Impact of endometrial preparation on early pregnancy loss and live birth rate after frozen embryo transfer: a large multicenter cohort study (14 421 frozen cycles).

Does the endometrial preparation protocol (artificial cycle (AC) vs natural cycle (NC) vs stimulated cycle (SC)) impact the risk of early pregnancy loss and live birth rate after frozen/thawed embryo transfer (FET)? In FET, ACs were significantly associated with a higher pregnancy loss rate and a lower live birth rate compared with SC or NC. To date, there is no consensus on the optimal endometrial preparation in terms of outcomes. Although some studies have reported a higher pregnancy loss rate using AC compared with NC or SC, no significant difference was found concerning the pregnancy rate or live birth rate. Furthermore, no study has compared the three protocols in a large population. A multicenter retrospective cohort study was conducted in nine reproductive health units in France using the same software to record medical files between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2016. FET using endometrial preparation by AC, modified NC or SC were included. The primary outcome was the pregnancy loss rate at 10 weeks of gestation. The sample size required was calculated to detect an increase of 5% in the pregnancy loss rate (21-26%), with an alpha risk of 0.5 and a power of 0.8. We calculated that 1126 pregnancies were needed in each group, i.e. 3378 in total. Data were collected by automatic extraction using the same protocol. All consecutive autologous FET cycles were included: 14 421 cycles (AC: n = 8139; NC: n = 3126; SC: n = 3156) corresponding to 3844 pregnancies (hCG > 100 IU/l) (AC: n = 2214; NC: n = 812; SC: n = 818). Each center completed an online questionnaire describing its routine practice for FET, particularly the reason for choosing one protocol over another. AC represented 56.5% of FET cycles. Mean age of women was 33.5 (SD ± 4.3) years. The mean number of embryos transferred was 1.5 (±0.5). Groups were comparable, except for history of ovulation disorders (P = 0.01) and prior delivery (P = 0.03), which were significantly higher with AC. Overall, the early pregnancy loss rate was 31.5% (AC: 36.5%; NC: 25.6%; SC: 23.6%). Univariable analysis showed a significant association between early pregnancy loss rate and age >38 years, history of early pregnancy loss, ovulation disorders and duration of cryopreservation >6 months. After adjustment (multivariable regression), the early pregnancy loss rate remained significantly higher in AC vs NC (odds ratio (OR) 1.63 (95% CI) [1.35-1.97]; P < 0.0001) and in AC vs SC (OR 1.87 [1.55-2.26]; P < 0.0001). The biochemical pregnancy rate (hCG > 10 and lower than 100 IU/l) was comparable between the three protocols: 10.7% per transfer. This study is limited by its retrospective design that generates missing data. Routine practice within centers was heterogeneous. However, luteal phase support and timing of embryo transfer were similar in AC. Univariable analysis showed no difference between centers. Moreover, a large number of parameters were included in the analysis. Our study shows a significant increase in early pregnancy loss when using AC for endometrial preparation before FET. These results suggest either a larger use of NC or SC, or an improvement of AC by individualizing hormone replacement therapy for patients in order to avoid an excess of pregnancy losses. The authors declare no conflicts of interest in relation to this work. G.P.-B. declares consulting fees from Ferring, Gedeon-Richter, Merck KGaA, Theramex, Teva; Speaker's fees or equivalent from Merck KGaA, Ferring, Gedeon-Richter, Theramex, Teva. N.C. declares consulting fees from Ferring, Merck KGaA, Theramex, Teva; Speaker's fees or equivalent from Merck KGaA, Ferring. C.R. declares a research grant from Ferring, Gedeon-Richter; consulting fees from Gedeon-Richter, Merck KGaA; Speaker's fees or equivalent from Merck KGaA, Ferring, Gedeon-Richter; E.M.d'A. declares Speaker's fees or equivalent from Merck KGaA, MSD, Ferring, Gedeon-Richter, Theramex, Teva. I.C-D. declares Speaker's fees or equivalent from Merck KGaA, MSD, Ferring, Gedeon-Richter, IBSA. N.M. declares a research grant from Merck KGaA, MSD, IBSA; consulting fees from MSD, Ferring, Gedeon-Richter, Merck KGaA; Speaker's fees or equivalent from Merck KGaA, MSD, Ferring, Gedeon-Richter, Teva, Goodlife, General Electrics. N/A.

