UNASSIGNED: To explore the use of weekly continuous dosing of corifollitropin α in DuoStim cycles.
UNASSIGNED: Pilot-matched case-control study.
UNASSIGNED: Private fertility center.
UNASSIGNED: Cases were defined as DuoStim cycles performed from November 2022 to May 2023 receiving weekly continuous dosing of corifollitropin α (n = 15). Controls were chosen from a database comprising DuoStim cycles conducted at our institution during the years 2021/2022. Matching was done on a 1-to-1 basis, based on antimüllerian hormone values (±0.4 pmol/L) and age (n = 15).
UNASSIGNED: Injections of corifollitropin α once every 8 days, along with uninterrupted oral administration of micronized progesterone 200 mg/d (for luteinizing hormone surge prevention) throughout the follicular and luteal phases for ovarian stimulation. Oocyte retrieval.
UNASSIGNED: Total number of cumulus-oocyte complexes and metaphase II oocytes obtained in follicular + luteal phase stimulation. Secondary outcomes evaluated fertilization rates, number of blastocysts, days of stimulation, number of injectables required, and gonadotropin cost.
UNASSIGNED: The study group achieved similar total oocyte and MII yield vs. daily follicle-stimulating hormone protocol (13.3 ± 6.9 vs. 11.8 ± 6.1 and 10.4 ± 6.3 vs. 9.2 ± 4.6, respectively). All secondary outcomes showed no significant differences. The study group experienced a significant reduction of injections to complete a DuoStim cycle (4.5 ± 1.4 vs. 35.2 ± 12.2; mean deviation -30.7; 95% confidence interval, -37.5- to -23.9)].
UNASSIGNED: Corifollitropin α on a weekly basis throughout a DuoStim cycle yields an equivalent number of oocytes as standard daily follicle-stimulating hormone administration while drastically reducing the number of required injections.
UNASSIGNED: NCT05815719. EudraCT: 2022-003177-32.

OBJECTIVE: What is the relationship between late follicular phase progesterone levels and clinic pregnancy and live birth rates in couples with unexplained infertility undergoing ovarian stimulation with IUI (OS-IUI)?
CONCLUSIONS: Late follicular progesterone levels between 1.0 and <1.5 ng/ml were associated with higher live birth and clinical pregnancy rates while the outcomes in groups with higher progesterone levels did not differ appreciably from the <1.0 ng/ml reference group.
BACKGROUND: Elevated late follicular progesterone levels have been associated with lower live birth rates after fresh embryo transfer following controlled ovarian stimulation and egg retrieval, but less is known about whether an association exists with outcomes in OS-IUI cycles. Existing studies are few and have been limited to ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophins, but the use of oral agents, such as clomiphene citrate and letrozole, is common with these treatments and has not been well studied.
METHODS: The study was a prospective cohort analysis of the Assessment of Multiple Intrauterine Gestations from Ovarian Stimulation (AMIGOS) randomized controlled trial. Frozen serum was available for evaluation from 2121 cycles in 828 AMIGOS participants. The primary pregnancy outcome was live birth per cycle, and the secondary pregnancy outcome was clinical pregnancy rate per cycle.
METHODS: Couples with unexplained infertility in the AMIGOS trial, for whom female serum from day of trigger with hCG was available in at least one cycle of treatment, were included. Stored frozen serum samples from day of hCG trigger during treatment with OS-IUI were evaluated for serum progesterone level. Progesterone level <1.0 ng/ml was the reference group for comparison with progesterone categorized in increments of 0.5 ng/ml up to ≥3.0 ng/ml. Unadjusted and adjusted risk ratios (RR) and 95% CI were estimated using cluster-weighted generalized estimating equations to estimate modified Poisson regression models with robust standard errors.
RESULTS: Compared to the reference group with 110/1363 live births (8.07%), live birth rates were significantly increased in cycles with progesterone 1.0 to <1.5 ng/ml (49/401 live births, 12.22%) in both the unadjusted (RR 1.56, 95% CI 1.14, 2.13) and treatment-adjusted models (RR 1.51, 95% CI 1.10, 2.06). Clinical pregnancy rates were also higher in this group (55/401 clinical pregnancies, 13.72%) compared to reference group with 130/1363 (9.54%) (unadjusted RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.10, 1.94 and adjusted RR 1.42, 95% CI 1.07, 1.89). In cycles with progesterone 1.5 ng/ml and above, there was no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy or live birth rates relative to the reference group. This pattern remained when stratified by ovarian stimulation treatment group but was only statistically significant in letrozole cycles.
