OBJECTIVE: To update the 2010 CNGOF clinical practice guidelines for the first-line management of infertile couples.
METHODS: Five major themes (first-line assessment of the infertile woman, first-line assessment of the infertile man, prevention of exposure to environmental factors, initial management using ovulation induction regimens, first-line reproductive surgery) were identified, enabling 28 questions to be formulated using the Patients, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) format. Each question was addressed by a working group that had carried out a systematic review of the literature since 2010, and followed the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE®) methodology to assess the quality of the scientific data on which the recommendations were based. These recommendations were then validated during a national review by 40 national experts.
RESULTS: The fertility work-up is recommended to be prescribed according to the woman\'s age: after one year of infertility before the age of 35 and after 6months after the age of 35. A couple\'s initial infertility work-up includes a single 3D ultrasound scan with antral follicle count, assessment of tubal permeability by hysterography or HyFOSy, anti-Mullerian hormone assay prior to assisted reproduction, and vaginal swabbing for vaginosis. If the 3D ultrasound is normal, hysterosonography and diagnostic hysteroscopy are not recommended as first-line procedures. Chlamydia trachomatis serology does not have the necessary performance to predict tubal patency. Post-coital testing is no longer recommended. In men, spermogram, spermocytogram and spermoculture are recommended as first-line tests. If the spermogram is normal, it is not recommended to check the spermogram. If the spermogram is abnormal, an examination by an andrologist, an ultrasound scan of the testicles and hormonal test are recommended. Based on the data in the literature, we are unable to recommend a BMI threshold for women that would contraindicate medical management of infertility. A well-balanced Mediterranean-style diet, physical activity and the cessation of smoking and cannabis are recommended for infertile couples. For fertility concern, it is recommended to limit alcohol consumption to less than 5 glasses a week. If the infertility work-up reveals no abnormalities, ovulation induction is not recommended for normo-ovulatory women. If intrauterine insemination is indicated based on an abnormal infertility work-up, gonadotropin stimulation and ovulation monitoring are recommended to avoid multiple pregnancies. If the infertility work-up reveals no abnormality, laparoscopy is probably recommended before the age of 30 to increase natural pregnancy rates. In the case of hydrosalpinx, surgical management is recommended prior to ART, with either salpingotomy or salpingectomy depending on the tubal score. It is recommended to operate on polyps>10mm, myomas 0, 1, 2 and synechiae prior to ART. The data in the literature do not allow us to systematically recommend asymptomatic uterine septa and isthmoceles as first-line surgery.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on strong agreement between experts, we have been able to formulate updated recommendations in 28 areas concerning the initial management of infertile couples.

Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is a serious complication associated with assisted reproductive technology. This systematic review aims to identify who is at high risk for developing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, along with evidence-based strategies to prevent it and replaces the document of the same name last published in 2016.

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

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

Two-round Delphi study carried out in Spain. Three theme-based blocks were set out: 1) Patient profiles: therapeutic goal and parameters to be analysed according to POSEIDON patient profiles; 2) Ovarian stimulation protocols with antagonists: monotherapy (FSH) vs combined therapy (FSH + LH/HMG); 3) Safety and effectiveness of the devices. The antral follicle count and the anti-Müllerian hormone level were considered indicators that can be used to predict ovarian response. More than 80% of the participants agreed that FSH monotherapy is the recommended regimen in normal/hyper-responsive patients of < 35 years of age; that 150-300 IU is the dose to be used in ovarian stimulation in monotherapy depending on clinical parameters; and that FSH monotherapy improves patients\' comfort compared to two combined drugs. It was unanimously considered that the type of device used by the patient influences the comfort of the treatment.IMPACT STATEMENTWhat is already known on this subject? There is currently no consensus on the optimal treatment for controlled ovarian stimulation for patients undergoing IVF which leads to highly variable clinical practices.What the results of this study add? This study\'s strong point is that, since it is a consensus, it has been possible to include more topics than would normally be dealt with in a systematic review or guidelines, which are generally based on a strict method that restricts the scope of the research. Experts have reached a consensus on most of the statements and based on these they have issued consensus statements that will enable the optimal use of gonadotropins in IVF.What the implications are of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? This Delphi consensus provides a real-life clinical perspective on gonadotropin usage in IVF.

