than in the conventional group (48.6% [103/212] vs. 36.8% [74/201], relative risk 1.32 [95% CI, 1.05-1.66], P = 0.016). The modified antagonist group achieved significantly higher implantation rates, and clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates than the conventional group in both the ITT and PP analyses (P < 0.05). The two groups did not show significant differences between the number of oocytes retrieved or mature oocytes, two-pronuclear zygote (2PN) rates, the number of embryos obtained, blastocyst progression and good-quality embryo rates, early miscarriage rates, or OHSS incidence rates (P > 0.05). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: A limitation of our study was that the subjects were not blinded to the treatment allocation in the RCT trial. Only women under 40 years of age who had a good prognosis were included in the analysis. Therefore, use of the modified antagonist protocol in older patients with a low ovarian reserve remains to be investigated. In addition, the sample size for Day 5 elective SET was small, so larger trials will be required to strengthen these findings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The modified GnRH antagonist protocol using the Gn step-down approach and cessation of GnRH antagonist on hCG day improved the LBRs per fresh eSET cycle in normal responders. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This project was funded by grant 2022YFC2702503 from the National Key Research & Development Program of China and grant 2021140 from the Beijing Health Promotion Association. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The RCT was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry; Study Number: ChiCTR2100053453. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 21 November 2021. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLLMENT: 23 November 2021.

Assessment of reproductive outcomes of fresh versus cryopreserved ejaculated sperm samples-a retrospective analysis of 44 423 oocyte donation ICSI cycles.

STUDY QUESTION: Does the use of frozen sperm affect live birth rate (LBR) and cumulative LBR (CLBR) compared to fresh sperm samples in oocyte donation ICSI cycles? SUMMARY ANSWER: Although there were slight decreases in pregnancy rates (PRs) and LBR, as well as CLBR per embryo replaced and per embryo transfer (ET), when frozen sperm samples were used compared to fresh ejaculates, their clinical impact was limited. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Sperm cryopreservation is part of the daily routine in reproduction clinics worldwide because of its many advantages in cycle planning. Nonetheless, there is a lack of agreement in terms of its impact on the outcomes of ICSI cycles. Previous studies showed conflicting conclusions and focused on different populations, which makes reaching consensus on the impact of sperm freezing-thawing complicated. Moreover, classical parameters are used to assess cycle success: pregnancy, live birth and miscarriage rates per ET. This study reports those measurements plus CLBR, which more accurately reflects the impact of the technique on the likelihood of achieving a newborn. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A retrospective multicenter observational cohort study, including data from 37 041 couples and 44 423 ICSI procedures from January 2008 to June 2022, was carried out. The group using frozen sperm included 23 852 transferred embryos and 108 661 inseminated oocytes, whereas the fresh sample group comprised 73 953 embryos replaced and 381 509 injected oocytes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Outcomes measured per first ET and per ET were compared between groups using Fisher's exact test and Chi-squared test, as appropriate. Binary-logistics regression models were used to adjust the analyses according to clinically relevant co-variables. Kaplan-Meier curves plotted the CLBR per oocyte inseminated, per embryo replaced and per ET, and compared between groups using the Mantel-Cox test. Cox regressions were employed for the multivariate analyses of CLBR. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The frozen sperm group showed a slightly lower biochemical (3.55% and 2.56%), clinical (3.68% and 3.54%) and ongoing (3.63% and 3.15%) PR compared to the cycles using fresh sperm, respectively, both per first ET and per ET. LBR was 4.57% lower per first ET and 3.95% lower per ET in the frozen sperm group than the fresh sperm group. There was also a subtle increase of 2.66% in biochemical miscarriage rate per ET when using frozen versus fresh sperm. All these differences remained statistically significant after the multivariate analysis (adjusted P ≤ 0.001). There were statistically significant differences in CLBR per embryo replaced and per ET but not per oocyte used (adjusted P = 0.071). Despite the statistical significance of the differences between the groups, those using frozen sperm required only 0.54 more oocytes injected, 0.45 more embryos transferred and 0.41 more ET procedures, on average, to achieve a live birth compared to the fresh samples. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The retrospective nature of the study subjects the data to biases or potential errors during annotation on the source clinical and cycle records. This study uses multivariate analyses to control biases as much as possible. Using the oocyte donation model also contributes to reducing heterogeneity in the oocyte quality factor. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The large sample sizes included in this study allowed for the detection of small changes in cycle success rates between groups. Although statistically significant, the decrease in PRs, LBR, and CLBR when using frozen sperm can be clinically overlooked in favor of the many benefits of sperm cryopreservation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): None declared. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

Natural proliferative phase frozen embryo transfer-a new approach which may facilitate scheduling without hindering pregnancy outcomes.

