Stimulation For In Vitro Fertilization Research Articles

Outcomes of IVF treatments in women with antiphospholipid antibodies or antiphospholipid syndrome

BackgroundOvulation induction for in vitro fertilization (IVF) may increase intravascular thromboses among patients with antiphospholipid autoantibodies (aPLs) or antiphospholipid syndrome (APS) due to the high estrogen levels. While natural or modified natural IVF treatment cycles (MNC) are sometimes used instead of stimulated cycles with empiric anticoagulant treatment among these infertile patients, their efficacy is unclear. Materials and methodsA retrospective cohort study including all IVF cycles of patients diagnosed with aPLs or APS in a tertiary, university-affiliated hospital between 2012 and 2022. The outcomes of stimulated cycles with anticoagulants and MNC and natural IVF cycle attempts were compared. Results121 oocyte retrievals from 38 women were analyzed: 93 stimulated and 28 MNC or natural IVF cycles. The rates of cycle cancellation (0 % vs. 17.9 %, p < 0.001) and cycles in which no oocytes were retrieved (0 % vs. 43.5 %, p < 0.001) were significantly lower following stimulated cycles vs. natural and MNC. In parallel, positive β-hCG (31.9 % vs. 10.9 %, p = 0.03), clinical pregnancy rate (23.6 % and 3.6 %, p < 0.001) and live birth rates (18.1 % vs. 3.6 %, p = 0.01) were significantly higher following stimulated cycles. No thrombotic events or bleeding occurred in any cycle. ConclusionOvarian stimulation for IVF is more effective for successful pregnancy and delivery than natural cycles and MNC and can be safely undertaken in aPLs or APS women undergoing IVF. Rates of complication from hormonal treatment are not increased when treated with LMWH during ovarian stimulation.

Luteinizing hormone supplementation with human menopausal gonadotropin versus low dose human chorionic gonadotropin during ovarian stimulation does not affect live birth rates after fresh and frozen embryo transfer.

Luteinizing hormone (LH) plays an important role in ovarian follicle maturation. Human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) or low dose human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) can provide LH supplementation during in vitro fertilization (IVF) ovarian stimulation, though studies directly comparing their impact on IVF outcomes are limited. The aim of the study was to determine whether LH supplementation with hMG versus low dose hCG during IVF stimulation affects live birth rate. Fresh and frozen embryo transfers (ET) from 2017 to 2021 after standard long or antagonist protocols supplemented with hMG (75-250 IU) or low dose hCG (50-100 IU) during stimulation cycles in our academic center were included. Statistical analysis was performed with T-tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, Chi-square, and multiple linear and logistic regression. Four hundred and sixty eight unique stimulation cycles resulting in 213 fresh and 412 frozen embryo transfers were analyzed. There was a lower mature oocyte yield (10.9 vs. 11.8, p = 0.044) but similar high-quality blastocyst yield (3.6 vs. 3.9, p = 0.11) for hMG vs low dose hCG. Live birth rates per transfer were comparable for fresh (42% vs. 49%, p = 0.24) and frozen (46% vs. 53%, p = 0.45) embryo transfers. Multiple logistic regressions showed no association between supplemental gonadotropin and live birth for both fresh and frozen embryo transfers. Fresh and frozen IVF-ET pregnancy outcomes were comparable after hMG versus low dose hCG supplementation, suggesting flexibility in supplemental LH dosing regimens that may address patient or physician preference or cost concerns.

Monitoring of controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF

Since the inception of in vitro fertilization (IVF), monitoring of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) has traditionally involved numerous appointments for ultrasound and laboratory testing to guide medication use and dosing, determine trigger timing, and allow for measures to reduce the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Recent advances in the field of assisted reproductive technology (ART) have called into question the timing and frequency of COS monitoring appointments, as discussed in this commentary.

Ultrasound Evaluation of Uterine Cavity Changes After Stimulation for In Vitro Fertilization.

