Among infertile women without the polycystic ovary syndrome who were undergoing IVF, the transfer of frozen embryos did not result in significantly higher rates of ongoing pregnancy or live birth than the transfer of fresh embryos. (Funded by My Duc Hospital; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02471573 .).

No abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of cervical pessary to vaginal progesterone for the prevention of preterm birth in women with twin pregnancies and short cervix. METHODS: This randomized controlled trial was conducted at My Duc Hospital, Vietnam. Asymptomatic women with twin pregnancies and cervical length less than 38 mm were randomized to Arabin pessary or vaginal progesterone (400 mg once a day) group. The primary outcome was preterm birth at less than 34 weeks of gestation. Secondary outcomes were adverse maternal and perinatal complications. We planned a subgroup analysis according to quartile of cervical length. Analysis was conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. We estimated that the primary outcome would occur in 28.4% of women treated with progesterone. Thus a total sample size of 290 women divided equally into two groups was required to detect a 14% absolute risk difference in the primary outcome between the two groups (power 80%, alpha-error 5%, 10% loss to follow-up). RESULTS: Between March 2016 and June 2017, we randomized 300 women, 150 women in each group. Preterm birth at less than 34 weeks of gestation occurred in 24 (16%) women in the pessary group and 33 (22%) women in the progesterone group (relative risk [RR] 0.73, 95% CI 0.46–1.18). The use of pessary significantly reduced the composite of poor perinatal outcomes (19% vs 27%; RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.43–0.93). In women with cervical length of 28 mm or less (25th percentile), pessary significantly reduced the preterm birth rate at less than 34 weeks of gestation from 46% (16/35) to 21% (10/47) (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24–0.90) and significantly improved the composite of poor perinatal outcomes. CONCLUSION: Cervical pessary and 400 mg vaginal progesterone resulted in similar rates of preterm birth at less than 34 weeks of gestation in women with twin pregnancies and cervical length less than 38 mm. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02623881.

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

Purpose Standard oocyte in vitro maturation (IVM) usually results in lower pregnancy rates than in vitro fertilization (IVF). IVM preceded by a prematuration step improves the acquisition of oocyte developmental competence and can enhance embryo quality (EQ). This study evaluated the effectiveness of a biphasic culture system incorporating prematuration and IVM steps (CAPA-IVM) versus standard IVM in women with polycystic ovarian morphology (PCOM). Methods Eighty women (age < 38 years, ≥ 25 follicles of 2-9 mm in both ovaries, no major uterine abnormalities) were randomized to undergo CAPA-IVM (n = 40) or standard IVM (n = 40). CAPA-IVM uses two steps: a 24-h prematuration step with C-type natriuretic peptide-supplemented medium, then 30 h of culture in IVM media supplemented with follicle-stimulating hormone and amphiregulin. Standard IVM was performed using routine protocols. Results A significantly higher proportion of oocytes reached metaphase II at 30 h after CAPA-IVM versus standard IVM (63.6 vs 49.0; p < 0.001) and the number of good quality embryos per cumulus-oocyte complex tended to be higher (18.9 vs 12.7; p = 0.11). Clinical pregnancy rate per embryo transfer was 63.2% in the CAPA-IVM versus 38.5% in the standard IVM group (p = 0.04). Live birth rate per embryo transfer was not statistically different between the CAPA-IVM and standard IVM groups (50.0 vs 33.3% [p = 0.17]). No malformations were reported and birth weight was similar in the two treatment groups. Conclusions Use of the CAPA-IVM system significantly improved maturation and clinical pregnancy rates versus standard IVM in patients with PCOM. Furthermore, live births after CAPA-IVM are reported for the first time.

STUDY QUESTION What is the early luteal phase hormonal profile in patients undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI followed by hCG trigger and a freeze-all strategy without luteal phase support? SUMMARY ANSWER The peak concentration of progesterone occurred 4 days after oocyte pick-up (OPU + 4), with an average 35% fall from OPU + 4 to OPU + 6, and progesterone levels before and 12 h after hCG administration predicted levels during the early luteal phase. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The luteal phase during IVF differs from that during normal cycles, particularly with respect to the serum progesterone level profile. This can cause asynchrony between the embryo and the endometrium, potentially resulting in implantation failure and poor reproductive outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This prospective study included 161 women with normal ovarian reserve receiving GnRH antagonist co-treatment during ovarian stimulation with FSH who were followed up to 6 days after OPU in a single IVF cycle. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Women aged 18–42 years undergoing IVF with ovarian stimulation using FSH were included. Ovulation was triggered with recombinant hCG 250 μg. Hormone levels were determined from blood samples taken on the day of trigger, before hCG, at 12, 24 and 36 h after hCG and at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 days after OPU. The primary endpoint was early luteal phase serum concentrations of progesterone, LH, estradiol and hCG. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE One outlier with a pre-hCG serum progesterone level of 11.42 ng/mL was excluded, so all analyses included 160 subjects. Progesterone levels began to increase 1 day after OPU, peaked 4 days after OPU (114 ng/mL), then declined from OPU + 5 onwards. Peak progesterone levels were at OPU + 4, OPU + 5 or OPU + 6 in 38.8, 29.4 and 13.8% of patients, respectively. Approximately two-thirds of patients had a fall in serum progesterone from OPU + 4 to OPU + 6. Pre-hCG progesterone levels correlated significantly with those at 24 h after hCG (r2 = 0.28; P &lt; 0.001), which in turn correlated significantly with progesterone at OPU + 4 (r2 = 0.32; P &lt; 0.001). LH peaked (4.4 IU/L) 12 h after hCG trigger, persisting for 24 h but was barely elevated compared with physiological levels. Serum estradiol peaked twice: at 24 h post-trigger and at OPU + 4. Highest hCG levels (130 mIU/mL) occurred at 24 h post-injection. The best correlations between the number of follicles ≥11 mm and serum progesterone level were seen at 24 and 36 h after hCG and OPU + 1. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The influence of different profiles of serum progesterone on reproductive outcomes could not be determined because a freeze-all strategy was used in all patients. In addition, data were not available to relate serum hormone level findings with endometrial histology or endometrial receptivity analysis to clearly identify the relationship between serum hormones and the window of implantation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Detailed information about early luteal phase hormone levels could be used to optimize and individualize luteal phase support to improve reproductive outcomes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This study was funded by My Duc Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. All authors state that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT02798146; NCT03174691.