STUDY QUESTION: How does a natural proliferative phase (NPP) strategy for frozen embryo transfer (FET) compare with the conventional artificial (AC) and natural (NC) endometrial preparation protocols in terms of live birth rates (LBR)? SUMMARY ANSWER: This study supports the hypothesis that, just as for NC, NPP-FET may be a superior alternative to AC in terms of LBR. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Although FETs are increasing worldwide, the optimal FET protocol is still largely controversial. Despite recent evidence supporting a possibly higher efficacy and safety of NC FETs, their widespread use is limited by the difficulties encountered during cycle monitoring and scheduling. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In this single center retrospective cohort study, we describe the NPP-FET protocol, in which vaginal progesterone is initiated during the proliferative phase as soon as an endometrium with a thickness of at least 7 mm is identified and ovulation is ruled out, regardless of mean diameter of the dominant follicle. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: For comparison, we considered all blastocyst stage FET cycles preformed at a private infertility center between January 2010 and June 2022, subdivided according to the following subgroups of endometrial preparation: AC, NPP, and NC. We performed multivariable generalized estimating equations regression analysis to account for the following potential confounding variables: oocyte age at retrieval, oocyte source (autologous without preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) versus autologous with PGT-A versus donated), number of oocytes retrieved/donated, embryo developmental stage (Day 5 versus Day 6), number of embryos transferred, quality of the best embryo transferred, and year of treatment. The main outcome measure was LBR. The secondary outcomes included hCG positive, clinical pregnancy and miscarriage rates, and the following perinatal outcomes: first trimester bleeding, second/third trimester bleeding, preterm rupture of membranes, gestational diabetes, gestational hypertensive disorders (GHD), and gestational age at delivery. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 5791 FET cycles were included in this analysis (2226 AC, 349 NPP, and 3216 NC). The LBR for FET was lower in the AC subgroup when compared to the NPP and NC (38.4%, 49.1%, and 45.2%, respectively; P < 0.01 AC versus NPP and AC versus NC). The rates of miscarriage were also lower in the NPP and NC subgroups when compared to AC (19.7%, 25.0%, and 34.9%, respectively; P < 0.01 NPP versus AC and NC versus AC). Considering perinatal outcomes, NPP-FET and NC were associated with a significantly lower first trimester bleeding compared to AC (17.3%, 14.7%, and 37.6%, respectively; P < 0.01 NPP versus AC and NC versus AC). Additionally, NC was associated with a lower rate of GHD when compared with AC (8.6% versus 14.5%, P < 0.01), while the rate following NPP-FET was 9.4%. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study is limited by its retrospective design. Moreover, there was also a low number of patients in the NPP subgroup, which may have led the study to be underpowered to detect clinically relevant differences between the subgroups. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our study posits that the NPP-FET protocol may be an effective and safe alternative to both NC and AC, while still allowing for enhanced practicality in patient follow-up and FET scheduling. Further investigation on NPP-FET is warranted, with prospective studies including a larger and more homogeneous subsets of patients. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was supported by the IVI-RMA-Lisbon (2008-LIS-053-CG). The authors did not receive any funding for this study. The authors have no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Not applicable.

ESHRE guideline: number of embryos to transfer during IVF/ICSI†.

