UNASSIGNED: Numerous consensus documents worldwide address luteinizing hormone (LH) supplementation in controlled ovarian stimulation, yet to the best of our knowledge, only one consensus paper has been published in the Arab region. This study presents a Delphi consensus by seven Iranian infertility experts, offering real-world clinical perspectives. The aim was to develop evidence-based opinions on LH\'s role alongside FSH in various aspects of assisted reproductive technology (ART), including LH levels, monitoring, r-hLH use, and suggested activity.
UNASSIGNED: Employing the Delphi consensus approach, the Iran consensus unfolded in three steps. In Step 1, eight out of 10 statements gained approval, while two unclear statements were removed. In Step 2, the 20-member extended panel voted on the remaining eight statements.
UNASSIGNED: Only one (statement 3) lacked consensus (55% agreement), prompting a modification. The revised statement (noted as statement 3\') obtained an 83% agreement.
UNASSIGNED: The clinical perspectives included in this consensus complement clinical guidelines and policies that help further improve treatment outcomes, especially for patients with FSH and LH deficiencies.

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.

OBJECTIVE: Is it possible to define a set of performance indicators (PIs) for clinical work in ART, which can create competency profiles for clinicians and for specific clinical process steps?
CONCLUSIONS: The current paper recommends six PIs to be used for monitoring clinical work in ovarian stimulation for ART, embryo transfer, and pregnancy achievement: cycle cancellation rate (before oocyte pick-up (OPU)) (%CCR), rate of cycles with moderate/severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (%mosOHSS), the proportion of mature (MII) oocytes at ICSI (%MII), complication rate after OPU (%CoOPU), clinical pregnancy rate (%CPR), and multiple pregnancy rate (%MPR).
BACKGROUND: PIs are objective measures for evaluating critical healthcare domains. In 2017, ART laboratory key PIs (KPIs) were defined.
UNASSIGNED: A list of possible indicators was defined by a working group. The value and limitations of each indicator were confirmed through assessing published data and acceptability was evaluated through an online survey among members of ESHRE, mostly clinicians, of the special interest group Reproductive Endocrinology.
METHODS: The online survey was open for 5 weeks and 222 replies were received. Statements (indicators, indicator definitions, or general statements) were considered accepted when ≥70% of the responders agreed (agreed or strongly agreed). There was only one round to seek levels of agreement between the stakeholders.Indicators that were accepted by the survey responders were included in the final list of indicators. Statements reaching less than 70% were not included in the final list but were discussed in the paper.
RESULTS: Cycle cancellation rate (before OPU) and the rate of cycles with moderate/severe OHSS, calculated on the number of started cycles, were defined as relevant PIs for monitoring ovarian stimulation. For monitoring ovarian response, trigger and OPU, the proportion of MII oocytes at ICSI and complication rate after OPU were listed as PIs: the latter PI was defined as the number of complications (any) that require an (additional) medical intervention or hospital admission (apart from OHSS) over the number of OPUs performed. Finally, clinical pregnancy rate and multiple pregnancy rate were considered relevant PIs for embryo transfer and pregnancy. The defined PIs should be calculated every 6 months or per 100 cycles, whichever comes first. Clinical pregnancy rate and multiple pregnancy rate should be monitored more frequently (every 3 months or per 50 cycles). Live birth rate (LBR) is a generally accepted and an important parameter for measuring ART success. However, LBR is affected by many factors, even apart from ART, and it cannot be adequately used to monitor clinical practice. In addition to monitoring performance in general, PIs are essential for managing the performance of staff over time, and more specifically the gap between expected performance and actual performance measured. Individual clinics should determine which indicators are key to the success in their organisation based on their patient population, protocols, and procedures, and as such, which are their KPIs.
CONCLUSIONS: The consensus values are based on data found in the literature and suggestions of experts. When calculated and compared to the competence/benchmark limits, prudent interpretation is necessary taking into account the specific clinical practice of each individual centre.
CONCLUSIONS: The defined PIs complement the earlier defined indicators for the ART laboratory. Together, both sets of indicators aim to enhance the overall quality of the ART practice and are an essential part of the total quality management. PIs are important for education and can be applied during clinical subspecialty.
BACKGROUND: This paper was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with meetings, literature searches, and dissemination. The writing group members did not receive payment.Dr G.G. reports personal fees from Merck, MSD, Ferring, Theramex, Finox, Gedeon-Richter, Abbott, Biosilu, ReprodWissen, Obseva, PregLem, and Guerbet, outside the submitted work. Dr A.D. reports personal fees from Cook, outside the submitted work; Dr S.A. reports starting a new employment in May 2020 at Vitrolife. Previously, she has been part of the Nordic Embryology Academic Team, with meetings were sponsored by Gedeon Richter. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.
CONCLUSIONS: This document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and where relevant based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation.The recommendations should be used for informational and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care, or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type.Furthermore, ESHREs recommendations do not constitute or imply the endorsement, recommendation, or favouring of any of the included technologies by ESHRE.

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

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

OBJECTIVE: What is the recommended management of ovarian stimulation, based on the best available evidence in the literature?
CONCLUSIONS: The guideline development group formulated 84 recommendations answering 18 key questions on ovarian stimulation.
BACKGROUND: 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.
UNASSIGNED: 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).
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.
RESULTS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
BACKGROUND: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.

To provide evidence-based recommendations to practicing physicians and others regarding the effectiveness and safety of therapies for unexplained infertility.
ASRM conducted a literature search, which included systematic reviews, meta-analyses, randomized controlled trials, and prospective and retrospective comparative observational studies published from 1968 through 2019. The ASRM Practice Committee and a task force of experts used available evidence and informal consensus to develop evidence-based guideline recommendations.
Outcomes of interest included: live-birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, fertilization rate, multiple pregnancy rate, dose of treatment, rate of ovarian hyperstimulation, abortion rate, and ectopic pregnancy rate.
The literature search identified 88 relevant studies to inform the evidence base for this guideline.
Evidence-based recommendations were developed for the following treatments for couples with unexplained infertility: natural cycle with intrauterine insemination (IUI); clomiphene citrate with intercourse; aromatase inhibitors with intercourse; gonadotropins with intercourse; clomiphene citrate with IUI; aromatase inhibitors with IUI; combination of clomiphene citrate or letrozole and gonadotropins (low dose and conventional dose) with IUI; low-dose gonadotropins with IUI; conventional-dose gonadotropins with IUI; timing of IUI; and in vitro fertilization and treatment paradigms.
The treatment of unexplained infertility is by necessity empiric. For most couples, the best initial therapy is a course (typically 3 or 4 cycles) of ovarian stimulation with oral medications and intrauterine insemination (OS-IUI) followed by in vitro fertilization for those unsuccessful with OS-IUI treatments.