ESHRE good practice recommendations on recurrent implantation failure

STUDY QUESTION

How should recurrent implantation failure (RIF) in patients undergoing ART be defined and managed?

SUMMARY ANSWER

This is the first ESHRE good practice recommendations paper providing a definition for RIF together with recommendations on how to investigate causes and contributing factors, and how to improve the chances of a pregnancy.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

RIF is a challenge in the ART clinic, with a multitude of investigations and interventions offered and applied in clinical practice, often without biological rationale or with unequivocal evidence of benefit.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

This document was developed according to a predefined methodology for ESHRE good practice recommendations. Recommendations are supported by data from the literature, if available, and the results of a previously published survey on clinical practice in RIF and the expertise of the working group. A literature search was performed in PubMed and Cochrane focussing on 'recurrent reproductive failure', 'recurrent implantation failure', and 'repeated implantation failure'.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

The ESHRE Working Group on Recurrent Implantation Failure included eight members representing the ESHRE Special Interest Groups for Implantation and Early Pregnancy, Reproductive Endocrinology, and Embryology, with an independent chair and an expert in statistics. The recommendations for clinical practice were formulated based on the expert opinion of the working group, while taking into consideration the published data and results of the survey on uptake in clinical practice. The draft document was then open to ESHRE members for online peer review and was revised in light of the comments received.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The working group recommends considering RIF as a secondary phenomenon of ART, as it can only be observed in patients undergoing IVF, and that the following description of RIF be adopted: 'RIF describes the scenario in which the transfer of embryos considered to be viable has failed to result in a positive pregnancy test sufficiently often in a specific patient to warrant consideration of further investigations and/or interventions'. It was agreed that the recommended threshold for the cumulative predicted chance of implantation to identify RIF for the purposes of initiating further investigation is 60%. When a couple have not had a successful implantation by a certain number of embryo transfers and the cumulative predicted chance of implantation associated with that number is greater than 60%, then they should be counselled on further investigation and/or treatment options. This term defines clinical RIF for which further actions should be considered. Nineteen recommendations were formulated on investigations when RIF is suspected, and 13 on interventions. Recommendations were colour-coded based on whether the investigations/interventions were recommended (green), to be considered (orange), or not recommended, i.e. not to be offered routinely (red).

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

While awaiting the results of further studies and trials, the ESHRE Working Group on Recurrent Implantation Failure recommends identifying RIF based on the chance of successful implantation for the individual patient or couple and to restrict investigations and treatments to those supported by a clear rationale and data indicating their likely benefit.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This article provides not only good practice advice but also highlights the investigations and interventions that need further research. This research, when well-conducted, will be key to making progress in the clinical management of RIF.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

The meetings and technical support for this project were funded by ESHRE. N.M. declared consulting fees from ArtPRED (The Netherlands) and Freya Biosciences (Denmark); Honoraria for lectures from Gedeon Richter, Merck, Abbott, and IBSA; being co-founder of Verso Biosense. He is Co-Chief Editor of Reproductive Biomedicine Online (RBMO). D.C. declared being an Associate Editor of Human Reproduction Update, and declared honoraria for lectures from Merck, Organon, IBSA, and Fairtility; support for attending meetings from Cooper Surgical, Fujifilm Irvine Scientific. G.G. declared that he or his institution received financial or non-financial support for research, lectures, workshops, advisory roles, or travelling from Ferring, Merck, Gedeon-Richter, PregLem, Abbott, Vifor, Organon, MSD, Coopersurgical, ObsEVA, and ReprodWissen. He is an Editor of the journals Archives of Obstetrics and Gynecology and Reproductive Biomedicine Online, and Editor in Chief of Journal Gynäkologische Endokrinologie. He is involved in guideline developments and quality control on national and international level. G.L. declared he or his institution received honoraria for lectures from Merck, Ferring, Vianex/Organon, and MSD. He is an Associate Editor of Human Reproduction Update, immediate past Coordinator of Special Interest Group for Reproductive Endocrinology of ESHRE and has been involved in Guideline Development Groups of ESHRE and national fertility authorities. D.J.M. declared being an Associate Editor for Human Reproduction Open and statistical Advisor for Reproductive Biomedicine Online. B.T. declared being shareholder of Reprognostics and she or her institution received financial or non-financial support for research, clinical trials, lectures, workshops, advisory roles or travelling from support for attending meetings from Ferring, MSD, Exeltis, Merck Serono, Bayer, Teva, Theramex and Novartis, Astropharm, Ferring. The other authors had nothing to disclose.