STUDY QUESTION What is the cumulative delivery rate (CDR) per aspiration IVF/ICSI cycle in low-prognosis patients as defined by the Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number (POSEIDON) criteria? SUMMARY ANSWER The CDR of POSEIDON patients was on average ∼50% lower than in normal responders and varied across POSEIDON groups; differences were primarily determined by female age, number of embryos obtained, number of embryo transfer (ET) cycles per patient, number of oocytes retrieved, duration of infertility, and BMI. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The POSEIDON criteria aim to underline differences related to a poor or suboptimal treatment outcome in terms of oocyte quality and quantity among patients undergoing IVF/ICSI, and thus, create more homogenous groups for the clinical management of infertility and research. POSEIDON patients are presumed to be at a higher risk of failing to achieve a live birth after IVF/ICSI treatment than normal responders with an adequate ovarian reserve. The CDR per initiated/aspiration cycle after the transfer of all fresh and frozen–thawed/warmed embryos has been suggested to be the critical endpoint that sets these groups apart. However, no multicenter study has yet substantiated the validity of the POSEIDON classification in identifying relevant subpopulations of patients with low-prognosis in IVF/ICSI treatment using real-world data. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Multicenter population-based retrospective cohort study involving 9073 patients treated in three fertility clinics in Brazil, Turkey and Vietnam between 2015 and 2017. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Participants were women with infertility between 22 and 42 years old in their first IVF/ICSI cycle of standard ovarian stimulation whose fresh and/or frozen embryos were transferred until delivery of a live born or until all embryos were used. Patients were retrospectively classified according to the POSEIDON criteria into four groups based on female age, antral follicle count (AFC), and the number of oocytes retrieved or into a control group of normal responders (non-POSEIDON). POSEIDON patients encompassed younger (&lt;35 years) and older (35 years or above) women with an AFC ≥5 and an unexpected poor (&lt;4 retrieved oocytes) or suboptimal (4–9 retrieved oocytes) response to stimulation, and respective younger and older counterparts with an impaired ovarian reserve (i.e. expected poor responders; AFC &lt;5). Non-POSEIDON patients were those with AFC ≥5 and &gt;9 oocytes retrieved. CDR was computed per one aspirated cycle. Logistic regression analysis was carried out to examine the association between patient classification and CDR. MAIN RESULTS AND ROLE OF CHANCE The CDR was lower in the POSEIDON patients than in the non-POSEIDON patients (33.7% vs 50.6%; P &lt; 0.001) and differed across POSEIDON groups (younger unexpected poor responder [Group 1a; n = 212]: 27.8%, younger unexpected suboptimal responder [Group 1b; n = 1785]: 47.8%, older unexpected poor responder [Group 2a; n = 293]: 14.0%, older unexpected suboptimal responder [Group 2b; n = 1275]: 30.5%, younger expected poor responder [Group 3; n = 245]: 29.4%, and older expected poor responder [Group 4; n = 623]: 12.5%. Among unexpected suboptimal/poor responders (POSEIDON Groups 1 and 2), the CDR was twice as high in suboptimal responders (4–9 oocytes retrieved) as in poor responders (&lt;4 oocytes) (P = 0.0004). Logistic regression analysis revealed that the POSEIDON grouping, number of embryos obtained, number of ET cycles per patient, number of oocytes collected, female age, duration of infertility and BMI were relevant predictors for CDR (P &lt; 0.001). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Our study relied on the antral follicle count as the biomarker used for patient classification. Ovarian stimulation protocols varied across study centers, potentially affecting patient classification. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS POSEIDON patients exhibit lower CDR per aspirated IVF/ICSI cycle than normal responders; the differences are mainly determined by female age and number of oocytes retrieved, thereby reflecting the importance of oocyte quality and quantity. Our data substantiate the validity of the POSEIDON criteria in identifying relevant subpopulations of patients with low-prognosis in IVF/ICSI treatment. Efforts in terms of early diagnosis, prevention, and identification of specific interventions that might benefit POSEIDON patients are warranted. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) Unrestricted investigator-sponsored study grant (MS200059_0013) from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. The funder had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish or manuscript preparation. S.C.E. declares receipt of unrestricted research grants from Merck and lecture fees from Merck and Med.E.A. H.Y. declares receipt of payment for lectures from Merck and Ferring. L.N.V. receives speaker fees and conferences from Merck, Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD) and Ferring and research grants from MSD and Ferring. J.F.C. declares receipt of statistical services fees from ANDROFERT Clinic. T.M.H. received speaker fees and conferences from Merck, MSD and Ferring. P.H. declares receipt of unrestricted research grants from Merck, Ferring, Gedeon Richter and IBSA and lecture fees from Merck, Gedeon Richter and Med.E.A. C.A. declares receipt of unrestricted research grants from Merck and lecture fees from Merck. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A.

Not applicable.