CONCLUSIONS: The AMIGOS trial was not designed to answer this clinical question, and with small numbers in some progesterone categories our analyses were underpowered to detect differences between some groups. Inclusion of cycles with progesterone values above 3.0 ng/ml may have included those wherein ovulation had already occurred at the time the IUI was performed. These cycles would be expected to experience a lower success rate but pregnancy may have occurred with intercourse in the same cycle.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared to previous literature focusing primarily on OS-IUI cycles using gonadotrophins, these data include patients using oral agents and therefore may be generalizable to the wider population of infertility patients undergoing IUI treatments. Because live births were significantly higher when progesterone ranged from 1.0 to <1.5 ng/ml, further study is needed to clarify whether this progesterone range may truly represent a prognostic indicator in OS-IUI cycles.
BACKGROUND: Oklahoma Shared Clinical and Translational Resources (U54GM104938) National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS). AMIGOS was funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development: U10 HD077680, U10 HD39005, U10 HD38992, U10 HD27049, U10 HD38998, U10 HD055942, HD055944, U10 HD055936, and U10HD055925. Research made possible by the funding by American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. Dr Burks has disclosed that she is a member of the Board of Directors of the Pacific Coast Reproductive Society. Dr Hansen has disclosed that he is the recipient of NIH grants unrelated to the present work, and contracts with Ferring International Pharmascience Center US and with May Health unrelated to the present work, as well as consulting fees with May Health also unrelated to the present work. Dr Diamond has disclosed that he is a stockholder and a member of the Board of Directors of Advanced Reproductive Care, Inc., and that he has a patent pending for the administration of progesterone to trigger ovulation. Dr Anderson, Dr Gavrizi, and Dr Peck do not have conflicts of interest to disclose.
BACKGROUND: N/A.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the outcomes of in vitro fertilization (IVF) in patients with a poor ovarian response who used methyltestosterone, versus those using a placebo, in an infertility clinic setting.
METHODS: This clinical trial included 120 women who had undergone IVF with intracytoplasmic sperm injection due to poor ovarian reserve and infertility. The study took place at the Yas Infertility Center in Tehran, Iran, between January 1, 2018 and January 1, 2019. In the intervention group, 25 mg of methyltestosterone was administered daily for 2 months prior to the initiation of assisted reproductive treatment. The control group was given placebo tablets for the same duration before starting their cycle. Each group was randomly assigned 60 patients. All analyses were performed using SPSS ver. 23 (IBM Corp.).
RESULTS: The endometrial thickness in the intervention group was 7.57±1.22 mm, whereas in the control group, it was 7.11±1.02 (p=0.028). The gonadotropin number was significantly higher in the control group (64.7±13.48 vs. 57.9±9.25, p=0.001). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups in the antral follicular count. The chemical and clinical pregnancy rates in the intervention group were 18.33% and 15% respectively, compared to 8.33% and 6.67% in the control group. The rate of definitive pregnancy was marginally higher in the intervention group (13.3% vs. 3.3%, p=0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that pretreatment with methyltestosterone significantly increases endometrium thickness and is associated with an increase in the definitive pregnancy rate.

OBJECTIVE: Is late follicular phase stimulation as efficient as early follicular phase stimulation in a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol in oocyte donors in terms of the number of oocytes.
METHODS: In this open label, phase 3, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial using a two-arm design with a 1:1 allocation ratio, 84 oocyte donors were allocated to the early follicular start group (control group, n = 41) or the late follicular start group (study group, n = 43). In the control group, women followed a fixed GnRH antagonist protocol with recombinant FSH (r-FSH) 225 IU. In the study group, r-FSH 225 IU was initiated in the late follicular phase. The primary outcome was the number of oocytes. The secondary outcomes were the number of mature oocytes, consumption of gonadotrophins and GnRH antagonist, and cost of medication.
RESULTS: The number of oocytes did not differ between the control group and the study group (intent-to-treat analysis 15.5 ± 11.0 versus 14.0 ± 10.7, P = 0.52; per-protocol analysis 18.2 ± 9.7 versus 18.8 ± 7.8, P = 0.62). In addition, the number of mature oocytes did not differ between the groups (14.1 ± 8.1 versus 12.7 ± 8.5, P = 0.48). The duration of stimulation was shorter in the control group (10.0 ± 1.4 versus 10.9 ± 1.5 days, P = 0.01). The total amount of r-FSH used was lower in the control group (2240.7 ± 313.9 IU versus 2453.9 ± 330.1 IU, P = 0.008). A GnRH antagonist was used for approximately 6 days in the control group, while a GnRH antagonist was only prescribed for one woman in the study group (6.0 ± 1.4 days versus 0.13±0.7 days, P < 0.001). There was a significant difference in the cost of medication per cycle between the groups (1147.9 ± 182.8€ in control group versus 979.9 ± 129.0€ in study group, P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Late follicular phase stimulation is as efficient as early follicular phase stimulation in terms of the number of oocytes.

