Explore the vast range of titles available.

Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is the most serious complication of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) as part of assisted reproductive technologies (ART). While the safety and efficacy of ART is well established, physicians should always be aware of the risk of OHSS in patients undergoing COS, as it can be fatal. This article will briefly present the pathophysiology of OHSS, including the key role of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), to provide the foundation for an overview of current techniques for the prevention of OHSS. Risk factors and predictive factors for OHSS will be presented, as recognizing these risk factors and individualizing the COS protocol appropriately is the key to the primary prevention of OHSS, as the benefits and risks of each COS strategy vary among individuals. Individualized COS (iCOS) could effectively eradicate OHSS, and the identification of hormonal, functional and genetic markers of ovarian response will facilitate iCOS. However, if iCOS is not properly applied, various preventive measures can be instituted once COS has begun, including cancelling the cycle, coasting, individualizing the human chorionic gonadotropin trigger dose or using a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist (for those using a GnRH antagonist protocol), the use of intravenous fluids at the time of oocyte retrieval, and cryopreserving/vitrifying all embryos for subsequent transfer in an unstimulated cycle. Some of these techniques have been widely adopted, despite the scarcity of data from randomized clinical trials to support their use.

Variability in the subfertile patient population excludes the possibility of a single approach to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) covering all the requirements of a patient. Modern technology has led to the development of new drugs, treatment options and quantitative methods that can identify single patient characteristics. These could potentially be used to match patients with the right treatment options to optimise efficacy, safety and tolerability during COS. Currently, age and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) level remain the most commonly used single patient characteristics in clinical practice. These variables only provide a basic prognosis for success and indications for standard COS treatment based on gross patient categorisation. In contrast, the anti-Müllerian hormone level appears to be an accurate predictor of ovarian reserve and response to COS, and could be used successfully to guide COS. The antral follicle count is a functional biomarker that could be useful in determining the dose of FSH necessary during stimulation and the success of treatment. Finally, in the future, genetic screening may allow an individual patient's response to stimulation during COS to be predicted based on genotype. Unfortunately, despite the predictive power of these measures, no single biomarker can stand alone as a guide to determine the best treatment option. In the future, hormonal, functional and genetic biomarkers will be used together to personalise COS.

Background In the last two decades, pregnancy rates for patients undergoing in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) have significantly increased. Some of the major advances responsible for this improvement were the introduction of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for the induction of multiple follicle development, and the utilisation of mid-luteal gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists to achieve pituitary down-regulation and full control of the cycle. As a result, a combination of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist with high doses (150-450 IU/day) of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone has become the current standard approach for ovarian stimulation. However, given the heterogeneity of patients embarking on IVF, and the fact that many different drugs can be used alone or in different combinations (generating multiple potential protocols of controlled ovarian stimulation), we consider the need to identify special populations of patients and adapt treatment protocols accordingly, and to implement a more individualised approach to COS. Discussion Studies on mild, minimal and natural IVF cycles have yielded promising results, but have focused on fresh embryo transfers and included relatively young patient populations who generally have the potential for more favourable outcomes. The efficacy of these protocols in patients with a poorer prognosis remains to be tested. When comparing protocols for COS, it is important to think beyond current primary endpoints, and to consider the ideal quality and quantity of oocytes and embryos being produced per stimulated patient, in order to achieve a pregnancy. We should also focus on the cumulative pregnancy rate, which is based on outcomes from fresh and frozen embryos from the same cycle of stimulation. Individualised COS (iCOS) determined by the use of biomarkers to test ovarian reserve has the potential to optimise outcomes and reduce safety issues by adapting treatment protocols according to each patient's specific characteristics. As new objective endocrine, paracrine, functional and/or genetic biomarkers of response are developed, iCOS can be refined further still, and this will be a significant step towards a personalised approach for IVF. Conclusions A variety of COS protocols have been adopted, with mixed success, but no single approach is appropriate for all patients within a given population. We suggest that treatment protocols should be adapted for individual patients through iCOS; this approach promises to be one of the first steps towards implementing personalised medicine in reproductive science.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has been proposed as a potential tool to help address many of the existing problems related with empirical or subjective assessments of clinical and embryological decision points during the treatment of infertility. AI technologies are reviewed and potential areas of implementation of algorithms are discussed, highlighting the importance of following a proper path for the development and validation of algorithms, including regulatory requirements, and the need for ecosystems containing enough quality data to generate it. As evidenced by the consensus of a group of experts in fertility if properly developed, it is believed that AI algorithms may help practitioners from around the globe to standardize, automate, and improve IVF outcomes for the benefit of patients. Collaboration is required between AI developers and healthcare professionals to make this happen.