BACKGROUND: Follitropin Delta (FD) is indicated exclusively for in-vitro fertilization however, being a gonadotropin it could be used for other purposes. A dosing algorithm exists for FD and IVF but is needed for intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles. The objective of this study is to determine dosing for FD for the first controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) cycle according to current stimulation guidelines.
RESULTS: A retrospective study of 157 subjects from a single university fertility center from January 2017 to March 2020, was performed. All patients stimulated with FD for IUI were included. The number of failed, normal, or overstimulation cycles was determined based on stimulating not more than 2 mature follicles. We then stratified the group based on the AFC, AMH, and body weight. Of 157 subjects, 49% stimulated correctly, 5.6% failed and 45.4% overstimulated. An analysis of the COH IUI cycles based on stratification and over or lack of stimulation per published guidelines found that women with a bodyweight < 80 kg or AMH ≥ 1.5 ng/ml or AFC ≥ 10 initially stimulate with FD 2.0 to 3.0mcg daily. For women with an AFC of 6-9 stimulate with Follitropin Delta 3.0mcg daily. For women with an AFC < 6 or serum AMH < 1.5 ng/ml stimulate with FD 3.0-4.0mcg daily. For women with body weight > 80 kg stimulate initially with daily with 4.0-6.0mcg FD.
CONCLUSIONS: Follitropin Delta can be used safely for controlled ovarian stimulation and insemination at doses easily dispensed by the current methods of delivery, within the current published guidelines for follicle development.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the oocyte potential to develop to blastocyst in Rotterdam consensus PCOS in women with hyper-responses requiring freeze-all embryos.
METHODS: Retrospective, single-academic center, cohort study of 205 patients who underwent freeze-all antagonist IVF cycles for OHSS risk between 2013 and 2019. Women in the PCOS group (n = 88) were diagnosed per the 2003 Rotterdam criteria. Control patients (n = 122) had no evidence of hyperandrogenism or menstrual disturbance. Data was compared by t-tests, chi-squared tests, or multivariate logistic regression (SPSS). Frozen blastocysts were Gardner\'s grade BB or better.
RESULTS: There was no difference in terms of number of oocytes collected (PCOS vs non-PCOS 27.7 ± 9.4 vs 25.9 ± 8.2, p = 0.157), number of MII (20.7 ± 8.0 vs 19.1 ± 6.6, p = 0.130), number of 2PN fertilized (15.6 ± 7.4 vs 14.4 ± 5.9, p = 0.220), and number of frozen blastocysts (7.8 ± 4.9 vs 7.1 ± 3.8, p = 0.272). In addition, fertilization rates (74 ± 17% vs 75 ± 17%, p = 0.730), blastulation rates per 2PN (51 ± 25% vs 51 ± 25%, p = 0.869), and blastulation rates per mature oocytes (37 ± 18% vs 37 ± 15%, p = 0.984) were all comparable between PCOS and controls, respectively. Moreover, there was no difference when comparing PCOS and controls in pregnancy rates (45/81 vs 77/122, p = 0.28) and clinical pregnancy rates (34/81 vs 54/122, p = 0.75), respectively. Multivariate logistic regression controlling for confounders failed to alter these results.
CONCLUSIONS: PCOS subjects do not seem to have altered oocyte potential as measured by number of MII oocytes collected, fertilization, and blastulation rates when compared to high-responder controls, with similar magnitude of stimulation.

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.
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%.
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 β-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 β-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.
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.

By 2030, WHO estimates that 1.4 million reproductive-aged women will be diagnosed with cancer annually. Fortunately, cancer is no longer considered an incurable disease in many cases. From 2008-2014, 85% of women under the age of 45 years diagnosed with cancer survived. This increase in survival rate has shifted attention from focusing exclusively on preserving life to focusing on preserving quality of life after treatment. One aspect of this is preserving the ability to have a biological family. Oncofertility, the field that bridges oncology and reproductive endocrinology with the goal of preserving fertility, offers these patients hope. Though it is clear that ASCO and ASRM recognize the importance of fertility preservation as an aspect of comprehensive oncology care, there are not yet unified guidelines for oncologists and fertility specialists for treating oncofertility patients. First, we identify the need for reproductive counseling prior to cancer treatment, as many patients report that their fertility preservation concerns are not addressed adequately. We then delineate multi-modal fertility preservation options that are available and appropriate for different patients with corresponding outcomes using different treatments. We discuss the unique challenges and considerations, including ethical dilemmas, for delivering timely and comprehensive care specifically for oncofertility patients. Finally, we address the multidisciplinary team that includes oncologists, reproductive endocrinologists, surgeons as well as their staff, nurses, genetic counselors, mental health professionals, and more. Since oncofertility patient care requires the coordination of both physician teams, one set of unified guidelines will greatly improve quality of care.