UNASSIGNED: This study aims to retrospectively estimate cumulative reproductive outcomes in women with primary ovarian insufficiency (POI) in assisted reproductive technology (ART) therapy.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 139 patients diagnosed with POI were reviewed in this study. Firstly, they were divided into two groups according to oocyte origin: using their own oocytes (OG group) or accepting oocyte donations (OD I group). Secondly, the patients were split depending on the pregnancy outcome. In the OG group, nine patients decided to use others\' oocytes after a failure of attempting to use their own, and this population was the oocyte donation II group (OD II group).
UNASSIGNED: There were 88 patients who used their own oocytes, while 51 patients accepted oocyte donations. In the OG group, there are only 10 (7.2%) patients who got pregnant, and patients in the OD group had worse hormone levels (FSH 71.37 ± 4.18 vs. 43.98 ± 2.53, AMH 0.06 ± 0.04 vs. 1.15 ± 0.15, and AFC 0.10 ± 0.06 vs. 1.15 ± 0.15) and more years of infertility (5.04 ± 0.48 vs. 3.82 ± 0.30), which explained why they choose oocyte donation. In all the three groups, baseline characteristics were comparable between pregnant women and non-pregnant women. Of the 10 pregnant patients in the OG group, four of them used luteal-phase short-acting long protocol and had pregnancies successfully in their first cycles.
UNASSIGNED: Ovarian stimulation in POI women requires more cost and time. For those with a stronger desire to have genetic offspring, luteal-phase short-acting long protocol may help them obtain pregnancy rapidly.

Follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) binds to its membrane receptor (FSHR) in granulosa cells to activate various signal transduction pathways and drive the gonadotropin-dependent phase of folliculogenesis. Both FSH insufficiency (due to genetic or nongenetic factors) and FSH excess (as encountered with ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology [ART]) can cause poor female reproductive outcomes, but the underlying molecular mechanisms remain elusive. Herein, we conducted single-follicle and single-oocyte RNA sequencing analysis along with other approaches in an ex vivo mouse folliculogenesis and oogenesis system to investigate the effects of different concentrations of FSH on key follicular events. Our study revealed that a minimum FSH threshold is required for follicle maturation into the high estradiol-secreting preovulatory stage, and such threshold is moderately variable among individual follicles between 5 and 10 mIU/mL. FSH at 5, 10, 20, and 30 mIU/mL induced distinct expression patterns of follicle maturation-related genes, follicular transcriptomics, and follicular cAMP levels. RNA sequencing analysis identified FSH-stimulated activation of G proteins and downstream canonical and novel signaling pathways that may critically regulate follicle maturation, including the cAMP/PKA/CREB, PI3K/AKT/FOXO1, and glycolysis pathways. High FSH at 20 and 30 mIU/mL resulted in noncanonical FSH responses, including premature luteinization, high production of androgen and proinflammatory factors, and reduced expression of energy metabolism-related genes in oocytes. Together, this study improves our understanding of gonadotropin-dependent folliculogenesis and provides crucial insights into how high doses of FSH used in ART may impact follicular health, oocyte quality, pregnancy outcome, and systemic health.

OBJECTIVE: How does a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist versus a GnRH antagonist protocol affect ovarian response when using an individualized fixed daily dose of follitropin delta for ovarian stimulation?
CONCLUSIONS: The BEYOND trial data demonstrate thatindividualized fixed-dose follitropin delta is effective when used in a GnRH agonist protocol, compared with a GnRH antagonist protocol, in women with anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) ≤35 pmol/l and no increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).
BACKGROUND: The efficacy and safety of an individualized fixed daily dose of follitropin delta (based on body weight and AMH) have been established in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using a GnRH antagonist protocol. Preliminary study data indicate that individualized follitropin delta is also efficacious in a GnRH agonist protocol (RAINBOW trial, NCT03564509). There are no prospective comparative data using individualized follitropin delta for ovarian stimulation in a GnRH agonist versus a GnRH antagonist protocol.