STUDY QUESTION: Which clinical and embryological factors should be considered to apply double embryo transfer (DET) instead of elective single embryo transfer (eSET)? SUMMARY ANSWER: No clinical or embryological factor per se justifies a recommendation of DET instead of eSET in IVF/ICSI. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: DET is correlated with a higher rate of multiple pregnancy, leading to a subsequent increase in complications for both mother and babies. These complications include preterm birth, low birthweight, and other perinatal adverse outcomes. To mitigate the risks associated with multiple pregnancy, eSET is recommended by international and national professional organizations as the preferred approach in ART. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development and update of ESHRE guidelines. Literature searches were performed in PUBMED/MEDLINE and Cochrane databases, and relevant papers published up to May 2023, written in English, were included. Live birth rate, cumulative live birth rate, and multiple pregnancy rate were considered as critical outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were discussed until a consensus was reached within the Guideline Development Group (GDG). A stakeholder review was organized after the guideline draft was finalized. The final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The guideline provides 35 recommendations on the medical and non-medical risks associated with multiple pregnancies and on the clinical and embryological factors to be considered when deciding on the number of embryos to transfer. These recommendations include 25 evidence-based recommendations, of which 24 were formulated as strong recommendations and one as conditional, and 10 good practice points. Of the evidence-based recommendations, seven (28%) were supported by moderate-quality evidence. The remaining recommendations were supported by low (three recommendations; 12%), or very low-quality evidence (15 recommendations; 60%). Owing to the lack of evidence-based research, the guideline also clearly mentions recommendations for future studies. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The guideline assessed different factors one by one based on existing evidence. However, in real life, clinicians' decisions are based on several prognostic factors related to each patient's case. Furthermore, the evidence from randomized controlled trials is too scarce to formulate high-quality evidence-based recommendations. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The guideline provides health professionals with clear advice on best practice in the decision-making process during IVF/ICSI, based on the best evidence currently available, and recommendations on relevant information that should be communicated to patients. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to stimulate further studies in the field. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, the literature searches, and the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. DPB declared receiving honoraria for lectures from Merck, Ferring, and Gedeon Richter. She is a member of ESHRE EXCO, and the Mediterranean Society for reproductive medicine and the president of the Croatian Society for Gynaecological Endocrinology and Reproductive Medicine. CDG is the past Chair of the ESHRE EIM Consortium and a paid deputy member of the Editorial board of Human Reproduction. IR declared receiving reimbursement from ESHRE and EDCD for attending meetings. She holds an unpaid leadership role in OBBCSSR, ECDC Sohonet, and AER. KAR-W declared receiving grants for clinical researchers and funding provision to the institution from the Swedish Cancer Society (200170F), the Senior Clinical Investigator Award, Radiumhemmets Forskningsfonder (Dnr: 201313), Stockholm County Council FoU (FoUI-953912) and Karolinska Institutet (Dnr 2020-01963), NovoNordisk, Merck and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. She received consulting fees from the Swedish Ministry of Health and Welfare. She received honoraria from Roche, Pfizer, and Organon for chairmanship and lectures. She received support from Organon for attending meetings. She participated in advisory boards for Merck, Nordic countries, and Ferring. She declared receiving time-lapse equipment and grants with payment to institution for pre-clinical research from Merck pharmaceuticals and from Ferring. SS-R received research funding from Roche Diagnostics, Organon/MSD, Theramex, and Gedeo-Richter. He received consulting fees from Organon/MSD, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Merck Serono. He declared receiving honoraria for lectures from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Besins, Organon/MSD, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. He received support for attending Gedeon Richter meetings and participated in the Data Safety Monitoring Board of the T-TRANSPORT trial. He is the Deputy of ESHRE SQART special interest group. He holds stock options in IVI Lisboa and received equipment and other services from Roche Diagnostics and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. KT declared receiving payment for honoraria for giving lectures from Merck Serono and Organon. She is member of the safety advisory board of EDQM. She holds a leadership role in the ICCBBA board of directors. ZV received reimbursement from ESHRE for attending meetings. She also received research grants from ESHRE and Juhani Aaltonen Foundation. She is the coordinator of EHSRE SQART special interest group. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. 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 judgement 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 https://www.eshre.eu/Guidelines-and-Legal).

A history of recurrent pregnancy loss is associated with increased perinatal complications, but not necessarily a longer birth interval: a population study spanning 18 years.

STUDY QUESTION: Is there a difference in the time interval between the first and second live births among individuals with and without recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Primary RPL (two or more pregnancy losses before the first live birth) is associated with a shorter time interval between the first and second live births compared with individuals without RPL, but this association is reversed in patients with secondary RPL (RPL patients with no or one pregnancy loss before the first live birth). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: There is limited information regarding the ability to have more than one child for patients with RPL. Previous studies have investigated the time to live birth and the live birth rate from the initial presentation to clinical providers. Most of the previous studies have included only patients treated at specialized RPL clinics and thus may be limited by selection bias, including patients with a more severe condition. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We conducted a population-based retrospective cohort study of 184 241 participants who delivered in British Columbia, Canada, and had at least two recorded live births between 2000 and 2018. The aim was to study the differences in the time interval between the first and second live births and the prevalence of pregnancy complications in patients with and without RPL. Additionally, 198 319 individuals with their first live birth between 2000 and 2010 were studied to evaluate cumulative second live birth rates. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Among individuals with at least two recorded live births between 2000 and 2018, 12 321 patients with RPL and 171 920 participants without RPL were included. RPL was defined as at least two pregnancy losses before 20 weeks gestation. Patients with primary RPL had at least two pregnancy losses occurring before the first live birth, while patients with secondary RPL had no or one pregnancy loss before the first live birth. We compared the time interval from the first to second live birth in patients with primary RPL, those with secondary RPL, and participants without RPL using generalized additive models to allow for a non-linear relationship between maternal age and time interval between first and second live births. We also compared prevalence of pregnancy complications at the first and second live births between the groups using non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis H test and Fisher's exact test for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. We assessed the cumulative second live birth rates in patients with primary RPL and those without RPL, among participants who had their first live birth between 2000 and 2010. Cox proportional hazards model was used to estimate and compare hazard ratios between the two groups using a stratified modelling approach. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The adjusted time interval between the first and second live births was the longest in patients with secondary RPL, followed by individuals without RPL, and the shortest time interval was observed in patients with primary RPL: 4.34 years (95% CI: 4.09-4.58), 3.20 years (95% CI: 3.00-3.40), and 3.05 years (95% CI: 2.79-3.32). A higher frequency of pregnancy losses was associated with an increased time interval between the first and second live births. The prevalence of pregnancy complications at the first and second live births, including gestational diabetes, hypertensive disorder of pregnancy, preterm birth, and multiple gestations was significantly higher in patients with primary RPL compared with those without RPL. The cumulative second live birth rate was significantly lower in patients with primary RPL compared with individuals without RPL. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study may be limited by its retrospective nature. Although we adjusted for multiple potential confounders, there may be residual confounding due to a lack of information about pregnancy intentions and other factors, including unreported pregnancy losses. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The results of this study provide information that will help clinicians in the counselling of RPL patients who desire a second child. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was supported in part by a grant from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR): Reference Number W11-179912. M.A.B. reports research grants from CIHR and Ferring Pharmaceutical. He is also on the advisory board for AbbVie, Pfizer, and Baxter. The other authors report no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04360564.