DISCLAIMER

This Good Practice Recommendations (GPR) document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and are based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. ESHRE GPRs should be used for information and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care, or be exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, or variations based on locality and facility type. Furthermore, ESHRE GPRs do not constitute or imply the endorsement, or favouring, of any of the included technologies by ESHRE.

The importance of follicular flushing in optimizing oocyte retrieval

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To critically evaluate the use of follicular flushing during oocyte retrieval.

RECENT FINDINGS

The latest meta-analysis evaluating follicular flushing does not favour its use over single aspiration. The randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included, however, are characterized by significant heterogeneity regarding the population analysed, the needle type and lumen used, the aspiration pressure applied and the number of flushing attempts performed. More importantly, information regarding the flow rate used for aspiration is scarce. The only RCT employing a constant flow rate between single aspiration and follicular flushing in women with monofollicular development, suggests that a higher number of oocytes is retrieved after follicular flushing.

SUMMARY

In order to eliminate clinical heterogeneity that might obscure the detection of the true effect of follicular flushing, randomization to single aspiration and follicular flushing should occur within the same patient. This can be achieved by randomly allocating each patient's ovary to either single aspiration or follicular flushing, maintaining similar flow rates between the groups compared.Given the importance of maximizing the number of oocytes retrieved from a given number of follicles developed, the conduction of properly designed RCTs evaluating follicular flushing is certainly required.

P-706 Improved prediction of the number of oocytes retrieved using automated-3D ultrasound compared to manual-2D ultrasound on the day of triggering final oocyte maturation

Study question

Does the number of follicles ≥11mm differ when measured by manual-2D or automated-3D ultrasound and which method predicts the number of oocytes collected more accurately?

Summary answer

Manual-2D and automated-3D ultrasound find similar numbers of follicles ≥11mm. Automated-3D ultrasound has a higher predictive ability regarding the number of oocytes collected.

What is known already

Accurate assessment of the size and number of follicles during ovarian stimulation is important to determine the optimum day of triggering final oocyte maturation and subsequent oocyte retrieval, in order to achieve the maximum number of mature oocytes. Moreover, the number of follicles ≥11mm on the day of triggering final oocyte maturation, has been used as a criterion to identify women at risk of Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome.

Automated-3D ultrasound follicle size and count measurement has been proposed as a valid alternative to 2D ultrasound measurement, but its predictive ability regarding number of oocytes collected has not been compared.

Study design, size, duration

Prospective observational cohort study performed between 12/2020 and 07/2021 in a single ART center including 93 women undergoing COS. On the day of triggering final oocyte maturation, 3D-ultrasound (SonoAVC;GE Medical Systems) and traditional 2D-ultrasound were used to assess the number and size of follicles.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

Patients underwent ovarian stimulation with recombinant-FSH and GnRH antagonists. Triggering of final oocyte maturation was performed when three follicles ≥17mm were present on 2D ultrasound.

The number of follicles ≥11mm assessed with manual-2D and automated-3D ultrasound on the day of triggering was compared. Linear regression analysis was performed with dependent variable the number oocytes retrieved and independent variables the number of follicles ≥11mm (2D-ultrasound) as well as the number of follicles ≥11mm (automated-3D ultrasound).

Main results and the role of chance

The median number of follicles ≥11mm counted via automated-3D [ 10 (IQR: 5.75 – 16)] and the median number of follicles ≥11mm found via manual-2D assessment [10 (IQR: 6.75 – 18)] was similar between the two groups. Τhe median number of oocytes retrieved was 12 (IQR: 6.75 – 18). A high correlation of R = 0.915 was observed between the number of follicles found to be ≥ 11mm via automated-3D and 2D.

However, regarding the number of oocytes collected, the predictive ability of automated-3D, was found to be, significantly higher (R2=0.837) than the predictive ability of 2d-ultrasound (R2=0.734) when all follicles ≥11mm were taken into account. These findings suggest that while the number of follicles measured to be ≥ 11mm was similar in both methods, automated 3D-ultrasound measurement offers a higher ability to predict the number of oocytes retrieved, compared to manual 2D-ultrasound measurements.

Limitations, reasons for caution

The present study compared manual 2D and automated 3D-ultrasound follicle measurements in the general IVF population. Future studies using a larger patient population will be useful to determine any potential differences between the two methods in patients stratified according to ovarian response.

Wider implications of the findings

Manual 2D and automated 3D-ultrasound assessment provide similar measurements of follicle number and size in patients undergoing IVF but automated-3D measurements offer greater predictive value regarding the number of oocytes collected and can be used effectively to monitor follicular development during ovarian stimulation for IVF.