Mock embryo transfer (ET) before in vitro fertilization (IVF) allows for the clinical determination of uterine cavity length (UCL) to optimize embryo placement during clinical ET. Most studies have shown that optimal pregnancy rates occur with clinical ET at a depth of 15 mm from the uterine fundus. In our study, we sought to determine the effect of ovarian stimulation and endometrial preparation on UCL using 2D transabdominal ultrasound. We performed a retrospective cohort study comparing documented 2D transabdominal ultrasound measurements of UCL at the time of mock ET and clinical ET. Statistical analyses were performed with SPSS v. 26 with paired sample t-test and significance determined with P < .05. Seventy patients who underwent 91 IVF-ET cycles between 2015 and 2018 at our academic center met inclusion criteria. Patient's demographics include a median age of 34 (interquartile range [IQR]: 31, 37), gravida 1 (IQR: 0, 2), parity 0 (IQR: 0, 0), and body mass index 25.87 (IQR: 21.78, 30.01). There was a statistically significant increase in UCL by 11.9 mm after IVF stimulation (P < .001), compared to mock ET. Mean UCL at the time of mock ET was 7.66 cm (±0.98 cm) and at clinical ET was 8.85 cm (±0.98 cm). The uterine cavity undergoes a significant length change during ovarian stimulation and endometrial preparation. These findings confirm the remarkable uterine plasticity in response to hormonal stimulation even before pregnancy ensues. These changes in UCL should be considered during ultrasound-guided clinical ET to ensure optimal embryo placement.

Review of minimally disruptive in vitro fertilization (IVF) approaches as a strategy for assisted human conception

As a type of assisted reproductive technology (ART), in vitro fertilization (IVF) has been available for more than 4 decades, with the first successful birth using conventional IVF (C-IVF) occurring in 1978. C-IVF has become increasingly available and accessible over the years and is currently a widely used alternative treatment option for prospective parents experiencing infertility. In addition, science and technological advancements have given rise to other IVF techniques that allow families to choose the ART that best fits their personal and unique needs. Among the other IVF techniques, natural cycle IVF, mild stimulation IVF, and in vitro maturation are notable for being less disruptive to the female body and are referred to as minimally disruptive ARTs (MDARTs). However, deciding which MDART to choose is a complex and daunting task that precedes an already emotionally, financially, and physically taxing process. This review explores these modern ART strategies, including protocols, advantages, and limitations, as well as provides the MDART decision matrix that translates these considerations into a practical decision-making guide for patients seeking IVF.

Clinical factors associated with unexpected poor or suboptimal response in Poseidon criteria patients

Research questionWhat clinical factors are associated with ‘unexpected’ poor or suboptimal responses to IVF ovarian stimulation per POSEIDON's criteria, and which AMH and AFC threshold values distinguish this population? DesignTri-centre retrospective cohort study (2015–2017) involving first-time IVF and ICSI cycles with conventional ovarian stimulation (≥150 IU/day of FSH). Eligibility criteria included sufficient ovarian reserve markers according to POSEIDON's classification (AMH ≥1.2 ng/ml; AFC ≥5). Ovarian response categories were poor (<4 oocytes), suboptimal (4–9 oocytes) and normal (≥9 oocytes). Primary outcomes included clinical factors associated with an unexpected poor or suboptimal response to conventional ovarian stimulation using logistic regression analyses, and the threshold values of AMH and AFC predicting increased risk of such responses using ROC curves. ResultsA total of 7625 patients met the inclusion criteria: 204 (9.3%) were poor and 1998 (90.7%) were suboptimal responders. Logistic regression identified significant clinical predictors for a poor or suboptimal response, including AFC, AMH, total gonadotrophin dose, gonadotrophin type and trigger type (P ≤ 0.02). The ROC curves indicated that AMH 2.87 ng/ml (AUC 0.740) and AFC 12 (AUC 0.826) were the threshold values predicting a poor or suboptimal response; AMH 2.17 ng/ml (AUC 0.741) and AFC 9 (AUC 0.835) predicted a poor response; and AMH 2.97 ng/ml (AUC 0.722) and AFC 12 (AUC 0.801) predicted a suboptimal response. ConclusionsThe threshold values of AMH and AFC predicting ‘unexpected’ poor or suboptimal response were higher than expected. These findings have critical implications for tailoring IVF stimulation regimens and dosages.

A pilot study comparing mild stimulation Invitro-fertilization(IVF) versus long protocol IVF among women with advanced maternal age in a developing country