Background Human menopausal gonadotrophins and recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone are the two main gonadotrophin products utilized for controlled ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technologies. In this meta-analysis, the number of oocytes was designated as the most relevant endpoint directly resulting from ovarian stimulation, and therefore where the drug effect may be estimated with the best sensitivity. Methods All published randomized controlled trials on ovarian stimulation comparing the two gonadotrophin products were evaluated. Internal validity was determined using Chalmers' validated scale. If trials did not meet the established quality criteria, a sensitivity analysis assessed the stability of the results. The comparison of continuous variables was conducted following the weighted mean difference and the standardized mean difference (Cohen's effect size) with the random model. Given the known relationship of baseline conditions on treatment endpoints, results were adjusted for age, body mass index and type of infertility. Results Sixteen studies involving 4040 patients were included. Treatment with human menopausal gonadotrophins resulted in fewer oocytes (-1.54; 95% CI: -2.53 to -0.56; P < 0.0001) compared to recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone. When adjusting for baseline conditions, the mean difference estimate was -2.10 (95% CI: -2.83 to -1.36; P < 0.001). A higher total dose of human menopausal gonadotrophin was necessary (mean difference, 235.46 IU [95% CI: 16.62 to 454.30; P = 0.03]; standardized mean difference, 0.33 [95% CI: 0.08 to 0.58; P = 0.01]). The pregnancy absolute risk difference (RD [hMG-r-hFSH]) for fresh transfers was 3% (P = 0.051), and the relative risk 1.10 (P = 0.06). When adjusted for baseline conditions, the relative risk was 1.04 (P = 0.49) and absolute difference was 0.01 (P = 0.34), respectively. Conclusions Because baseline conditions are predictive of outcome, meta-analytic results are more sensitive when these variables are considered. Using an endpoint closely associated with the stimulation period, sufficient sensitivity is achieved to compare gonadotrophin treatments. As the largest meta-analysis published to date on this subject, treatment with human menopausal gonadotrophins is characterized by fewer oocytes and a higher total dose. When considering only fresh transfers, pregnancy rates were similar.

Gonadotropins extracted from the urine of post-menopausal women have traditionally been used to stimulate folliculogenesis in the treatment of infertility and in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Products, such as human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG), consist not only of a mixture of the hormones, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinising hormone (LH) and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), but also other biologically active contaminants, such as growth factors, binding proteins and prion proteins. The actual amount of molecular LH in hMG preparations varies considerably due to the purification process, thus hCG, mimicking LH action, is added to standardise the product. However, unlike LH, hCG plays a different role during the natural human menstrual cycle. It is secreted by the embryo and placenta, and its main role is to support implantation and pregnancy. More recently, recombinant gonadotropins (r-hFSH and r-hLH) have become available for ART therapies. Recombinant LH contains only LH molecules. In the field of reproduction there has been controversy in recent years over whether r-hLH or hCG should be used for ART. This review examines the existing evidence for molecular and functional differences between LH and hCG and assesses the clinical implications of hCG-supplemented urinary therapy compared with recombinant therapies used for ART.