Trial registration number

N/A

P-702 Prediction of oocyte maturity via automated volumetric follicle measurements on the day of triggering final oocyte maturation. An observational cohort study

Study question

Can automated measurements of follicular volume by three-dimensional (3D) ultrasound predict the number of mature oocytes retrieved better than two-dimensional (2D) measurements of follicles?

Summary answer

Automated measurements of follicular volume by 3D ultrasound have similar predictive ability of the number of mature oocytes retrieved as manual 2D measurements of follicles.

What is known already

Accurate assessment of the size and number of follicles during ovarian stimulation is important to determine the day of triggering final oocyte maturation and subsequent oocyte retrieval, in order to achieve the optimal number of mature oocytes. Follicles with a diameter ≥11mm on the day of triggering are often considered to contribute the most towards the final number of mature oocytes. It has also been shown that 3D follicle volumes offer a more physiological measurement and may be a more objective than 2D follicle diameters. However, to date, the correlation between diameters and volumes has not been properly evaluated.

Study design, size, duration

Prospective observational cohort study of 75 women undergoing ICSI between 01/2021 and 09/2021 in a private ART centre. In each patient, two dimensional-2D and three dimensional-3D transvaginal ultrasound (SonoAVC; GE Medical Systems), was used to assess differences in the number and size of follicles on the day of triggering final oocyte maturation. SonoAVC automatically calculates the volume of the follicle while manual-2D value is calculated as the mean of the maximal follicular dimensions x-y.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

Patients underwent ovarian stimulation with recombinant-FSH and GnRH antagonists. Statistical analysis involved robust linear regression with dependent variable the number MIIs retrieved and independent variables the number of follicles ≥11mm (via 2D) and the number of follicles with volume ≥0.7ml (via SonoAVC). 0.7ml was used as it is a close approximation to the volume of a sphere with diameter 11mm. This was confirmed by identifying the actual volume of aspirated follicles 11mm (unpublished data).

Main results and the role of chance

A high correlation of R = 0.922 was observed between manual-2D and automated-3D assessment in the number of follicles with volume ≥0.7ml and those with mean diameter ≥11mm. In addition, no differences were found in the number of follicles with volume ≥0.7ml vs the number of follicles with diameter of ≥ 11mm (median 9.0, IQR: 5.0 – 14.5 vs. median 10.0, IQR: 6.75 – 18, respectively) on the day of triggering final oocyte maturation. The median number of MIIs collected was 9.0 (IQR: 5.0 – 13.25).

The predictive capability of follicles with volume ≥0.7ml in regards to the number of MII collected was found to be R2=0.736, which is higher than the predictive capability of follicles ≥11mm (R2=0.629). These findings suggest that the number of follicles with a volume ≥0.7ml offers at least a similar predictive capability as the traditionally used number of follicles ≥11mm.

Limitations, reasons for caution

While the volume of 0.7ml was found to be closely correlated with the size of 11mm, the predictive capability of other follicular volumes needs to also be compared, since follicles are rarely spheres, especially in hyperstimulated ovaries and therefore even better prediction of oocyte maturation may arise from another volume.

Wider implications of the findings

Manual-2D ultrasound and automated-3D volumetric assessment of follicles provide similar predictive value of the number of mature oocytes retrieved. Therefore volumetric measurements can possibly be used during assessment of ovarian stimulation, instead of mean diameter. However, their clinical effectiveness needs to be tested in a robust clinical trial.

Trial registration number

N/A

P-608 A higher probability of ongoing pregnancy is present by using the fixed as compared to the flexible GnRH antagonist protocol

Study question

Is the probability of ongoing pregnancy higher in the fixed as compared to the flexible gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol?

Summary answer

A higher probability of ongoing pregnancy is present by using the fixed as compared to the flexible GnRH antagonist protocol.

What is known already

Although fixed GnRH antagonist initiation is a simpler protocol that requires less monitoring compared to the flexible one, the latter might avoid unnecessary antagonist use, by administering GnRH antagonist only when there is a real risk for premature luteinizing hormone (LH) rise. A meta-analysis of four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2005, comparing fixed versus flexible GnRH antagonist administration, showed a lower non-significant probability of clinical pregnancy in the flexible compared with the fixed protocol. Following that meta-analysis, four additional RCTs comparing the fixed versus the flexible GnRH antagonist protocol have been performed necessitating an update on this topic.

Study design, size, duration

A literature search was performed until 12/2021, in order to identify RCTs comparing the fixed versus the flexible GnRH antagonist protocol in patients undergoing ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization (IVF) using gonadotrophins. The main outcome measure was achievement of ongoing pregnancy. Secondary outcome measures included duration of stimulation, incidence of premature LH rise, estradiol levels on the day of triggering final oocyte maturation and the number of cumulus-oocyte-complexes (COCs) retrieved.