Impact of elevated serum estradiol levels before progesterone administration on pregnancy outcomes in frozen-thawed embryo transfer for hormone replacement therapy.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this retrospective cohort study is to investigate the impact of monitoring serum estradiol (E2) levels before progesterone administration within hormone replacement therapy (HRT) on pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET). METHODS: Analyzed HRT-FET cycles conducted at a reproductive center from 2017 to 2022. Serum E2 levels were measured prior to progesterone administration. Multivariate stratified and logistic regression analyses were performed on 26,194 patients grouped according to terciles of serum E2 levels before progesterone administration. RESULTS: The clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and live birth rate (LBR) exhibited a gradual decline with increasing serum E2 levels across the three E2 groups. Even after controlling for potential confounders, including female age, body mass index, infertility diagnosis, cycle category, number of embryos transferred, fertilization method, indication for infertility, and endometrial thickness, both CPR and LBR persistently showed a gradual decrease as serum E2 levels increased within the three E2 groups. The same results were obtained by multivariate logistic regression analysis. CONCLUSIONS: This large retrospective study indicates that elevated serum E2 levels before progesterone administration during HRT-FET cycles are associated with reduced CPR and LBR post-embryo transfer. Therefore, it is advisable to monitor serum E2 levels and adjust treatment strategies accordingly to maximize patient outcomes.

Predicting personalized cumulative live birth rate after a complete in vitro fertilization cycle: an analysis of 32,306 treatment cycles in China.

BACKGROUND: The cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) has been regarded as a key measure of in vitro fertilization (IVF) success after a complete treatment cycle. Women undergoing IVF face great psychological pressure and financial burden. A predictive model to estimate CLBR is needed in clinical practice for patient counselling and shaping expectations. METHODS: This retrospective study included 32,306 complete cycles derived from 29,023 couples undergoing IVF treatment from 2014 to 2020 at a university-affiliated fertility center in China. Three predictive models of CLBR were developed based on three phases of a complete cycle: pre-treatment, post-stimulation, and post-treatment. The non-linear relationship was treated with restricted cubic splines. Subjects from 2014 to 2018 were randomly divided into a training set and a test set at a ratio of 7:3 for model derivation and internal validation, while subjects from 2019 to 2020 were used for temporal validation. RESULTS: Predictors of pre-treatment model included female age (non-linear relationship), antral follicle count (non-linear relationship), body mass index, number of previous IVF attempts, number of previous embryo transfer failure, type of infertility, tubal factor, male factor, and scarred uterus. Predictors of post-stimulation model included female age (non-linear relationship), number of oocytes retrieved (non-linear relationship), number of previous IVF attempts, number of previous embryo transfer failure, type of infertility, scarred uterus, stimulation protocol, as well as endometrial thickness, progesterone and luteinizing hormone on trigger day. Predictors of post-treatment model included female age (non-linear relationship), number of oocytes retrieved (non-linear relationship), cumulative Day-3 embryos live-birth capacity (non-linear relationship), number of previous IVF attempts, scarred uterus, stimulation protocol, as well as endometrial thickness, progesterone and luteinizing hormone on trigger day. The C index of the three models were 0.7559, 0.7744, and 0.8270, respectively. All models were well calibrated (p = 0.687, p = 0.468, p = 0.549). In internal validation, the C index of the three models were 0.7422, 0.7722, 0.8234, respectively; and the calibration P values were all greater than 0.05. In temporal validation, the C index were 0.7430, 0.7722, 0.8234 respectively; however, the calibration P values were less than 0.05. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides three IVF models to predict CLBR according to information from different treatment stage, and these models have been converted into an online calculator ( https://h5.eheren.com/hcyc/pc/index.html#/home ). Internal validation and temporal validation verified the good discrimination of the predictive models. However, temporal validation suggested low accuracy of the predictive models, which might be attributed to time-associated amelioration of IVF practice.

Does growth hormone supplementation of in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection improve cumulative live birth rates in women with poor embryonic development in the previous cycle?