Abstract Background: Due to the high costs involved with conventional Invitro-fertilization (IVF) methods, access to IVF is still restricted in many low- and middle-income nations. Mild stimulation IVF has been suggested as a cheaper alternative to conventional IVF to enhance access to IVF in places with limited resources since it employs lower doses of ovarian stimulating drugs. Introducing mild stimulation IVF in Ethiopia could help increase access to assisted reproductive services. There is no previous research in Ethiopia Objective: This paper aimed to examine outcomes of a mild stimulation IVF pilot program at a clinic in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Methods: This study was conducted at the Center for Reproductive Medicine IVF clinic. Ethical approval was obtained before the start of the data collection. A chart review of those infertile women who had undergone IVF in the past 3 years (April 1, 2019–April 1, 2022) was done. All of the electronic registrations at the clinic were complete for the data we need, and data abstraction was done using Open Data Kit (ODK). The ODK was tested on 5% of the study population and the validity checked before the start of data collection. The data was exported to Stata 14 for analysis. Summarization using frequency distribution was done for the clients’ socio-demographic characteristics. A Chi-square test was used to test associations between categorical variables and outcome variable. The intention was to do bivariate analysis followed by multivariate analysis for those factors that have significant association with outcome variable. A p-value of less than 0.05 is considered statistically significant, with a 95% confidence interval. Results: A study of 296 IVF clients found that 69.3% were women whose age was less than or equal to 35 years, while 30.7% of women were older than 35. Of the 296 women, 97.3% had their B-HCG result known, with 62.5% being negative and 37.5% positive. The study focused on assessing which protocol was preferred for women with advanced age (age higher than 35 years). A subgroup analysis of 83 women with advanced age found that there was no significant statistical difference in pregnancy rate between mild stimulation and long protocol IVF (COR=0.78, P-value=0.727, 95% C.I=0.22-2.85). However, cross-tabulation analysis shows that among the 17 cases who are positive for pregnancy mild stimulation has higher pregnancy rate 13 (76.5%) compared to the long protocol 4(23.5%) in this age group. The long protocol cases had a mean requirement of Gonadotropin medication which is threefold higher than mild stimulation IVF. . Conclusion and recommendation: Even though there is no statistically significant difference between the two protocols, cross-tabulation showed that pregnancy rate is higher among mild stimulation cases. Additionally, the cost of gonadotropin treatment was three fold higher for long protocol IVF. Further studies with a larger sample size be conducted to confirm the results. However, based on the current findings, we recommend that mild stimulation IVF be considered as a better option for women with advanced maternal age in low resource settings, as it achieves a similar pregnancy rate at a lower cost.

Serum erythropoietin level is increased during stimulation for IVF but not in OHSS

BackgroundErythropoietin (Epo) is a potent vascular growth factor that induces angiogenesis and antiapoptotic signalling. We investigated whether the development of numerous follicles and corpora lutea during in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle affects circulating Epo levels and further, if Epo could be used as a novel marker for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).Methods24 women were included in the uncomplicated IVF group and 35 women in the OHSS group. Repeated blood samples from both groups were analysed for Epo, progesterone, blood haemoglobin, and creatinine. Follicular fluid from the IVF group was analysed for Epo and progesterone. Repeated measure analysis was performed for the variables and circulating Epo levels were compared between the IVF group and early OHSS. Furthermore, related growth factors, vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and hypoxia-inducible factor-1 (HIF-1) were analysed from subgroup of women to test for correlation with Epo.ResultsDuring IVF, circulating Epo increased from natural mid-luteal phase to stimulated mid-luteal phase (median 9.5; 95% CI 7.2–13.4 IU/L and 12.5; 10.3–13.4 IU/L; p = 0.003). In cycles resulting in pregnancy, Epo level decreased 14 days after oocyte pick-up (OPU) and remained low thereafter. In cycles not resulting in pregnancy, Epo level increased again 35 days after OPU. Follicle fluid Epo concentration was 1.5 times higher than the serum concentration (median 15.4; 95% CI 10.4–19.2 IU/L vs. 10.2; 8.8–12.7; p = 0.006). There was no difference in circulating Epo concentration between early OHSS and uncomplicated IVF. Circulating Epo did not correlate with VEGF or HIF-1.ConclusionsCirculating Epo levels fluctuate during IVF cycle. We hypothesise this may suggest Epo’s involvement in ovarian physiology and angiogenesis. However, Epo was not a clinical marker for OHSS.

#52 : Cumulative Live Birth Rates (CLBR) According to the Number of Oocytes Retrieved in Minimal Stimulation In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) Treatment

Background and Aims: Ovarian stimulation is necessary for IVF in order to stimulate the development of multiple follicles in a single cycle. To optimize ovarian stimulation, there is a need to know the optimum number of oocytes retrieved to achieve a live birth. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the relationship between the number of oocytes retrieved and the cumulative live birth rates among patients undergoing mild stimulation IVF treatment in a private fertility clinic in the Philippines. Method: Ovulation was induced using clomiphene citrate in combination with lower doses of gonadotropins. Final oocyte maturation was triggered with hCG or GnRHa. Mature eggs were fertilized using intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Only 1 to 2 embryos were transferred per cycle. Results: A total of 1,431 patients that had 1,817 fresh and frozen transfer cycles were included. Average age of women was 35.70 ± 3.97 (min. 20, max. 46). Binary logistic regression shows that age is a predictor of live birth, with a critical value of 34.6 years. CLBR was estimated using Kaplan-Meier survival analysis, with the number of oocytes as the time factor. The estimated mean number of oocytes retrieved for cases that had live birth was 8.90 ± 0.30. Half of the cases that had live birth had an estimated oocyte number of 7.0 ± 0.194. Live birth steadily increased with the number of oocytes but declined beyond 25 oocytes. Retrieval of 6 to 9 oocytes was enough to achieve 40-60% CLBR. In comparison, conventional IVF recommends 8 to 15 oocytes to achieve similar CLBR. Conclusion: Retrieval of lower numbers of oocytes with minimal stimulation IVF can produce desirable success rates comparable to rates achieved with higher numbers of retrieved oocytes in conventional IVF.