Vinsonneau L ，Labrosse J ，Porcu-Buisson G ，Chevalier N ，Galey J ，Ahdad N ，Ayel JP ，Rongières C ，Bouet PE ，Mathieu d'Argent E ，Cédrin-Durnerin I ，Pessione F ，Massin N ... -  《-》

The BISTIM study: a randomized controlled trial comparing dual ovarian stimulation (duostim) with two conventional ovarian stimulations in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF.

Is the total number of oocytes retrieved with dual ovarian stimulation in the same cycle (duostim) higher than with two consecutive antagonist cycles in poor responders? Based on the number of total and mature oocytes retrieved in women with poor ovarian response (POR), there is no benefit of duostim versus two consecutive antagonist cycles. Recent studies have shown the ability to obtain oocytes with equivalent quality from the follicular and the luteal phase, and a higher number of oocytes within one cycle when using duostim. If during follicular stimulation smaller follicles are sensitized and recruited, this may increase the number of follicles selected in the consecutive luteal phase stimulation, as shown in non-randomized controlled trials (RCT). This could be particularly relevant for women with POR. This is a multicentre, open-labelled RCT, performed in four IVF centres from September 2018 to March 2021. The primary outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved over the two cycles. The primary objective was to demonstrate in women with POR that two ovarian stimulations within the same cycle (first in the follicular phase, followed by a second in the luteal phase) led to the retrieval of 1.5 (2) more oocytes than the cumulative number of oocytes from two consecutive conventional stimulations with an antagonist protocol. In a superiority hypothesis, with power 0.8 alpha-risk 0.05 and a 35% cancellation rate, 44 patients were needed in each group. Patients were randomized by computer allocation. Eighty-eight women with POR, defined using adjusted Bologna criteria (antral follicle count ≤5 and/or anti-Müllerian hormone ≤1.2 ng/ml) were randomized, 44 in the duostim group and 44 in the conventional (control) group. HMG 300 IU/day with flexible antagonist protocol was used for ovarian stimulation, except in luteal phase stimulation of the duostim group. In the duostim group, oocytes were pooled and inseminated after the second retrieval, with a freeze-all protocol. Fresh transfers were performed in the control group, frozen embryo transfers were performed in both control and duostim groups in natural cycles. Data underwent intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. There was no difference between the groups regarding demographics, ovarian reserve markers, and stimulation parameters. The mean (SD) cumulative number of oocytes retrieved from two ovarian stimulations was not statistically different between the control and duostim groups, respectively, 4.6 (3.4) and 5.0 (3.4) [mean difference (MD) [95% CI] +0.4 [-1.1; 1.9], P = 0.56]. The mean cumulative numbersof mature oocytes and total embryos obtained were not significantly different between groups. The total number of embryos transferred by patient was significantly higher in the control group 1.5 (1.1) versus the duostim group 0.9 (1.1) (P = 0.03). After two cumulative cycles, 78% of women in the control group and 53.8% in the duostim group had at least one embryo transfer (P = 0.02). There was no statistical difference in the mean number of total and mature oocytes retrieved per cycle comparing Cycle 1 versus Cycle 2, both in control and duostim groups. The time to the second oocyte retrieval was significantly longer in controls, at 2.8 (1.3) months compared to 0.3 (0.5) months in the duostim group (P < 0.001). The implantation rate was similar between groups. The cumulative live birth rate was not statistically different, comparing controls versus the duostim group, 34.1% versus 17.9%, respectively (P = 0.08). The time to transfer resulting in an ongoing pregnancy did not differ in controls 1.7 (1.5) months versus the duostim group, 3.0 (1.6) (P = 0.08). No serious adverse events were reported. The RCT was impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and the halt in IVF activities for 10 weeks. Delays were recalculated to exclude this period; however, one woman in the duostim group could not have the luteal