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 INTEREST(S) 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.

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.

No abstract

This article represents a viewpoint on the POSEIDON criteria by a group of clinicians and embryologists. Its primary objective is to contextualize the Poseidon criteria and their metric of success for the relevant Frontiers Research Topic “POSEIDON's Stratification of Low Prognosis Patients in ART: The WHY, the WHAT, and the HOW”. “Low prognosis” relates with reduced oocyte number, which can be associated with low or sometimes a normal ovarian reserve and is aggravated by advanced female age. These aspects will ultimately affect the number of embryos generated and consequently, the cumulative live birth rate. The novel system relies on female age, ovarian reserve markers, ovarian sensitivity to exogenous gonadotropin, and the number of oocytes retrieved, which will both identify the patients with low prognosis and stratify such patients into one of four groups of women with “expected” or “unexpected” impaired ovarian response to exogenous gonadotropin stimulation. Furthermore, the POSEIDON group introduced a new measure of clinical success in ART, namely, the ability to retrieve the number of oocytes needed to obtain at least one euploid blastocyst for transfer in each patient. Using the POSEIDON criteria, the clinician can firstly identify and classify patients who have low prognosis in ART, and secondly, aim at designing an individualized treatment plan to maximize the chances of achieving the POSEIDON measure of success in each of the four low prognosis groups. The novel POSEIDON classification system is anticipated to improve counseling and management of low prognosis patients undergoing ART, with an expected positive effect on reproductive success and a reduction in the time to live birth.

No abstract

Context: The menstrual cycle is often abnormal in women with acromegaly. Gonadotropin deficiency may be due to a tumor mass effect (macroadenomas) and/or hyperprolactinemia and/or GH excess. Aim of the Study: The aim of the study was to analyze the causes of ovarian dysfunction in a large series of patients with acromegaly followed up in a single center. Patients and Methods: Gonadal function was assessed on the basis of menstrual status and hormone assays before and after treatment of acromegaly, between 1985 and 2005, in 55 patients aged from 17 to less than 45 yr. Results: Seventeen women (31%) were considered to be eugonadal because they had regular menstrual cycles and/or conceived spontaneously. The remaining 38 women had anovulatory cycles. Of these, 11 had hyperprolactinemia and six had hypogonadism due to a mass effect. The cause of the menstrual disturbances was mixed or unclassifiable in 14 cases. In the seven remaining cases, the gonadal dysfunction was likely related to the GH/IGF-I excess, which exerts a direct effect on the gonadotropic axis. Two had polycystic ovary syndrome, which disappeared after normalization of serum GH/IGF-I levels, suggesting that GH/IGF-I excess may also have a direct effect on the ovary. Thirty-eight women became pregnant, and all had healthy children, despite active acromegaly in 12 cases (31%). Conclusion: Gonadal dysfunction is very common in premenopausal women with acromegaly. The potential causes include the lactogenic effect of prolactin, GH, or both on gonadotropic axis. Tumor mass effect or direct effect of GH or IGF-I on the ovary may also participate in ovarian dysfunction.

The management of low prognosis patients in ART represents a challenge for reproductive specialists. Different profiles and biologic characteristics have been identified among these patients. Indeed, while poor ovarian response can be seen in patients with impaired ovarian reserve, others, identified as hypo-responders, show unexpected poor or suboptimal response to controlled ovarian stimulation despite satisfying ovarian parameters. These hypo-responders are associated during FSH stimulation to slow initial responses in terms of estradiol levels and follicle growth, longer stimulations, and/or greater cumulative FSH doses. Hence, it appears that ovarian sensitivity to gonadotropins differs from a patient to another, and plays a determinant role on ovarian response to stimulation. Although precise mechanisms remain to be elucidated, increasing evidence suggests that ovarian sensitivity to FSH could be influenced by the presence of genetic mutations or single nucleotide polymorphisms of gonadotropins and their receptors. Evaluating ovarian sensitivity to FSH therefore appears as a key element to improve IVF success rates in these low prognosis patients and open new treatment perspectives. Since the traditional ovarian markers currently used are not sufficient to accurately reflect ovarian response to FSH, a tool to assess ovarian sensitivity to gonadotropin stimulation was required. The present review aims to present Follicular Output Rate (FORT) as an efficient quantitative and qualitative marker of ovarian responsiveness to gonadotropins, discuss the underlying mechanisms of impaired sensitivity to FSH and the possible FORT implications for Poseidon criteria.

As antineoplastic treatments have become more successful, an increasing number of women with cancer survive to endure the long-term consequences of chemotherapy. One of the most important of these consequences in young females is premature ovarian failure and infertility. Owing to increasing survival rates, many of these young women are seeking methods to preserve their fertility. Currently, embryo/oocyte cryopreservation obtained after controlled ovarian stimulation appears to provide the best fertility preservation option. However, patients may not have enough time to undergo ovarian stimulation prior to chemotherapy and/or have contraindications to exogenous gonadotropin administration owing to estrogen-dependant tumors. In vitro maturation of oocytes is an attractive alternative for fertility preservation in cancer patients because it does not require ovarian stimulation and it can be performed at any time of the menstrual cycle. In addition, this technique can be combined with ovarian tissue cryobanking. In this review, we discuss the position of in vitro maturation of oocytes in the fertility preservation strategy in young women.