#53 : Pregnancy Outcome After Hydrosalpinx Aspiration in In-Vitro Fertilization Cycle

Background and Aims: Hydrosalpinx is a severe manifestation of tubal disease-causing infertility in women. It has an adverse effect on the outcome of in vitro fertilization (IVF), reducing live birth rate (LBR) by 50% compared to other tubal factors. Laparoscopic salpingectomy can effectively improve IVF outcome but is contraindicated in some women. It can also be expensive and is not without complications. Ultrasound-guided hydrosalpinx aspiration is a cheaper, less invasive procedure alternative to salpingectomy. It has been shown to improve clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates compared to patients with no aspiration. However, the published literature on the effectiveness of hydrosalpinx aspiration is equivocal. Method: This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the outcome of minimal stimulation (mild) IVF cycles wherein the women underwent hydrosalpinx aspiration prior to embryo transfer at a private fertility clinic in the Philippines. Results: A total of 98 IVF cycles satisfied the inclusion criteria. The average patient age was 35.22 ± 4.57 and average duration of infertility was 5.87 ± 3.70 years. The biochemical pregnancy rate was 48% and the clinical pregnancy rate was 39.8%. Live birth rate was 35.7%, which is comparable to that of mild IVF patients without hydrosalpinx. There was a negative correlation between patient age and biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and LBR, however, the correlations were statistically insignificant (Pearson correlation, P = 0.081, 0.197, and 0.344, respectively). Binary logistic regression analyses showed that age, infertility type, infertility factor, basal hormone levels, and number of eggs retrieved were not predictive of the success of IVF among the women in the study. Conclusion: Our results show that hydrosalpinx aspiration is a safe and effective option in improving pregnancy and live birth rates in women undergoing mild IVF.

Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation versus GnRH Antagonist Protocol for Ovarian Stimulation in IVF: A Prospective Pilot Study

Background: Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) has been proposed as an alternative to conventional gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol for ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization (IVF). The aim of PPOS is to provide an effective, patient-friendly treatment. However, studies comparing outcomes after the use of PPOS and GnRH antagonist protocol in IVF have shown mixed results. This study compared ongoing pregnancy rates after the use of PPOS versus GnRH antagonist protocol for ovarian stimulation in IVF. Methods: This prospective pilot study was conducted at a single IVF center. Women aged 18–35 years old with an anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level greater than or equal to 1.2[Formula: see text]ng/mL or an antral follicle count (AFC) greater than or equal to 5 who were undergoing their first IVF cycle were allocated to undergoing ovarian stimulation using PPOS (dydrogesterone 20[Formula: see text]mg/day started on the day of gonadotropin) or a GnRH antagonist protocol (fixed regimen from stimulation day 5). The primary outcome was the ongoing pregnancy rate (at 12 weeks’ gestation). Results: The study included 30 women (15 in each treatment group). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The ongoing pregnancy rate was 7/15 (46.7%) in the PPOS group and 8/15 (53.3%) in the GnRH antagonist group ([Formula: see text]); the number of oocytes retrieved and fertilization rates were also comparable between groups. One case of mild ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) occurred in the GnRH antagonist group. Conclusions: This pilot study showed similar ongoing pregnancy rates after the use of a PPOS protocol and a conventional GnRH antagonist protocol for ovarian stimulation in IVF. Additional studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm these findings.