BACKGROUND: Growth hormone (GH) has been proposed as an adjunct in in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles, especially in women with poor ovarian response. However, it is unclear whether GH supplementation is effective in women with poor embryonic development in the previous IVF cycle. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of GH supplementation in IVF/ICSI cycles in women with poor embryonic development in the previous cycle. METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study from a public fertility center in China, in which we performed propensity score-matching (PSM) for female age and AFC in a ratio of 1:1. We compared the cumulative live birth rate per started cycle, as well as a series of secondary outcomes. We included 3,043 women with poor embryonic development in the previous IVF/ICSI cycle, of which 1,326 had GH as adjuvant therapy and 1,717 had not. After PSM, there were 694 women in each group. RESULTS: After PSM, multivariate analyses showed the cumulative live birth rate to be significantly higher in the GH group than the control group [N = 694, 34.7% vs. N = 694, 27.5%, risk ratio (RR): 1.4 (95%CI: 1.1-1.8)]. Endometrial thickness, number of oocytes retrieved, number of embryos available, and number of good-quality embryos were significantly higher in the GH group compared to controls. Pregnancy outcomes in terms of birth weight, gestational age, fetal sex, preterm birth rate, and type of delivery were comparable. When we evaluated the impact of GH on different categories of female age, the observed benefit in the GH group did not appear to be significant. When we assessed the effect of GH in different AFC categories, the effect of GH was strongest in women with an AFC5-6 (32.2% versus 19.5%; RR 2.0; 95% CI 1.2-3.3). CONCLUSIONS: Women with poor embryonic quality in the previous IVF/ICSI cycles have higher rates of cumulative live birth with GH supplementation.

Effect of frozen-thawed embryo transfer with a poor-quality embryo and a good-quality embryo on pregnancy and neonatal outcomes.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the impact of embryo quality and quantity, specifically a poor quality embryo (PQE) in combination with a good quality embryo (GQE), by double embryo transfer (DET) on the live birth rate (LBR) and neonatal outcomes in patients undergoing frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles. METHODS: A study on a cohort of women who underwent a total of 1462 frozen-thawed cleavage or blastocyst embryo transfer cycles with autologous oocytes was conducted between January 2018 and December 2021. To compare the outcomes between single embryo transfer (SET) with a GQE and DET with a GQE and a PQE, propensity score matching (PSM) was applied to control for potential confounders, and a generalized estimating equation (GEE) model was used to determine the association between the effect of an additional PQE and the outcomes. Subgroup analysis was also performed for patients stratified by female age. RESULTS: After PS matching, DET-GQE + PQE did not significantly alter the LBR (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.421, 95% CI 0.907-2.228) compared with SET-GQE in cleavage-stage embryo transfer but did increase the multiple birth rate (MBR, [OR] 3.917, 95% CI 1.189-12.911). However, in patients who underwent blastocyst-stage embryo transfer, adding a second PQE increased the live birth rate by 7.8% ([OR] 1.477, 95% CI 1.046-2.086) and the multiple birth rate by 19.6% ([OR] 28.355, 95% CI 3.926-204.790), and resulted in adverse neonatal outcomes. For patients who underwent cleavage-stage embryo transfer, transferring a PQE with a GQE led to a significant increase in the MBR ([OR] 4.724, 95% CI 1.121-19.913) in women under 35 years old but not in the LBR ([OR] 1.227, 95% CI 0.719-2.092). The increases in LBR and MBR for DET-GQE + PQE compared with SET-GQE in women older than 35 years were nonsignificant toward. For patients who underwent blastocyst-stage embryo transfer, DET-GQE + PQE had a greater LBR ([OR] 1.803, 95% CI 1.165-2.789), MBR ([OR] 24.185, 95% CI 3.285-178.062) and preterm birth rate (PBR, [OR] 4.092, 95% CI 1.153-14.518) than did SET-GQE in women under 35 years old, while no significant impact on the LBR ([OR] 1.053, 95% CI 0.589-1.884) or MBR (0% vs. 8.3%) was observed in women older than 35 years. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of a PQE has no significant benefit on the LBR but significantly increases the MBR in patients who underwent frozen-thawed cleavage-stage embryo transfer. However, for patients who underwent blastocyst-stage embryo transfer, DET-GQE + PQE resulted in an increase in both the LBR and MBR, which may lead to adverse neonatal outcomes. Thus, the benefits and risks of double blastocyst-stage embryo transfer should be balanced. In patients younger than 35 years, SET-GQE achieved satisfactory LBR either in cleavage-stage embryo transfer or blastocyst-stage embryo transfer, while DET-GQE + PQE resulted in a dramatically increased MBR. Considering the low LBR in women older than 35 years who underwent single cleavage-stage embryo transfer, selective single blastocyst-stage embryo transfer appears to be a more promising approach for reducing the risk of multiple live births and adverse neonatal outcomes.

The reproductive potential of vitrified-warmed euploid embryos declines following repeated uterine transfers.

