Search

Study Question: Which success rates do female and male IVF patients expect, what determines their expectations and do patients reconsider their expectations after receiving a personal IVF prognosis at the expense of anxious reactions?Summary Answer: Female and male IVF patients have unrealistic high expectations which are positively associated with their dispositional optimism, and which are only reconsidered by patients receiving a less than average IVF prognosis, which leads to more anxious reactions in females.What Is Known Already: Female patients undergoing IVF are known to have unrealistic expectations of the success of their own IVF cycle. The available evidence suggests women expect above average performance of their fertility clinic and (family) reproductive systems. The association of gender and personality trait dispositional optimism, with expectations of IVF success and the impact of providing couples with their IVF prognosis have not been studied previously.Study Design, Size, Duration: A total of 148 partnered individuals participated in this prospective survey at two separate points in treatment: following oocyte aspiration (T1) and embryo transfer (T2) (2019-2020, participation rate = 85%). At the time of embryo transfer, gynaecologists provided couples with their IVF prognosis, calculated with the Adapted van Loendersloot model. Women and their male partners completed questionnaires independently and immediately following oocyte aspiration and embryo transfer.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: Dispositional optimism ('LOT-R' questionnaire) and expectations of IVF success (numerical rating scale) were assessed in eligible couples commencing a 2nd-6th IVF cycle on T1. Expectations of IVF success and anxiety ('Spielberger State-Anxiety Inventory') were (re)assessed on T2. The inter-partner correlation of expectations of IVF success was examined. Linear mixed models examined hypothesized determinants of expectations of IVF success (T1) and explored (determinants of) whether participants reconsidered their expectations after receiving their IVF prognosis (T1-T2) and whether couple's IVF prognosis was associated with anxious reactions (T2).Main Results and the Role Of Chance: The mean of the IVF success rates expected by patients immediately after oocyte aspiration was 59.1% (±20.0), irrespective of gender (P = 0.077). Partners expectations of IVF success were moderately correlated (r = 0.483; P < 0.001). Expectations of IVF success were positively associated with the participant's dispositional optimism (P < 0.001) but were not associated with their partner's dispositional optimism, women's age and their previous (un)successful IVF experiences. Gynaecologists gave couples their calculated IVF prognosis ranging from 4.8% to 69.2% (mean = 30.9%) at the time of embryo transfer. Gender did not influence whether participants reconsidered their expectations after receiving their prognosis. In contrast to the subgroup (n = 78), who received at least an average IVF prognosis and that did not reconsider their expectations of IVF success, the subgroup (n = 70) receiving a below average IVF prognosis lowered their expectations of IVF success (interaction effect: P < 0.001) from 55% to 46%. A below average IVF prognosis was associated with anxious reactions in women but not in men (interaction effect: P = 0.011).Limitations, Reasons For Caution: The study design and sample size were more optimal for examining hypothesized determinants of patient's expectations of IVF success than for studying the impact of sharing prognoses with patients. Whether (reconsidering) expectations influences IVF discontinuation rates and achieved live birth rates has yet to be followed-up.Wider Implications Of the Findings: Clinics are advised to offer patients the opportunity of receiving their IVF prognosis. Providing prognoses is in line with patient preferences and tempers the unrealistic high expectations of both partners in couples with a less than average prognosis. A sensitive communication style is indicated, as lower prognoses are associated with mild anxious reactions in women.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): E.A.F.D. holds a postdoctoral fellowship of the Research Foundation-Flanders (12H9819N) and this study was funded by the Research Council of the KU Leuven (C14/18/106; project of J.V., K.P. and E.A.F.D.) and as an investigator sponsored study of K.P. and E.A.F.D. by Merck nv/sa Belgium, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this study.Trial Registration Number: N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Can the Poor Responder Outcome Prediction (PROsPeR) score identify live birth outcomes in subpopulations of patients with poor ovarian response (POR) defined according to the ESHRE Bologna criteria (female age, anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), number of oocytes retrieved during the previous cycle (PNO) after treatment with originator recombinant human follitropin alfa?Summary Answer: The PROsPeR score discriminated the probability of live birth in patients with POR using observational data with fair discrimination (AUC ≅ 70%) and calibration, and the AUC losing less than 5% precision compared with a model developed using the observational data.What Is Known Already: Although scoring systems for the likelihood of live birth after ART have been developed, their accuracy may be insufficient, as they have generally been developed in the general population with infertility and were not validated for patients with POR. The PROsPeR score was developed using data from the follitropin alfa (GONAL-f; Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany) arm of the Efficacy and Safety of Pergoveris in Assisted Reproductive Technology (ESPART) randomized controlled trial (RCT) and classifies women with POR as mild, moderate or severe, based upon three variables: female age, serum AMH level and number of oocytes retrieved during the previous cycle (PNO).Study Design, Size, Duration: The external validation of the PROsPeR score was completed using data derived from eight different centres in France. In addition, the follitropin alfa data from the ESPART RCT, originally used to develop the PROsPeR score, were used as reference cohort. The external validation of the PROsPeR score l was assessed using AUC. A predetermined non-inferiority limit of 0.10 compared with a reference sample and calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow test) were the two conditions required for evaluation.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: The observational cohort included data from 8085 ART treatment cycles performed with follitropin alfa in patients with POR defined according to the ESHRE Bologna criteria (17.6% of the initial data set). The ESPART cohort included 477 ART treatment cycles with ovarian stimulation performed with follitropin alfa in patients with POR.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: The external validation of the PROsPeR score to identify subpopulations of women with POR with different live birth outcomes was shown in the observational cohort (AUC = 0.688; 95% CI: 0.662, 0.714) compared with the ESPART cohort (AUC = 0.695; 95% CI: 0.623, 0.767). The AUC difference was -0.0074 (95% CI: -0.083, 0.0689). This provided evidence, with 97.5% one-sided confidence, that there was a maximum estimated loss of 8.4% in discrimination between the observational cohort and the ESPART cohort, which was below the predetermined margin of 10%. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test did not reject the calibration when comparing observed and predicted data (Hosmer-Lemeshow test = 1.266688; P = 0.260).Limitations, Reasons For Caution: The study was based on secondary use of data that had not been collected specifically for the analysis reported here and the number of characteristics used to classify women with POR was limited to the available data. The data were from a limited number of ART centres in a single country, which may present a bias risk; however, baseline patient data were similar to other POR studies.Wider Implications Of the Findings: This evaluation of the PROsPeR score using observational data supports the notion that the likelihood of live birth may be calculated with reasonable precision using three readily available pieces of data (female age, serum AMH and PNO). The PROsPeR score has potential to be used to discriminate expected probability of live birth according to the degree of POR (mild, moderate, severe) after treatment with follitropin alfa, enabling comparison of performance at one centre over time and the comparison between centres.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): This analysis was funded by Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. P.L. received grants from Merck KGaA, outside of the submitted work. N.M. reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck KGaA outside the submitted work. T.D.H. is Vice President and Head of Global Medical Affairs Fertility, Research and Development at Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. P.A. has received personal fees from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, outside the submitted work. C.R. has received grants and personal fees from Gedeon Richter and Merck Serono S.A.S., France, an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, outside the submitted work. P.S. reports congress support from Merck Serono S.A.S., France (an affiliate of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany), Gedeon Richter, TEVA and MDS outside the submitted work. C.A., J.P., G.P. and R.W. declare no conflict of interest.Trial Registration Number: N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Question: Is the microRNA (miRNA) expression pattern of cumulus oophorus cells (COCs) in women undergoing medically assisted reproduction (MAR) procedures differentially modulated according to patient age and gonadotropin treatment strategy?Summary Answer: Maternal age is an independent factor impacting miRNA expression in COCs while gonadotropin treatment may affect follicular miRNA expression and IVF efficacy.What Is Known Already: Epigenetic mechanisms in female infertility are complex and poorly studied. DNA methylation, histone modifications, miRNAs and nucleosome positioning influence cellular machinery through positive and negative feedback mechanisms either alone or interactively. miRNAs are important regulators during oogenesis, spermatogenesis and early embryogenesis, and are reported to play a role in regulating crosstalk between the oocyte and COCs. Although miRNome analysis has been performed in female human reproductive tissues (endometrium, myometrium, cervix and ovaries), epigenetic modifications in women with infertility have not been explored in detail. In addition, the impact of gonadotropin treatments during MAR on miRNA expression in COCs has not been fully investigated.Study Design, Size, Duration: This study was carried out in 53 COC samples obtained from mature metaphase II (MII) oocytes in 53 women undergoing MAR treatment. A total of 38 samples for assay development were pooled by maternal age and gonadotropin treatment into four predetermined subgroups: ≥36 years and recombinant human FSH (r-hFSH), n = 10; ≥36 years and r-hFSH+ recombinant human-luteinizing hormone (r-hLH), n = 10; ≤35 years and r-hFSH, n = 9; ≤35 years and r-hFSH+r-hLH, n = 9. miRNome profiles were determined and compared between subgroups. Expression of defined miRNAs was validated in the remaining fifteen samples, representative of each subgroup, by quantitative polymerase chain reaction (PCR).Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: COCs were processed for miRNA-enriched total RNA extraction and pooled in homogeneous subgroups to obtain a sufficient amount and quality of starting material to perform the analysis. Each pooled sample underwent miRNA profiling using PCR assay system to examine expression of 752 human miRNAs without pre-amplification. Data were analyzed using the delta-delta Ct method for relative quantitation and prediction of target genes (with at least four algorithms predicting the same miRNA-gene interaction pair (HIT)>4). The miRSystem database provided functional annotation enrichment (raw P-value <0.05) of co-expressed miRNAs.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: We found distinctive miRNA expression profiles in each subgroup correlating with age and MAR stimulation. In addition, a number of selective and co-expressed miRNAs were revealed by comparative analysis. A cluster of 37 miRNAs were commonly but differentially expressed in all four pools. Significant differences were observed in expression regulation of 37 miRNAs between age groups (≤35 or ≥36) in women receiving r-hFSH+r-hLH compared to those receiving r-hFSH alone. Higher concentrations and increased numbers of miRNAs were recorded in younger than in older patients, regardless of treatment. Functional and expression studies performed to retrieve common miRNome profiles revealed an enrichment of biological functions in oocyte growth and maturation, embryo development, steroidogenesis, ovarian hyperstimulation, apoptosis and cell survival, glucagon and lipid metabolism, and cell trafficking. The highest scored pathways of target genes of the 37 common miRNAs were associated with mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathways, G alpha signaling, transcription regulation, tight junctions, RNA polymerase I and III, and mitochondrial transcription. We identified a potential age- and MAR stimulation-dependent signature in the miRNA landscape of COCs.Limitations, Reasons For Caution: We cannot rule out the possibility that other unknown individual genetic or clinical factors may have interfered with the reported results. Since miRNA profiling was conducted with a predefined array of target probes, other miRNA molecules, potentially modulated by age and hormonal stimulation, may have been missed in this study.Wider Implications Of the Findings: miRNA expression in COCs is modulated by gonadotropin treatment and correlates strongly with age. A better understanding of the expression patterns and functions of miRNAs may lead to the development of novel therapeutics to treat ovarian dysfunction and improve fertility in older women.Study Funding/competing Interest: This study was funded by Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. All authors declared no competing interest, except SL and TD who are fully employed by Merck KGaA.Trial Registration Number: N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]