POSEIDON group prevalence in assisted reproductive technology cycles: A retrospective analysis from an Indian tertiary assisted reproductive technology center

Objectives: The aim of the study was to assess the prevalence of “low prognosis” patients using POSEIDON criteria undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle in Indian population. Study Design: This is a retrospective cohort study. Period of Study: It included data from the recruitment period from January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2021. Study Settings: The study was conducted at the Center for IVF and Human Reproduction, Sir Gangaram Hospital, New Delhi. Methodology: Out of the 3032 IVF stimulation cycles with oocyte aspirations, 596 cycles were excluded based on the exclusion criteria. The study focused on 2436 IVF/ICSI (Intracytoplasmic sperm injection) stimulation cycles that met inclusion criteria. Each cycle was categorized into one of the four groups defined by the POSEIDON criteria along with a fifth non-POSEIDON group. Prevalence was observed for each POSEIDON group and the non-POSEIDON group. Results: Out of the analyzed cycles, 1210 were classified under POSEIDON groups, representing a prevalence of 49.67%. The distribution of cycles in POSEIDON groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 was 31.4, 23.2, 19.17, and 26.19%, respectively. Conclusion: Low prognosis patients based on POSEIDON criteria, represented about half of the population.

Outcomes of the Next In Vitro Fertilization Cycle in Women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome after a Failed In Vitro Maturation Attempt.

In vitro maturation (IVM) is indicated in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who have a very good ovarian response during in vitro fertilization (IVF) and are therefore at high risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). According to the latest practice committee document, IVM could be a major advance in assisted reproductive technology (ART) procedures (reduced cost and simplified treatment); nevertheless, retrospective studies of IVM versus IVF still demonstrate lower chances of a live birth with IVM. Could IVM prove to be an optimal first-line treatment approach? And limited information is available concerning the success of the subsequent IVF cycle after the failure of an IVM cycle. Does IVM treatment adversely affect the subsequent IVF cycle, and is this worth considering before performing the IVF cycle for women with PCOS? This prospective nested case-control study at the Peking University Reproductive Medicine center in China was performed between March 2018 and September 2020. Women aged 20-38 years with PCOS and infertility and who were scheduled for their first IVF attempt were eligible. A total of 351 women were randomly allocated to receive one cycle of unstimulated natural IVM (n = 175) or one cycle of standard IVF with a flexible GnRH antagonist protocol followed by hCG as an ovulation trigger (n = 176). This study involved 234 women (58 women with no blastocysts in the first IVM cycle and 158 women who underwent the first IVF cycle). Cumulative live birth rate at 12 months after oocyte retrieval and OHSS of a standard controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) IVF cycle were compared between 58 women in an IVF cycle following a failed IVM cycle and 158 women who underwent the first IVF cycle. No significant differences were found in the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR), ongoing pregnancy rate, or clinical pregnancy rate at 12 months after oocyte retrieval between the two groups (56.9% vs. 58.9%, p = 0.795; 58.6% vs. 60.8%, p = 0.776; and 84.5% vs. 76.0%, p = 0.178). The incidence of moderate-to-severe OHSS was not significantly different between the groups (6.9% vs. 5.7%, p = 0.742). Additionally, there were no significant differences in the total gonadotropin dose, stimulation duration, number of retrieved oocytes, number of retrieved mature oocytes, or fertilization rates. Even if the first IVM attempt failed in subfertile women with PCOS, comparable cumulative live birth rates were observed in the subsequent IVF cycle. IVM treatment does not adversely affect the subsequent IVF cycle.

Race, ovarian responsiveness, and live birth after in vitro fertilization

To determine if ovarian responsiveness to gonadotropin stimulation differs by race/ethnicity and whether this predicts live birth rates (LBRs) in non-White patients undergoing invitro fertilization (IVF). Retrospective cohort study. Academic infertility center. White, Asian, Black, and Hispanic patients undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF. Self-reported race and ethnicity. The primary outcome was ovarian sensitivity index (OSI), defined as (the number of oocytes retrieved ÷ total gonadotropin dose) × 1,000 as a measure of ovarian responsiveness, adjusting for age, body mass index, infertility diagnosis, and cycle number. Secondary outcomes included live birth and clinical pregnancy after first retrievals, adjusting for age, infertility diagnosis, and history of fibroids, as well as miscarriage rate per clinical pregnancy, adjusting for age, body mass index, infertility diagnosis, duration of infertility, history of fibroids, and use of preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy. The primary analysis of OSI included 3,360 (70.2%) retrievals from White patients, 704 (14.7%) retrievals from Asian patients, 553 (11.6%) retrievals from Black patients, and 168 (3.5%) retrievals from Hispanic patients. Black and Hispanic patients had higher OSIs than White patients after accounting for those with multiple retrievals and adjusting for confounders (6.08 in Black and 6.27 in Hispanic, compared with 5.25 in White). There was no difference in OSI between Asian and White patients. The pregnancy outcomes analyses included 2,299 retrievals. Despite greater ovarian responsiveness, Black and Hispanic patients had lower LBRs compared with White patients, although these differences were not statistically significant after adjusting for confounders (adjusted odds ratio, 0.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63-1.09, for Black; adjusted odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.61-1.43, for Hispanic). Ovarian sensitivity index was modestly predictive of live birth in White and Asian patients but not in Black (area under the curve, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.38-0.64) and Hispanic (area under the curve, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.37-0.63) patients. Black and Hispanic patients have higher ovarian responsiveness to stimulation during IVF but do not experience a consequent increase in LBR. Factors beyond differences in responsiveness to ovarian stimulation need to be explored to address the racial/ethnic disparity established in prior literature.