METHODS: This is the first randomized, controlled, open-label, multi-centre trial exploring efficacy and safety of individualized follitropin delta dosing in a GnRH agonist versus a GnRH antagonist protocol in participants undergoing their first ovarian stimulation cycle for IVF/ICSI. A total of 437 participants were randomized centrally and stratified by centre and age. The primary endpoint was the number of oocytes retrieved. Secondary endpoints included ongoing pregnancy rates, adverse drug reactions (including OHSS), live births, and neonatal outcomes.
METHODS: Participants (18-40 years; AMH ≤35 pmol/l) were enrolled at specialist reproductive health clinics in Austria, Denmark, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland. The mean number of oocytes retrieved was compared between the GnRH agonist and antagonist protocols using a negative binomial regression model with age and AMH at screening as factors. Analyses were based on all randomized subjects, using a multiple imputation method for randomized subjects withdrawing before the start of stimulation.
RESULTS: Of the 437 randomized subjects, 221 were randomized to the GnRH agonist, and 216 were randomized to the GnRH antagonist protocol. The participants had a mean age of 32.3 ± 4.3 years and a mean serum AMH of 16.6 ± 7.8 pmol/l. A total of 202 and 204 participants started ovarian stimulation with follitropin delta in the GnRH agonist and antagonist groups, respectively. The mean number of oocytes retrieved was statistically significantly higher in the agonist group (11.1 ± 5.9) versus the antagonist group (9.6 ± 5.5), with an estimated mean difference of 1.31 oocytes (95% CI: 0.22; 2.40, P = 0.0185). The difference in number of oocytes retrieved was influenced by the patients\' age and ovarian reserve, with a greater difference observed in patients aged <35 years and in patients with high ovarian reserve (AMH >15 pmol/l). Both the GnRH agonist and antagonist groups had a similar proportion of cycle cancellations (2.0% [4/202] versus 3.4% [7/204]) and fresh blastocyst transfer cancellations (13.4% [27/202] versus 14.7% [30/204]). The estimated ongoing pregnancy rate per started cycle was numerically higher in the GnRH agonist group (36.9% versus 29.1%; difference: 7.74% [95% CI: -1.49; 16.97, P = 0.1002]). The most commonly reported adverse events (≥1% in either group; headache, OHSS, nausea, pelvic pain, or discomfort and abdominal pain) were similar in both groups. The incidence of early moderate/severe OHSS was low (1.5% for the agonist group versus 2.5% for antagonist groups). Estimated live birth rates per started cycle were 35.8% and 28.7% in the GnRH agonist and antagonist groups, respectively (treatment difference 7.15%; 95% CI: -2.02; 16.31; P = 0.1265). The two treatment groups were comparable with respect to neonatal health data for singletons and twins and for incidence of congenital malformations (2.7% and 3.3% for the GnRH agonist versus antagonist groups, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS: All participants had AMH ≤35 pmol/l and were ≤40 years old. Clinicians should remain cautious when using a GnRH agonist protocol in patients with AMH >35 pmol/l (i.e. those with an increased OHSS risk). The incidence of OHSS in the GnRH antagonist group may have been lower if a GnRH agonist trigger had been allowed. Outcomes of transfers with cryopreserved blastocysts were not followed up, therefore the cumulative live birth rates and neonatal outcomes after cryotransfer are unknown.
CONCLUSIONS: In women with AMH ≤35 pmol/l, an individualized fixed daily dose of follitropin delta resulted in a significantly higher number of oocytes retrieved when used in a GnRH agonist protocol compared with a GnRH antagonist protocol, with no additional safety signals observed and no additional risk of OHSS. Live birth rates following ovarian stimulation with individualized follitropin delta were not statistically different between the GnRH protocols; however, the trial was not powered to assess this endpoint. There were no safety concerns with respect to neonatal health after ovarian stimulation with follitropin delta in either protocol.
BACKGROUND: The trial was funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals. EE, EP, and MS have no competing interests. AP has received research support from Ferring, and Gedeon Richter, and honoraria or consultation fees from Preglem, Novo Nordisk, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Cryos, Merck A/S. BC has received consulting fees from Ferring and Merck, and his department received fees from Ferring to cover the costs of patient enrolment. MBS has received support to attend meetings and/or travel from Ferring, and was a board member for FertiPROTEKT e.V. until 2023. JS has received honoraria or consultation fees from Ferring and Merck, and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Ferring, Merck, and GoodLife. TS has received support/travel expenses from Ferring for attending a congress meeting, and participated in an advisory board for Merck. YS has received grants/research support from Ferring and support to attend a professional society congress meeting from Merck. RL and PP are employees of Ferring Pharmaceuticals. PP is a BOD member of PharmaBiome and owns stocks of Takeda Pharmaceuticals.