BACKGROUND: Recurrent implantation failure (RIF) represents a vague clinical condition with an unclear diagnostic challenge that lacks solid scientific underpinning. Although euploid embryos have demonstrated consistent implantation capabilities across various age groups, a unanimous agreement regarding the advantages of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) in managing RIF is absent. The ongoing discussion about whether chromosomal aneuploidy in embryos significantly contributes to recurrent implantation failure remains unsettled. Despite active discussions in recent times, a universally accepted characterization of recurrent implantation failure remains elusive. We aimed in this study to measure the reproductive performance of vitrified-warmed euploid embryos transferred to the uterus in successive cycles. METHODS: This observational cohort study included women (n = 387) with an anatomically normal uterus who underwent oocyte retrieval for PGT-A treatment with at least one biopsied blastocyst, between January 2017 and December 2021 at a university-affiliated public fertility center. The procedures involved in this study included ICSI, blastocyst culture, trophectoderm biopsy and comprehensive 24-chromosome analysis of preimplantation embryos using Next Generation Sequencing (NGS). Women, who failed a vitrified-warmed euploid embryo transfer, had successive blastocyst transfer cycles (FET) for a total of three using remaining cryopreserved euploid blastocysts from the same oocyte retrieval cycle. The primary endpoints were sustained implantation rate (SIR) and live birth rate (LBR) per vitrified-warmed single euploid embryo. The secondary endpoints were mean euploidy rate (m-ER) per cohort of biopsied blastocysts from each patient, as well as pregnancy and miscarriage rates. RESULTS: The mean age of the patient population was 33.4 years (95% CI 32.8-33.9). A total of 1,641 embryos derived from the first oocyte retrieval cycle were biopsied and screened. We found no associations between the m-ER and the number of previous failed IVF cycles among different ranges of maternal age at oocyte retrieval (P = 0.45). Pairwise comparisons showed a significant decrease in the sustained implantation rate (44.7% vs. 30%; P = 0.01) and the livebirth rate per single euploid blastocyst (37.1% vs. 25%; P = 0.02) between the 1st and 3rd FET. The cumulative SIR and LBR after up to three successive single embryo transfers were 77.1% and 68.8%, respectively. We found that the live birth rate of the first vitrified-warmed euploid blastocyst transferred decreased significantly with the increasing number of previously failed IVF attempts by categories (45.3% vs. 35.8% vs. 27.6%; P = 0.04). A comparable decrease in sustained implantation rate was also observed but did not reach statistical significance (50% vs. 44.2 vs. 37.9%; P = NS). Using a logistic regression model, we confirmed the presence of a negative association between the number of previous IVF failed attempts and the live birth rate per embryo transfer cycle (OR = 0.76; 95% CI 0.62-0.94; P = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: These findings are vital for enhancing patient counseling and refining management strategies for individuals facing recurrent implantation failure. By tailoring interventions based on age and ovarian reserve, healthcare professionals can offer more personalized guidance, potentially improving the overall success rates and patient experiences in fertility treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Clinical outcomes of vitrified-warmed autologous oocyte cycles with 15-year follow-up at a single UK centre: consistent and predictable results.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What were the clinical outcomes from 332 autologous vitrified- warmed oocyte cycles derived from 3182 elective autologous oocyte freeze cycles carried out between 2008 and 2022 in a single-centre series? DESIGN: In this retrospective observational study, outcomes in 299 patients returning to use their frozen oocytes between 2015 and 2023 were analysed. RESULTS: A total of 3328 elective oocyte vitrification cycles were performed in 2280 patients. The return rate to use oocytes was 14% (299/2171). Mean ages were 37.6 years at storage and 40 at warming. Ninety-three clinical pregnancies and 77 healthy live births were recorded. The live birth rate (LBR) was 24% (39/163) per fresh transfer and 17% (39/227) per embryo transferred. Stratified by age at freezing, the LBR per embryo transferred was 26% (12/47) in participants under 35 years, 20% (24/118) in those 35-39 years and 5% (3/62) in those 40+ years. Frozen embryo transfers (FET) achieved a 30% (24/80) LBR per embryo transfer and a 27% (24/90) LBR per embryo transferred. PGT-A for embryo selection doubled the LBR compared with FET from an untested embryo after one attempt (40% versus 21%). In patients aged over 40 years, the cumulative LBR reached 42% per patient in euploid FET. CONCLUSION: The proportion of patients who returned to use their stored oocytes and the clinical outcomes were consistent with other recent reports and challenges the prevalent critical narrative regarding elective oocyte freezing for fertility preservation. The results are now comparable to routine IVF. Not everyone who returns to use their oocytes will conceive, but for those choosing to preserve their fertility, oocyte freezing can provide reproducible and reassuring results.