P-439 Intimate hygiene practices and the correlation with abnormal vaginal microbiota in in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients – a cohort study in 1421 patients

Abstract Study question What are the intimate hygiene practices of women in IVF treatment and do they correlate with the vaginal microbiota? Summary answer Hygiene practices, in specific douching and use of intimate soap significantly increased the risk of abnormal vaginal microbiota (AVM). What is known already The normal vaginal microbiota acts as a defense system against infection. AVM is a molecularly defined vaginal dysbiosis, resembling bacterial vaginosis (BV) and is dominated by anaerobic bacteria such as Gardnerella vaginalis. Importantly, AVM is associated with an increased risk of genital tract infections, poor IVF outcomes, early miscarriage and preterm labor. The cause of AVM is multifactorial and hygiene practices may interrupt the normal microbiota. Previous small studies suggested vaginal douching to be associated with an increased risk of AVM. Few studies have investigated the possible correlation between intimate hygiene practices, menstrual practices and the vaginal microbiota. Study design, size, duration Observational cohort study, including a total of 1421 IVF patients from four Danish fertility centers. The inclusion period was from 2017 to January 2022. Participants/materials, setting, methods Patients aged 18-42 years and undergoing their first, second or third IVF stimulation cycle were eligible for inclusion. The intimate hygiene practices in terms of type of soap, menstrual protection, douching and probiotics, were reported in a structured questionnaire including a total of 40 questions. Vaginal swabs were obtained prior to ovarian stimulation and subsequently subjected to quantitative PCR testing, targeting DNA of dysbiotic bacteria. Main results and the role of chance AVM was present in a total of 34 % (479/1421) of women, and 20% (272/1384) reported vaginal douching, which significantly correlated with AVM (p &amp;lt; 0.01, OR = 1.62 [1.23-2.12]). Intimate soap was used by 39 % (535/1384) of patients, which also significantly increased the risk of AVM ( P = 0.04, OR = 1.35 [1.08-1.69]). Water only was used by 36% (492/1384), and regular soap was used by 27% (374/1384). No correlation between use of water only and regular soap and AVM was detected. For menstrual protection 40% (433/1078) used pads, followed by tampons alone 25% (265/1078) or a combination 21% (230/1078), and 14 % (148/1078) used a menstrual cup. A trend for an increased risk of AVM when using tampons, OR 1.21 [0.91-1.62] was seen whereas use of a menstrual cup seemed to lower the risk of AVM, OR 0.71 [0.48-1.04] Active smoking, higher BMI, drinking &amp;gt;7 units per week and previous chlamydia infection significantly correlated with AVM (p = 0.01, p = 0.01, p = 0.04 and p = 0.01). Finally, 84% (1190/1421) reported gynecological symptoms such as vaginal discharge, dyspareunia and fungal infection, but only fishy odor significantly correlated with AVM (p &amp;lt; 0.01). Limitations, reasons for caution To the best of our knowledge, this is the largest study investigating the intimate hygiene practice and its correlation with AVM in an IVF population. As these results describe the practices of a Scandinavian IVF population, results may differ from other settings and ethnicities. Wider implications of the findings Exploration of the cause-and-effect relations between intimate hygiene practices and AVM is needed, requiring intervention-based prospective studies. This would lead to evidence-based advice on intimate hygiene practices and AVM prevention, possibly increasing live birth rates. The unexpected high prevalence of douching in a Danish IVF population needs further exploration. Trial registration number NCT03420859

O-186 The implementation of a novel algorithm for monitoring ovulation in an IVF mixed protocol may simplify stimulation monitoring