BACKGROUND: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03809429; EudraCT Number 2017-002783-40.
UNASSIGNED: 7 April 2019.
UNASSIGNED: 2 May 2019.

The effects of ovarian stimulation on breast and gynecological tumor incidence remain controversial. Therefore, the aim of this meta-analysis was to study the risk of cancer in ovarian stimulation. Of the 22713 studies initially identified, 28 were eligible for inclusion. The results revealed that the impact of ovarian cancer (RR = 1.33, [1.05; 1.69]) and cervical cancer (RR = 0.67, [0.46; 0.97]) is significant among the overall effects. In subgroup analysis, in the nulliparous population (RR = 0.81 [0.68; 0.96]) was the protective factor for the breast cancer. In the Caucasians subgroup (RR = 1.45, [1.12; 1.88]), the ovarian cancer incidence was statistically significant. In the Asian subgroup (RR = 1.51, [1.00; 2.28]), the endometrial cancer incidence was statistically significant. In the subgroup of Asians (RR = 0.55 [0.44; 0.68]) and the multiparous population (RR = 0.31, [0.21; 0.46]), them can be the statistically protective factor for the cervical cancer.

OBJECTIVE: Does a progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol with dydrogesterone from cycle day 7 yield similar outcomes compared with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol in the same oocyte donors?
METHODS: This retrospective longitudinal study included 128 cycles from 64 oocyte donors. All oocyte donors had the same type of gonadotrophin and daily dose in both stimulation cycles. The primary outcome was the number of cumulus-oocyte complexes (COC) retrieved.
RESULTS: The number of COC retrieved (mean ± SD 19.7 ± 10.8 versus 19.2 ± 8.3; P = 0.5) and the number of metaphase II oocytes (15.5 ± 8.4 versus 16.2 ± 7.0; P = 0.19) were similar for the PPOS and GnRH antagonist protocols, respectively. The duration of stimulation (10.5 ± 1.5 days versus 10.8 ± 1.5 days; P = 0.14) and consumption of gonadotrophins (2271.9 ± 429.7 IU versus 2321.5 ± 403.4 IU; P = 0.2) were also comparable, without any cases of premature ovulation. Nevertheless, there was a significant difference in the total cost of medication per cycle: €898.3 ± 169.9 for the PPOS protocol versus €1196.4 ± 207.5 (P < 0.001) for the GnRH antagonist protocol.
CONCLUSIONS: The number of oocytes retrieved and number of metaphase II oocytes were comparable in both stimulation protocols, with the advantage of significant cost reduction in favour of the PPOS protocol compared with the GnRH antagonist protocol. No cases of premature ovulation were observed, even when progestin was started later in the stimulation.

OBJECTIVE: Is ovarian stimulation with levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG-IUS) in situ and co-treatment with letrozole safe and effective in patients undergoing fertility-sparing combined treatment for atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH) or early endometrial cancer limited to the endometrium?
METHODS: Retrospective case-control study recruiting women who had undergone fertility-sparing \'combined\' treatment and ovarian stimulation with letrozole and LNG-IUS in situ. The \'three steps\' hysteroscopic technique was used. Once complete response was achieved, the ovaries were stimulated, and mature oocytes cryopreserved. The LNG-IUS was removed, and embryos transferred. A comparative analysis was conducted between the two control groups of the initial outcomes of ART (number of oocytes and MII oocytes retrieved): healthy infertile women undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI (control group A); and patients diagnosed with breast cancer who underwent ovarian stimulation with letrozole (control group B).
RESULTS: Of the 75 patients analysed, 15 underwent oocyte cryopreservation after achieving a complete response to fertility-sparing treatment (study group); 30 patients in control group A and B, respectively. No statistically significant differences were observed in retrieved oocytes and mature oocytes between the study and control groups. In the nine patients who underwent embryo transfer, clinical pregnancy (55.6%), cumulative live birth (44.4%) and miscarriage (20%) rates were reported. In three patients with AEH, recurrence occurred (12%) at 3, 6 and 16 months after removing the LNG-IUS to attempt embryo transfer, respectively.
CONCLUSIONS: Fertility-sparing hysteroscopic combined treatment and subsequent ovarian stimulation with letrozole and LNG-IUS in situ could be suggested to women with AEH or early endometrial cancer who ask for future fertility preservation.