stimulation. We also faced unexpected good ovarian responses and pregnancies after the first oocyte retrieval in both groups, with a higher incidence in the control group. However, our hypothesis was based on 1.5 more oocytes in the luteal than the follicular phase in the duostim group, and the number of patients to treat was reached in this group (N = 28). This study was only powered for cumulative number of oocytes retrieved. This is the first RCT comparing the outcome of two consecutive cycles, either in the same menstrual cycle or in two consecutive menstrual cycles. In routine practice, the benefit of duostim in patients with POR regarding fresh embryo transfer is not confirmed in this RCT: first, because this study demonstrates no improvement in the number of oocytes retrieved in the luteal phase after follicular phase stimulation, in contrast to previous non-randomized studies, and second, because the freeze-all strategy avoids a pregnancy with fresh embryo transfer after the first cycle. However, duostim appears to be safe for women. In duostim, the two consecutive processes of freezing/thawing are mandatory and increase the risk of wastage of oocytes/embryos. The only benefit of duostim is to shorten the time to a second retrieval by 2 weeks if accumulation of oocytes/embryos is needed. This is an investigator-initiated study supported by a research Grant from IBSA Pharma. N.M. declares grants paid to their institution from MSD (Organon France); consulting fees from MSD (Organon France), Ferring, and Merck KGaA; honoraria from Merck KGaA, General Electrics, Genevrier (IBSA Pharma), and Theramex; support for travel and meetings from Theramex, Merck KGaG, and Gedeon Richter; and equipment paid to their institution from Goodlife Pharma. I.A. declares honoraria from GISKIT and support for travel and meetings from GISKIT. G.P.-B. declares Consulting fees from Ferring and Merck KGaA; honoraria from Theramex, Gedeon Richter, and Ferring; payment for expert testimony from Ferring, Merck KGaA, and Gedeon Richter; and support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. N.C. declares grants from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaA, Ferring, and Gedeon Richter; support for travel and meetings from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaG, MSD (Organon France), Gedeon Richter, and Theramex; and participation on advisory board from Merck KGaA. E.D. declares support for travel and meetings from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaG, MSD (Organon France), Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Theramex, and General Electrics. C.P.-V. declares support for travel and meetings from IBSA Pharma, Merck KGaA, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, and Theramex. M.Pi. declares support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Gedeon Richetr, and Merck KGaA. M.Pa. declares honoraria from Merck KGaA, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter; support for travel and meetings from Merck KGaA, IBSA Pharma, Theramex, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, and MSD (Organon France). H.B.-G. declares honoraria from Merck KGaA, and Gedeon Richter and support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Merck KGaA, IBSA Pharma, MSD (Organon France), Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. S.G. and M.B. have nothing to declare. Registration number EudraCT: 2017-003223-30. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03803228. EudraCT: 28 July 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov: 14 January 2019. 3 September 2018.

Massin N ，Abdennebi I ，Porcu-Buisson G ，Chevalier N ，Descat E ，Piétin-Vialle C ，Goro S ，Brussieux M ，Pinto M ，Pasquier M ，Bry-Gauillard H ... -  《-》

ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI(†).

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

Ovarian Stimulation TEGGO ，Bosch E ，Broer S ，Griesinger G ，Grynberg M ，Humaidan P ，Kolibianakis E ，Kunicki M ，La Marca A ，Lainas G ，Le Clef N ，Massin N ，Mastenbroek S ，Polyzos N ，Sunkara SK ，Timeva T ，Töyli M ，Urbancsek J ，Vermeulen N ，Broekmans F ... -  《-》

Pretreatment with luteal estradiol for programming antagonist cycles compared to no pretreatment in advanced age women stimulated with corifollitropin alfa: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.