Can the priorities for future research in infertility be identified?
The top 10 research priorities for the four areas of male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care for people with fertility problems were identified.
Many fundamental questions regarding the prevention, management and consequences of infertility remain unanswered. This is a barrier to improving the care received by those people with fertility problems.
Potential research questions were collated from an initial international survey, a systematic review of clinical practice guidelines and Cochrane systematic reviews. A rationalized list of confirmed research uncertainties was prioritized in an interim international survey. Prioritized research uncertainties were discussed during a consensus development meeting. Using a formal consensus development method, the modified nominal group technique, diverse stakeholders identified the top 10 research priorities for each of the categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility, medically assisted reproduction and ethics, access and organization of care.
Healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others (healthcare funders, healthcare providers, healthcare regulators, research funding bodies and researchers) were brought together in an open and transparent process using formal consensus methods advocated by the James Lind Alliance.
The initial survey was completed by 388 participants from 40 countries, and 423 potential research questions were submitted. Fourteen clinical practice guidelines and 162 Cochrane systematic reviews identified a further 236 potential research questions. A rationalized list of 231 confirmed research uncertainties was entered into an interim prioritization survey completed by 317 respondents from 43 countries. The top 10 research priorities for each of the four categories male infertility, female and unexplained infertility (including age-related infertility, ovarian cysts, uterine cavity abnormalities and tubal factor infertility), medically assisted reproduction (including ovarian stimulation, IUI and IVF) and ethics, access and organization of care were identified during a consensus development meeting involving 41 participants from 11 countries. These research priorities were diverse and seek answers to questions regarding prevention, treatment and the longer-term impact of infertility. They highlight the importance of pursuing research which has often been overlooked, including addressing the emotional and psychological impact of infertility, improving access to fertility treatment, particularly in lower resource settings and securing appropriate regulation. Addressing these priorities will require diverse research methodologies, including laboratory-based science, qualitative and quantitative research and population science.
We used consensus development methods, which have inherent limitations, including the representativeness of the participant sample, methodological decisions informed by professional judgment and arbitrary consensus definitions.
We anticipate that identified research priorities, developed to specifically highlight the most pressing clinical needs as perceived by healthcare professionals, people with fertility problems and others, will help research funding organizations and researchers to develop their future research agenda.
The study was funded by the Auckland Medical Research Foundation, Catalyst Fund, Royal Society of New Zealand and Maurice and Phyllis Paykel Trust. G.D.A. reports research sponsorship from Abbott, personal fees from Abbott and LabCorp, a financial interest in Advanced Reproductive Care, committee membership of the FIGO Committee on Reproductive Medicine, International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies, International Federation of Fertility Societies and World Endometriosis Research Foundation, and research sponsorship of the International Committee for Monitoring Assisted Reproductive Technologies from Abbott and Ferring. Siladitya Bhattacharya reports being the Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. J.L.H.E. reports being the Editor Emeritus of Human Reproduction. A.W.H. reports research sponsorship from the Chief Scientist\'s Office, Ferring, Medical Research Council, National Institute for Health Research and Wellbeing of Women and consultancy fees from AbbVie, Ferring, Nordic Pharma and Roche Diagnostics. M.L.H. reports grants from Merck, grants from Myovant, grants from Bayer, outside the submitted work and ownership in Embrace Fertility, a private fertility company. N.P.J. reports research sponsorship from AbbVie and Myovant Sciences and consultancy fees from Guerbet, Myovant Sciences, Roche Diagnostics and Vifor Pharma. J.M.L.K. reports research sponsorship from Ferring and Theramex. R.S.L. reports consultancy fees from AbbVie, Bayer, Ferring, Fractyl, Insud Pharma and Kindex and research sponsorship from Guerbet and Hass Avocado Board. B.W.M. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet, iGenomix, Merck, Merck KGaA and ObsEva. E.H.Y.N. reports research sponsorship from Merck. C.N. reports being the Co Editor-in-Chief of Fertility and Sterility and Section Editor of the Journal of Urology, research sponsorship from Ferring and retains a financial interest in NexHand. J.S. reports being employed by a National Health Service fertility clinic, consultancy fees from Merck for educational events, sponsorship to attend a fertility conference from Ferring and being a clinical subeditor of Human Fertility. A.S. reports consultancy fees from Guerbet. J.W. reports being a statistical editor for the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group. A.V. reports that he is a Statistical Editor of the Cochrane Gynaecology & Fertility Review Group and the journal Reproduction. His employing institution has received payment from Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority for his advice on review of research evidence to inform their \'traffic light\' system for infertility treatment \'add-ons\'. N.L.V. reports consultancy and conference fees from Ferring, Merck and Merck Sharp and Dohme. The remaining authors declare no competing interests in relation to the present work. All authors have completed the disclosure form.
N/A.