Abstract Study question Which patients are eligible to skip ovulation monitoring before day 10 in In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and what are the financial implications? Summary answer Thanks to our innovative gonadotropin prescription algorithm, patients with low ovarian reserve and maximum ovarian stimulation may not require monitoring until day 10 of IVF. What is known already In most fertility clinics, the standard procedure for IVF is early monitoring on day 6 of ovarian stimulation. Our focus is on personalizing the stimulation protocol by identifying the optimal dose of gonadotropin. With the aid of our unique algorithm, we aim to streamline monitoring. Frequent ultrasound examinations required for IVF can impose restrictions and create a burden for patients, resulting in increased costs for both patients and physicians. Study design, size, duration In a retrospective study conducted from April 2021 to August 2022 at the OVO clinic in Montreal (Canada), participants included all patients over 18 years old who underwent an IVF stimulation cycle utilizing an antagonist protocol and a customized mixed protocol prescription consisting of follitrophin delta and human menopausal gonadotropin, based on the patient's weight and anti-Mullerian hormone level. The sudy was approved by Veritas IRB, an independent ethic committee. Tracking number of study :2023-3189-13659-2 Participants/materials, setting, methods In the study, gonadotropin dosages were assigned either based on our algorithm (group 1) or at the physician's discretion (group 2). Ultrasound and hormonal analysis were performed on day 6. Following the physician's evaluation, adjustments to the gonadotropin dosage were made if necessary. The common trigger criteria was the presence of at least three follicles measuring between 16 and 22mm. Main results and the role of chance The study included 714 patients meeting the inclusion criteria. In group 1, there was a high percentage of patients stimulated with the maximum doses (80.3% compared to 22.5% in group 2). No dosage modifications or incidents of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome were observed in group 1. Only 4.5% of patients (n = 16) triggered ovulation before day 10 (on day 9). In the non-maximal dose population, patients treated according to the algorithm (group A) experienced significantly fewer changes to the gonadotropin dosage at day 6 compared to patients treated based on the physician's discretion only (group B) (24.6% vs 46.9%, p &amp;lt; 0.001). The dosage of gonadotropins was notably more frequent adjusted in group B (46.9% vs 24.6%, p &amp;lt; 0.001). A higher risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome was significantly more frequent in the non-maximal dose population compared to the maximal dose population (64.6% vs 27.5%, p &amp;lt; 0.01). These findings suggest that ovulation monitoring may not be necessary in the population stimulated to the maximum dose. This could result in 478 ultrasound and blood tests being avoided in the context of this study. Limitations, reasons for caution The data was obtained through a retrospective analysis. However, not monitoring before day 10 could pose a risk of delaying the cancellation of the IVF cycle, resulting in unnecessary treatment continuation. Wider implications of the findings This significant study indicates that, thanks to our algorithm, monitoring only on day 10 would be adequate for patients with low ovarian reserve who are stimulated to the maximum dose. Further validation of this strategy can be conducted through a randomized prospective study or with the use of different gonadotropins. Trial registration number non applicable

Socioeconomic disparities in fertility treatments and associated likelihood of livebirth following in vitro fertilization

To determine whether neighborhood-level socioeconomic characteristics are associated with the likelihood of livebirth (LB) following in vitro fertilization (IVF). Specifically, we evaluated neighborhood-level household income, unemployment rate, and educational attainment. A retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted for patients undergoing autologous IVF cycles. Large academic health system. For each patient, ZIP code of residence was used as a proxy for neighborhood. Neighborhood characteristics were compared between patients with and without LB. Generalized estimating model was used to adjust the association between SES factors and likelihood of a live birth with respect to relevant clinical factors. A total of 4942 autologous IVF cycles from 2768 patients were included: 1717 (62.0%) had at least one associated LB. Patients who achieved LB from IVF were younger, had higher anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) levels, lower body mass index (BMI), and differed by ethnic background, primary language, and neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics. In a multivariable model, language, age, AMH, and BMI were associated with a live birth from IVF. None of the neighborhood-level socioeconomic variables were associated with the total number of IVF cycles or cycles required to achieve first LB. Patients living in neighborhoods with lower annual household income have lower odds of livebirth after IVF compared to those living in more affluent areas, despite undergoing the same number of IVF stimulation cycles.

Premature progesterone elevation during the early and mid-follicular phases in fresh in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles is associated with lower live birth, clinical pregnancy, and implantation rates.