Does luteal estradiol (E2) pretreatment give a similar number of retrieved oocytes compared to no-pretreatment in advanced-aged women stimulated with corifollitropin alfa in an antagonist protocol? Programming antagonist cycles with luteal E2 gave similar number of retrieved oocytes compared to no-pretreatment in women aged 38-42 years. Programming antagonist cycles with luteal E2 pretreatment is a valuable tool to organize the IVF procedure better and is safe without any known impact on cycle outcome. However, variable effects were observed on the number of retrieved oocytes depending on the treated population. In advanced-age women, recruitable follicles tend to decrease in number and to be more heterogeneous in size but it remains unclear if estradiol pretreatment could change the oocyte yield through its negative feed-back effect on FSH intercycle rise. This non-blinded randomized controlled non-inferiority trial was conducted between 2016 and 2022 with centrally computerized randomization and concealed allocation. Participants were 324 women aged 38-42 years undergoing IVF treatment. The primary endpoint was the total number of retrieved oocytes. Statistical analysis was performed with one-sided alpha risk of 2.5% and 95% confidence interval (CI) with the non-inferiority of E2 pretreatment proved by a P value <0.025 and a lower delta margin of the CI within two oocytes compared to no pretreatment. Secondary endpoints were duration and total dosage of recombinant FSH, cancellation rate, percentage of oocyte pick-up (OPU) on working days, total number of metaphase II oocytes and obtained embryos, fresh transfer live birth rate, and cumulative live birth rate. This multicentric study enrolled women with regular cycles, weight >50 kg and body mass index <32, IVF cycle 1-2. According to randomization, micronized estradiol 2 mg twice a day was started on days 20-24 and continued until Wednesday beyond the onset of menses followed by administration of corifollitropin alfa on Friday, i.e. stimulation (S)1 or from D1-3 of a natural cycle in unpretreated patients. GnRH antagonist was started at S6 and additional FSH at S8. Basal characteristics were similar in patients randomized in E2 pretreated (n = 164) and non-pretreated (n = 160) groups (intended to treat (ITT) population). A total of 291 patients started treatment (per protocol (PP) population), 147 in E2 pretreated group with a mean number [SD] of pre-treatment days 9.8 [2.6] and 144 in the non-pretreated group. Despite advanced age, oocyte yields ranged from 0 to 29 in both groups with a median number of 6 retrieved oocytes in accordance with a mean anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level above 1.2 ng/ml. We demonstrated the non-inferiority of E2 pretreatment with a mean difference of -0.1 oocyte 95% CI [-1.5; 1.3] P = 0.004 in the PP population and a mean difference of -0.44 oocyte [-1.84; 0.97] P = 0.014 in the ITT population. Oocyte retrieval was more often on working days in E2 pretreated patients (91.9 versus 74.2%, P < 0.001). In patients reaching OPU, the duration of stimulation was statistically significantly longer (11.7 [1.7] versus 10.8 [1.8] days, P < 0.001) and the extra FSH dosage in addition