Impact of a positive Chlamydia trachomatis serology on cumulative IVF live birth rate.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does positive Chlamydia trachomatis serology have an impact on the cumulative live birth rate from IVF? DESIGN: A retrospective matched cohort study compared women with positive Chlamydia trachomatis serology (group A) who underwent IVF treatment between January 2016 and December 2021 with a control group of women with negative Chlamydia trachomatis serology (group B). The main outcome measures were the cumulative live birth rate per IVF cycle and the live birth rate per embryo transfer. Secondary outcomes were the cumulative rates of clinical pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy and pregnancy loss calculated per IVF cycle and per embryo transfer. RESULTS: A total of 151 women in group A were matched 1:2 to 302 women in group B, representing 220 and 440 IVF cycles, respectively. Women with a history of Chlamydia trachomatis infection had a significantly higher rate of tubal obstruction (P < 0.001), excluded or operated hydrosalpinx (P = 0.002) and/or history of chronic endometritis (P < 0.001). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the mean number of mature oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate or implantation rate. The IVF cumulative live birth rate per cycle was similar in the two groups (36.7% in group A versus 34.9% in group B, P = 0.692). The cumulative rates of clinical pregnancy, pregnancy loss, biochemical pregnancy and ectopic pregnancy were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSION: Positive Chlamydia trachomatis serology has no impact on IVF pregnancy outcomes.

Does surgery for colorectal endometriosis prior to IVF±ICSI have an impact on cumulative live birth rates?

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does colorectal endometriosis surgery prior to IVF ± intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) impact cumulative live birth rates? DESIGN: This retrospective, monocentric study (Lille University Hospital) was conducted between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2018. Two groups of patients from the JFIV database were included: a group undergoing IVF±ICSI alone (120 patients, 215 oocyte retrievals), and a group undergoing surgery and then IVF±ICSI (69 patients, 109 oocyte retrievals). The mode of management was decided after a multidisciplinary team meeting. Different criteria such as age (cut-off 35 years), anti-Müllerian hormone concentration (cut off 2 ng/ml), imaging results and the patient's symptomatology were considered: the most symptomatic patients underwent surgery prior to IVF±ICSI. The cumulative clinical pregnancy and live birth rates obtained after four IVF attempts were estimated and compared between the two groups using competing risk survival methods. RESULTS: The cumulative live birth rates after four IVF attempts in the two groups were not statistically significantly different (50.8% in the IVF±ICSI group versus 52.2% in the surgery followed by IVF±ICSI group, P = 0.43). The results for the cumulative clinical pregnancy rates were the same (56.7% in the IVF±ICSI group versus 58% in the surgery followed by IVF±ICSI group, P = 0.47). CONCLUSION: The study shows that cumulative live birth and pregnancy rates were similar in infertile patients with colorectal endometriosis who underwent IVF±ICSI either with or without prior colorectal endometriosis surgery.

Acrosin activity negatively influences the cumulative live birth rate in patients undergoing IVF treatment.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Is acrosin activity related to cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) over 1 year after IVF, intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment or both? DESIGN: Retrospective monocentric cohort study of 5704 couples who started IVF/ICSI treatments between 2016 and 2021. Acrosin activity was determined by a modified Kennedy method using a commercial kit. Patients were divided into two groups according to their acrosin activity: below 25 µIU/106 spermatozoa; and an acrosin activity 25 µIU/106 spermatozoa or above. Primary outcome was the CLBR, defined as an ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth that had arisen from all embryo transfers carried out within 1 year after the first ovum retrieval. Both conservative and optimistic methods were used for estimating CLBRs. RESULTS: The CLBRs of patients with an acrosin activity below 25 µIU/106 spermatozoa were found to be significantly lower than those of patients with an acrosin activity 25 µIU/106 spermatozoa or above by conservative (48.5% versus 55.4%, P = 0.02) and optimistic (63.7% versus 70.3%, P = 0.047) methods after adjusting for confounders. When acrosin activity was regarded as a continuous variable, significant negative relationships between acrosin activity and CLBR were identified in subgroups: young couples (men and women aged younger than 30 years) and couples from whom no more than 10 eggs were retrieved. CONCLUSION: Low acrosin activity levels were correlated with decreasing CLBRs over 1 year. These findings suggest that acrosin activity can be used as a predictor for CLBRs before starting IVF/ICSI treatment to enhance the effectiveness of counselling.

Developing and validating a prediction model of live birth following single vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Can the developed clinical prediction model offer an accurate estimate of the likelihood of live birth, involving blastocyst morphology and vitrification day after single vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer (SVBT), and therefore assist clinicians and patients? STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study conducted at a Spanish university-based reproductive medicine unit (2017-2021) including consecutive vitrified-warmed blastocysts from IVF cycles. A multivariable logistic regression incorporated key live birth predictors: vitrification day, embryo score, embryo ploidy status and clinically relevant variables, i.e. maternal age. RESULTS: The training set involved 1653 SVBT cycles carried out between 2017 and 2020; 592 SVBT cycles from 2021 constituted the external validation dataset. The model revealed that female age and embryo characteristics, including overall quality and blastulation day, is linked to live birth rate in SVBT cycles. Stratification by vitrification day and quality (from day-5A to day-6 C blastocysts) applied to genetically tested and untested embryos. The model's area under the curve was 0.66 (95% CI 0.64 to 0.69) during development and 0.65 (95% CI 0.61 to 0.70) in validation, denoting moderate discrimination. Calibration plots showed strong agreement between predicted and observed probabilities. CONCLUSION: By incorporating essential predictors such as vitrification day, embryo morphology grade, age and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy usage, this predictive model offers valuable guidance to clinicians and patients, enabling accurate forecasts of live birth rates for any given vitrified blastocyst within SVBT cycles. Additionally, it serves as a potentially indispensable laboratory tool, aiding in selecting the most promising blastocysts for optimal outcomes.