Evaluate follicular phase progesterone elevation (≥ 1.5ng/mL) prior to trigger during IVF stimulation and its effects on live birth rate (LBR), clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), and implantation rate (IR) in fresh IVF cycles. This was a retrospective cohort study within an academic clinic. A total of 6961 fresh IVF and IVF/ICSI cycles from October 1, 2015 to June 30, 2021 were included and grouped by progesterone (PR) prior to trigger: PR < 1.5ng/mL (low PR group) and PR ≥ 1.5ng/mL (high PR group). Main outcome measures included LBR, CPR, and IR. Among all cycle starts, 1568 (22.5%) were in the high PR group and 5393 (77.5%) were in the low PR group. Of the cycles which proceeded to an embryo transfer, 416 (11.1%) were in the high PR group and 3341 (88.9%) were in the low PR group. The high PR group had significantly lower IR (RR 0.75; 95% CI 0.64-0.88), CPR (aRR 0.74; 95% CI 0.64-0.87), and LBR (aRR 0.71; 95% CI 0.59-0.85) compared to the low PR group. When stratified by progesterone on the day of trigger (TPR), there was a clinically notable decrease in IR (16.8% vs 23.3%), CPR (28.1% vs 36.0%), and LBR (22.8% vs 28.9%) in the high PR group compared to the low PR group even when TPR < 1.5ng/mL. In fresh IVF cycles in which TPR < 1.5ng/mL, progesterone elevation ≥ 1.5ng/mL at any point in time prior to trigger negatively impacts IR, CPR, and LBR. This data supports testing of serum progesterone in the follicular phase prior to trigger, as these patients may benefit from a freeze-all approach.

Minimal Stimulation Using Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Antagonist is Associated with Higher Live Birth Rates: A National Study of 13,050 Cycles.

The optimal protocol for minimal stimulation in vitro fertilization (IVF) has yet to be established. This study aims to determine if the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist during minimal stimulation improves outcomes. All cycles designated as minimal stimulation from 2014 to 2016 from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Online Reporting System were identified. Cycles in which GnRH antagonist was administered (n = 5984) were compared to those that did not receive it (n = 7066). Wilcoxon's rank-sum test and chi-square test were used to analyze continuous and categorical variables. A total of 6750 patients undergoing 13,050 cycles were included. GnRH antagonist use was associated with a significantly higher total gonadotropin dosage (median 975.0 [interquartile range, IQR, 600.0, 1575.0] vs. median 660.0 [IQR 375.0, 975.0], p < 0.001), lower cycle cancelation rate (11.3% vs. 13.6%, p < 0.001; OR 1.24, 95% CI 1.12-1.38, p < 0.001), and higher live birth rate (4.3% vs. 2.1%, p < 0.001; OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.39-0.58, p < 0.001). GnRH antagonist use was associated with a significantly higher live birth rate in women ≥35 years of age (2.7% vs. 0.9%, p < 0.001; OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.25-0.47, p < 0.001) and antimullerian hormone <1 (4.9% vs. 2.6%, p = 0.004; OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.33-0.81, p = 0.004). The use of GnRH antagonist suppression during minimal stimulation IVF is associated with an improved live birth rate, especially in older women and in women with diminished ovarian reserve. Although GnRH antagonist use may increase costs, it significantly decreases cancelation rate, increases number of embryos cryopreserved, and should be encouraged for minimal stimulation IVF.

Ovarian stimulation in IVF couples with severe male factor infertility: GnRH antagonist versus long GnRH agonist.

ObjectiveTo examine the efficacy of gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol and the long GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) protocol during in vitro fertilization (IVF) therapy in patients with severe male infertile factors.MethodsA total of 983 women with severe male factor infertility undergoing IVF therapy from 2017 to 2020 at one center were retrospectively analyzed. Patients were divided into the GnRH-ant group (n=527) and the GnRH-a group (n=456) according to their ovarian stimulation protocols. Patient baseline characteristics, ovarian stimulation characteristics, and clinical pregnancy outcomes were compared between the groups. The live birth rate was considered the main pregnancy outcome.ResultsGnRH-a group had a higher live birth rate compared with the GnRH-ant group (41.0% versus 31.3%, p=0.002). Moreover, the implantation (32.8% vs. 28.1%, p=0.033), biochemical pregnancy (52.4% versus 44.8%, p=0.017), clinical pregnancy (49.3% versus 39.7%, p=0.002) and ongoing pregnancy rates (43.2% vs. 34.9%, p=0.008) were higher in GnRH-a group. For patients with one embryo transferred, the GnRH-a group demonstrated higher live birth (37.0% vs. 19.4%, p=0.010) and ongoing pregnancy rate (38.9% vs. 24.5%, p=0.046) than the GnRH-ant group. Among patients with two embryos transferred, the live birth rate was also higher in the GnRH-a group than in the GnRH-ant group, with no statistical difference. No significant differences were observed in the biochemical abortion rate, clinical miscarriage rate, early miscarriage rate, late miscarriage rate, heterotopic pregnancy rate, twin pregnancy rate, and birth sex ratio between the two groups.ConclusionFor individuals with severe male infertility undergoing IVF, the GnRH-a protocol is considered a more efficient and feasible strategy with a higher live birth rate compared to the GnRH-ant protocol, especially in single embryo transfer.