to corifollitropin alfa was statistically significantly higher (1040 [548] versus 778 [504] IU, P < 0.001) in E2 pretreated than non-pretreated patients. We did not observe any significant differences in the number of retrieved oocytes (8.4 [6.1] versus 9.1 [6.0]), in the number of Metaphase 2 oocytes (7 [5.5] versus 7.3 [5.2]) nor in the number of obtained embryos (5 [4.6] versus 5.2 [4.2]) in E2 pretreated patients compared to non-pretreated patients. The live birth rate after fresh transfer (16.2% versus 18.5%, respectively), and the cumulative live birth rate per patient (17.7% versus 22.9%, respectively) were similar in both groups. Among the PP population, 31.6% of patients fulfilled the criteria for group 4 of Poseïdon classification (AMH <1.2 ng/ml and/or antral follicle count <5). In this sub-group of patients, we observed in contrast a statistically higher number of retrieved oocytes in E2 pretreated patients compared to non-pretreated (5.1 [3.8] versus 3.4 [2.7], respectively, the mean difference of +1.7 oocyte [0.2; 3.2] P = 0.022) but without significant difference in the cumulative live birth rate per patient (15.7% versus 7.3%, respectively). Our stimulated women older than 38 years obtained a wide range of collected oocytes suggesting very different stages of ovarian aging in both groups. E2 pretreatment is more likely to increase oocyte yield at the stage of ovarian aging characterized by asynchrony of a reduced follicular cohort. Another limitation is the sample size in sub-group analysis of patients with AMH <1.2 ng/ml. Finally, the absence of placebo for pretreatment could also introduce possible bias. Programming antagonist cycles with luteal E2 pretreatment seems a useful tool in advanced age women to better schedule oocyte retrievals on working days. However, the potential benefit of the number of collected oocytes remains to be demonstrated in a larger population displaying the characteristics of decreased ovarian reserve encountered in Poseïdon classification. Research grant from (MSD) Organon, France. I.C., S.D., B.B., X.M., S.G., and C.J. have no conflict of interest with this study. I.C.D. declares fees as speaker from Merck KGaA, Gedeon Richter, MSD (Organon, France), Ferring, Theramex, and IBSA and participation on advisory board from Merck KGaA. I.C.D. also declares consulting fees, and travel and meeting support from Merck KGaA. N.M. declares grants paid to their institution from MSD (Organon, France); consulting fees from MSD (Organon, France), Ferring, and Merck KGaA; honoraria from Merck KGaA, General Electrics, Genevrier (IBSA Pharma), and Theramex; support for travel and meetings from Theramex, Merck KGaG, and Gedeon Richter; and equipment paid to their institution from Goodlife Pharma. N.C. declares grants from IBSA Pharma, Merck KGaA, Ferring, and Gedeon Richter; support for travel and meetings from IBSA Pharma, Merck KGaG, MSD (Organon, France), Gedeon Richter, and Theramex; and participation on advisory board from Merck KGaA. A.G.L. declares fees as speaker from Merck KGaA, Gedeon Richter, MSD (Organon, France), Ferring, Theramex, and IBSA. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02884245. 29 August 2016. 4 November 2016.