Background Gonadotrophins are used routinely for follicular stimulation during ovarian induction and assisted reproduction techniques. Developments in recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone preparations and their injection devices have improved patient quality of life by enabling patients to self-administer treatment at home. The objective of this study was to investigate patient experiences of learning to use and overall satisfaction with the follitropin-alpha (Gonal-f) filled-by-mass (FbM) prefilled pen. Methods This questionnaire-based survey study was conducted in 23 fertility centres in Japan over a period of 14 months. Patients who were receiving fertility treatment with the follitropin-alpha (FbM) prefilled pen were asked to complete a questionnaire to assess their satisfaction, ease of learning and use, and injection site pain following treatment. Results A total of 663 women participated in the study. The majority of patients found the instructions for administering follitropin-alpha with the prefilled pen easy to understand (83.0%; n = 546/658) and patients found that a hands-on demonstration by a nurse or doctor was the most useful tool for learning to use the follitropin-alpha (FbM) prefilled pen (80.0%; n = 497/621). Forty-eight percent (n = 318) of patients in the study had previous experience with different types of fertility medications and the majority of these patients found the follitropin-alpha (FbM) prefilled pen easier to use (75.1%; n = 232/309) and less painful (89.0%; n = 347/390) than their previous medication. The majority (80.2%; n = 521/650) of patients reported overall satisfaction with the follitropin-alpha (FbM) prefilled pen. Conclusions The follitropin-alpha (FbM) prefilled pen is an easy-to-use injection device according to this questionnaire-based survey. Patients who had experience of different types of fertility medication preferred the follitropin-alpha (FbM) prefilled pen to other injection devices.

In the menstrual cycle, the mid-cycle surge of gonadotropins (both luteinising hormone [LH] and follicle-stimulating hormone [FSH]) signals the initiation of the periovulatory interval, during which the follicle augments progesterone production and begins to luteinise, ultimately leading to the rupture of the follicle wall and the release of an oocyte. The administration of gonadotropins in controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) leads to supraphysiological steroid concentrations of a very different profile compared with those seen during natural cycles. It has been suggested that these high steroid concentrations cause alterations in endometrial development, affecting oocyte viability in assisted reproductive technology. Furthermore, it has been proposed that elevated progesterone levels have a negative effect on the reproductive outcome of COS. This may arise from an asynchrony between embryo stage and endometrium status at the window of implantation. The regulation of progesterone production by the developing follicles during COS is a complicated interplay of hormonal systems involving the theca and granulosa cells, and the effect of the actions of both LH and FSH. The present paper reviews current knowledge of the regulation of progesterone in the human ovary during the follicular phase and highlights areas where knowledge remains limited. In this review, we provide in-depth information outlining the regulation and function of gonadotropins in the complicated area of steroidogenesis. Based on current evidence, it is not clear whether the high levels of progesterone produced during COS have detrimental effects on fertility.

Follicle-stimulating hormone, both naturally synthesized and as commercial preparations, exists as different isoforms. Variation in the process of glycosylation, particularly in the number of terminal sialic-acid residues, gives rise to isoforms of varying acidic profiles with differences in half-life and bioactivity. Based on the known follicle- stimulating hormone isoform variation across the reproductive cycle, it is possible that the follicle-stimulating hormone isoform profile used in controlled ovarian stimulation may impact follicular recruitment and clinical treatment outcomes. In light of the uncertainty regarding the clinical relevance of follicle stimulating hormone isoforms in fertility treatment, published studies exploring this topic are reviewed. Keywords: follicle-stimulating hormone, isoform, gonadotrophin, heterogeneity

Background It has been recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the American Society of Reproductive Medicine that options to preserve fertility be presented at the outset of treatment for cancer. This recommendation may have arisen, in part, to the increasing survival of patients with cancer and the realization that certain forms of cancer treatment can lead to infertility. One option for these patients, particularly those with ethical or religious objections to freezing embryos is oocyte cryopreservation. However universal acceptance of these procedures has yet to be established, most likely due to a poor history of success and concerns that there has yet to be a comprehensive approach to evaluating these techniques. In light of this, a registry of patients undergoing oocyte cryopreservation, called the HOPE registry, is being implemented. Discussion The intent of the HOPE Registry is to enroll approximately 400 women of reproductive age who will undergo thawing/warming of oocytes and subsequent transfer. Data from the patients enrolled will be collected via a uniform, standardized form and will document important parameters such as demographics, laboratory procedures and outcomes, including following the outcomes of babies born for one year after birth. The results of the registry will be published on a yearly basis. Summary A patient registry has been established in order to systematically document the techniques and outcomes of oocyte cryopreservation procedures. The results will be published in order to provide a widely accessible resource that will allow patients who are considering these procedures validated information in order to make informed decisions as to how their treatment will proceed.