How successful is intrauterine insemination after failed IVF? A study of 551 women.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the success rate of intrauterine insemination (IUI) after failing IVF? DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study evaluated the pregnancy outcomes of 551 patients who underwent a total of 992 IUI cycles at an academic fertility centre between October 2008 and April 2018. RESULTS: The study participants (n = 551) had previously failed one to three fresh IVF cycles and any resultant embryo transfers, and subsequently underwent a total of 992 IUI cycles. When comparing demographics, women with ongoing pregnancies, clinical pregnancies and positive pregnancies were significantly younger (P = 0.037, P = 0.025 and P = 0.049, respectively) compared with women who did not conceive. The cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate for all IUI cycles was 7.44% per patient (41 pregnancies in 551 patients), and the ongoing pregnancy rate after the first IUI cycle was 4.72%. In single women who had previously failed six IUI cycles before undergoing IVF cycles with donor sperm, the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate was 15.8% in donor sperm IUI cycles compared with 5.1% in women who used their partner's sperm for both IVF and IUI cycles, with an adjusted odds ratio of 6.1. Patient age, number of previous pregnancies, daily gonadotrophin dose for IVF, number of mature follicles at trigger, and number of failed IVF cycles failed to predict pregnancy outcomes. CONCLUSION: Ongoing pregnancy following IUI after failed IVF occurs at a rate of approximately 5% per cycle, and this rate is higher if donor sperm is used for both IVF and IUI cycles. This can be considered with proper counselling in women aged <40 years, and may be discouraged in women aged ≥43 years.

Impact of inclusion of a poor-quality embryo with a good-quality embryo on pregnancy outcomes in vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfers.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does the co-transfer of a good-quality embryo and a poor-quality embryo influence pregnancy outcomes in comparison to the transfer of a single good-quality embryo in vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer cycles? DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study involved a total of 11,738 women who underwent IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles and vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer at a tertiary-care academic medical from January 2015 to June 2022. The study population was categorized into two groups: single-blastocyst transfer (SBT; participants who underwent single good-quality embryo transfer, n = 9338) versus double-blastocyst transfer (DBT; participants who underwent transfers with a poor and a good-quality embryo, n = 2400). RESULTS: The live birth rate (LBR) was significantly higher in the DBT group in comparison with the SBT group (65.6% versus 56.3%, P < 0.001). Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that DBT was an independent predictor for LBR with a strong potential impact (adjusted odds ratio 1.55, 95% confidence interval 1.41-1.71; P < 0.001). However, the multiple birth rate was significantly higher in the good-quality embryo and poor-quality embryo group compared with patients undergoing a single good-quality embryo transfer (41.4% versus 1.8%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In vitrified-warmed blastocyst transfer cycles, LBR was higher following DBT with one good-quality and one poor-quality embryo compared with SBT. However, this was at the expense of a marked increase in the likelihood of multiple gestations. Physicians should still balance the benefits and risks of double-embryo transfer.

The ovarian stimulation regimen does not affect aneuploidy or blastocyst rate.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Could the total dose (<3000 IU or ≥3000 IU) and type of exogenous gonadotrophin (i.e. recombinant FSH and/or human menopausal gonadotrophin [HMG]) influence aneuploidy and blastulation rates and produce different reproductive outcomes? DESIGN: This retrospective, observational, multicentre cohort study included a total of 8466 patients undergoing IVF using autologous oocytes and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies. Participants were divided according to the dosage of total gonadotrophins and stratified by maternal age. RESULTS: The aneuploidy rates, pregnancy outcomes and cumulative live birth rates (CLBR) were similar among women who received total gonadotrophin dosages of <3000 or ≥3000 IU. No statistical differences were reported in the blastulation rate with lower or higher gonadotrophin dosages. Women receiving a higher amount of HMG during ovarian stimulation had a lower aneuploidy rate (P = 0.02); when stratified according to age, younger women with a higher HMG dosage had lower aneuploidy rates (P< 0.001), while no statistical differences were observed in older women with higher or lower HMG dosages. No significant differences were observed in IVF outcomes or CLBR. CONCLUSIONS: High doses of gonadotrophins were not associated with rate of aneuploidy. However, an increased fraction of HMG in younger women was associated with a lower aneuploidy rate. The study demonstrated that the total gonadotrophin dosage did not influence aneuploidy, reproductive outcomes or CLBR. The increased gonadotrophin and HMG dosages used for ovarian stimulation did not precede aneuploidy, and the use of HMG should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, according to the individual's characteristics and infertility type.