Cédrin-Durnerin I ，Carton I ，Massin N ，Chevalier N ，Dubourdieu S ，Bstandig B ，Michelson X ，Goro S ，Jung C ，Guivarc'h-Lévêque A ... -  《-》

Cumulative delivery rate per aspiration IVF/ICSI cycle in POSEIDON patients: a real-world evidence study of 9073 patients.

What is the cumulative delivery rate (CDR) per aspiration IVF/ICSI cycle in low-prognosis patients as defined by the Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number (POSEIDON) criteria? The CDR of POSEIDON patients was on average ∼50% lower than in normal responders and varied across POSEIDON groups; differences were primarily determined by female age, number of embryos obtained, number of embryo transfer (ET) cycles per patient, number of oocytes retrieved, duration of infertility, and BMI. The POSEIDON criteria aim to underline differences related to a poor or suboptimal treatment outcome in terms of oocyte quality and quantity among patients undergoing IVF/ICSI, and thus, create more homogenous groups for the clinical management of infertility and research. POSEIDON patients are presumed to be at a higher risk of failing to achieve a live birth after IVF/ICSI treatment than normal responders with an adequate ovarian reserve. The CDR per initiated/aspiration cycle after the transfer of all fresh and frozen-thawed/warmed embryos has been suggested to be the critical endpoint that sets these groups apart. However, no multicenter study has yet substantiated the validity of the POSEIDON classification in identifying relevant subpopulations of patients with low-prognosis in IVF/ICSI treatment using real-world data. Multicenter population-based retrospective cohort study involving 9073 patients treated in three fertility clinics in Brazil, Turkey and Vietnam between 2015 and 2017. Participants were women with infertility between 22 and 42 years old in their first IVF/ICSI cycle of standard ovarian stimulation whose fresh and/or frozen embryos were transferred until delivery of a live born or until all embryos were used. Patients were retrospectively classified according to the POSEIDON criteria into four groups based on female age, antral follicle count (AFC), and the number of oocytes retrieved or into a control group of normal responders (non-POSEIDON). POSEIDON patients encompassed younger (<35 years) and older (35 years or above) women with an AFC ≥5 and an unexpected poor (<4 retrieved oocytes) or suboptimal (4-9 retrieved oocytes) response to stimulation, and respective younger and older counterparts with an impaired ovarian reserve (i.e. expected poor responders; AFC <5). Non-POSEIDON patients were those with AFC ≥5 and >9 oocytes retrieved. CDR was computed per one aspirated cycle. Logistic regression analysis was carried out to examine the association between patient classification and CDR. The CDR was lower in the POSEIDON patients than in the non-POSEIDON patients (33.7% vs 50.6%; P < 0.001) and differed across POSEIDON groups (younger unexpected poor responder [Group 1a; n = 212]: 27.8%, younger unexpected suboptimal responder [Group 1b; n = 1785]: 47.8%, older unexpected poor responder [Group 2a; n = 293]: 14.0%, older unexpected suboptimal responder [Group 2b; n = 1275]: 30.5%, younger expected poor responder [Group 3; n = 245]: 29.4%, and older expected poor responder [Group 4; n = 623]: 12.5%. Among unexpected suboptimal/poor responders (POSEIDON Groups 1 and 2), the CDR was twice as high in suboptimal responders (4-9 oocytes retrieved) as in poor responders (<4 oocytes) (P = 0.0004). Logistic regression analysis revealed that the POSEIDON grouping, number of embryos obtained, number of ET cycles per patient, number of oocytes collected, female age, duration of infertility and BMI were relevant predictors for CDR (P < 0.001). Our study relied on the antral follicle count as the biomarker used for patient classification. Ovarian stimulation protocols varied across study centers, potentially affecting patient classification. POSEIDON patients exhibit lower CDR per aspirated IVF/ICSI cycle than normal responders; the differences are mainly determined by female age and number of oocytes retrieved, thereby reflecting the importance of oocyte quality and quantity. Our data substantiate the validity of the POSEIDON criteria in identifying relevant subpopulations of patients with low-prognosis in IVF/ICSI treatment. Efforts in terms of early diagnosis, prevention, and identification of specific interventions that might benefit POSEIDON patients are warranted. Unrestricted investigator-sponsored study grant (MS200059_0013) from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. The funder had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish or manuscript preparation. S.C.E. declares receipt of unrestricted research grants from Merck and lecture fees from Merck and Med.E.A. H.Y. declares receipt of payment for lectures from Merck and Ferring. L.N.V. receives speaker fees and conferences from Merck, Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD) and Ferring and research grants from MSD and Ferring. J.F.C. declares receipt of statistical services fees from ANDROFERT Clinic. T.M.H. received speaker fees and conferences from Merck, MSD and Ferring. P.H. declares receipt of unrestricted research grants from Merck, Ferring, Gedeon Richter and IBSA and lecture fees from Merck, Gedeon Richter and Med.E.A. C.A. declares receipt of unrestricted research grants from Merck and lecture fees from Merck. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. N/A.

Esteves SC ，Yarali H ，Vuong LN ，Carvalho JF ，Özbek İY ，Polat M ，Le HL ，Pham TD ，Ho TM ，Humaidan P ，Alviggi C ... -  《-》