Participants/materials, setting, methods

Seven RCTs comparing fixed versus flexible protocol, published between 2002 and 2021, were identified (1007 patients). A meta-analysis was performed using the fixed or random effects method depending on the presence of statistically significant heterogeneity. For dichotomous data, estimates were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data, differences were pooled across resulting in a weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI.

Main results and the role of chance

Ovarian stimulation was performed using recombinant gonadotrophins in all studies. In the fixed protocol initiation of GnRH antagonist was performed either on Day 6 (six studies) or on Day 5 (single study) of stimulation. In the flexible protocol antagonist was initiated using either ultrasound criteria (four studies) or by combination of ultrasound or hormonal criteria (three studies).

No significant difference was present between the fixed and flexible groups in the duration of gonadotrophin stimulation (WMD:+0.23 days, 95% CI: -0.08 to + 0.53, random protocol) and in the incidence of premature LH rise (RR:0.86, 95% CI: 0.48-1.53, fixed protocol). Significantly lower estradiol levels were present on the day of triggering final oocyte maturation (WMD:-237.74, 95% CI: -463.87 to -11.61, random protocol) and significantly less COCs were retrieved (WMD:-1.83, 95% CI: -3.11 to -0.54, random protocol) in the fixed compared with the flexible protocol.

A significantly higher probability of ongoing pregnancy was observed in the fixed as compared to the flexible protocol, both per intention to treat (RR:1.28, 95% CI: 1.02-1.61, I2:0%, fixed protocol, six studies, 898 patients) as well as per protocol analysis (RR:1.30, 95% CI: 1.04-1.62, I2:0%, fixed protocol, six studies, 757 patients).

Limitations, reasons for caution

In the current meta-analysis, the number of studies and patients included does not allow to perform subgroup analyses based on the time of fixed antagonist initiation or on the criteria used for flexible antagonist initiation.

Wider implications of the findings

Although in theory flexible antagonist initiation is an attractive protocol that leads to less antagonist administration, the current meta-analysis suggests that it is associated with a lower probability of ongoing pregnancy. Further RCTs examining the two antagonist protocols for additional outcomes, including live birth or cumulative live birth, are necessary.

Trial registration number

N/A

The Maribor consensus: report of an expert meeting on the development of performance indicators for clinical practice in ART

STUDY QUESTION

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?

SUMMARY ANSWER

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).

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

PIs are objective measures for evaluating critical healthcare domains. In 2017, ART laboratory key PIs (KPIs) were defined.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

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.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, 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.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

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.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

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.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

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.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

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.

DISCLAIMER

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.

Erratum: ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoaa009.][This corrects the article DOI: 10.1093/hropen/hoaa009.].

ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI†

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 atwww.eshre.eu/guidelines.)

^†ESHRE Pages content is not externally peer reviewed. The manuscript has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

In a flexible antagonist protocol, earlier, criteria-based initiation of GnRH antagonist is associated with increased pregnancy rates in IVF

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the study was to assess ongoing pregnancy rates across groups of patients treated by IVF, which were defined according to criteria aimed at the prevention of premature LH surge and used for initiating GnRH antagonist.

METHODS

This is a prospective observational cohort study. During the last 3 years, in IVF-ICSI patients undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with the antagonist protocol, the antagonist administration was initiated according to at least one of the following patient-specific criteria: (i) at least one follicle measuring >14 mm; (ii) estradiol levels >600 pg/ml; and (iii) LH levels >10 IU/l. Based upon these criteria, 208 cases of normal responders were analysed and categorized into three groups according to the starting day of the regimen: group D4 (n = 40) for day 4, group D5 (n = 98) for day 5 and group D6 (n = 70) for day 6. The main outcome measure was the ongoing pregnancy rate per started cycle.

RESULTS

The total number of patients in the D4 and D5 groups (138 out of 208), who received the antagonist earlier, was considerably larger compared with that of D6 (70 out of 208). Ongoing pregnancy rates were 37.5, 34.7 and 18.6% for groups D4, D5 and D6, respectively. Patients who initiated the GnRH antagonist on days 4 and 5 had statistically significant higher pregnancy rates compared with day 6. Rapid response, causing earlier antagonist administration initiation, according to the proposed criteria for the prevention of premature LH surges, and the absence of premature luteinization, as evidenced by normal progesterone levels on HCG day, were found to be independent positive predictive factors for favourable IVF outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

The employment of an algorithm of criteria, aimed at the prevention of premature LH surges in a flexible antagonist protocol, resulted in antagonist initiation earlier than on stimulation day 6 in a significant proportion of patients. In those patients, a higher pregnancy rate was observed.