APHRODITE criteria:addressing male patients with hypogonadism and/or infertility owing to altered idiopathic testicular function

Research question: Can a novel classification system of the infertile male - 'APHRODITE' (Addressing male Patients with Hypogonadism and/or infeRtility Owing to altereD, Idiopathic TEsticular function) - stratify different subgroups of male infertility to help scientists to design clinical trials on the hormonal treatment of male infertility, and clinicians to counsel and treat the endocrinological imbalances in men and, ultimately, increase the chances of natural and assisted conception?Design: A collaboration between andrologists, reproductive urologists and gynaecologists, with specialization in reproductive medicine and expertise in male infertility, led to the development of the APHRODITE criteria through an iterative consensus process based on clinical patient descriptions and the results of routine laboratory tests, including semen analysis and hormonal testing.Results: Five patient groups were delineated according to the APHRODITE criteria; (1) Hypogonadotrophic hypogonadism (acquired and congenital); (2) Idiopathic male infertility with lowered semen analysis parameters, normal serum FSH and normal serum total testosterone concentrations; (3) A hypogonadal state with lowered semen analysis parameters, normal FSH and reduced total testosterone concentrations; (4) Lowered semen analysis parameters, elevated FSH concentrations and reduced or normal total testosterone concentrations; and (5) Unexplained male infertility in the context of unexplained couple infertility.Conclusion: The APHRODITE criteria offer a novel and standardized patient stratification system for male infertility independent of aetiology and/or altered spermatogenesis, facilitating communication among clinicians, researchers and patients to improve reproductive outcomes following hormonal therapy. APHRODITE is proposed as a basis for future trials of the hormonal treatment of male infertility.</p

Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance

Abstract BACKGROUND Successful cryopreservation of oocytes and embryos is essential not only to maximize the safety and efficacy of ovarian stimulation cycles in an IVF treatment, but also to enable fertility preservation. Two cryopreservation methods are routinely used: slow-freezing or vitrification. Slow-freezing allows for freezing to occur at a sufficiently slow rate to permit adequate cellular dehydration while minimizing intracellular ice formation. Vitrification allows the solidification of the cell(s) and of the extracellular milieu into a glass-like state without the formation of ice. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE The objective of our study was to provide a systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical outcomes following slow-freezing/thawing versus vitrification/warming of oocytes and embryos and to inform the development of World Health Organization guidance on the most effective cryopreservation method. SEARCH METHODS A Medline search was performed from 1966 to 1 August 2016 using the following search terms: (Oocyte(s) [tiab] OR (Pronuclear[tiab] OR Embryo[tiab] OR Blastocyst[tiab]) AND (vitrification[tiab] OR freezing[tiab] OR freeze[tiab]) AND (pregnancy[tiab] OR birth[tiab] OR clinical[tiab]). Queries were limited to those involving humans. RCTs and cohort studies that were published in full-length were considered eligible. Each reference was reviewed for relevance and only primary evidence and relevant articles from the bibliographies of included articles were considered. References were included if they reported cryosurvival rate, clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), live-birth rate (LBR) or delivery rate for slow-frozen or vitrified human oocytes or embryos. A meta-analysis was performed using a random effects model to calculate relative risk ratios (RR) and 95% CI. OUTCOMES One RCT study comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification of oocytes was included. Vitrification was associated with increased ongoing CPR per cycle (RR = 2.81, 95% CI: 1.05–7.51; P = 0.039; 48 and 30 cycles, respectively, per transfer (RR = 1.81, 95% CI 0.71–4.67; P = 0.214; 47 and 19 transfers) and per warmed/thawed oocyte (RR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.02–1.28; P = 0.018; 260 and 238 oocytes). One RCT comparing vitrification versus fresh oocytes was analysed. In vitrification and fresh cycles, respectively, no evidence for a difference in ongoing CPR per randomized woman (RR = 1.03, 95% CI: 0.87–1.21; P = 0.744, 300 women in each group), per cycle (RR = 1.01, 95% CI: 0.86–1.18; P = 0.934; 267 versus 259 cycles) and per oocyte utilized (RR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.82–1.26; P = 0.873; 3286 versus 3185 oocytes) was reported. Findings were consistent with relevant cohort studies. Of the seven RCTs on embryo cryopreservation identified, three met the inclusion criteria (638 warming/thawing cycles at cleavage and blastocyst stage), none of which involved pronuclear-stage embryos. A higher CPR per cycle was noted with embryo vitrification compared with slow-freezing, though this was of borderline statistical significance (RR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.00–3.59; P = 0.051; three RCTs; I2 = 71.9%). LBR per cycle was reported by one RCT performed with cleavage-stage embryos and was higher for vitrification (RR = 2.28; 95% CI: 1.17–4.44; P = 0.016; 216 cycles; one RCT). A secondary analysis was performed focusing on embryo cryosurvival rate. Pooled data from seven RCTs (3615 embryos) revealed a significant improvement in embryo cryosurvival following vitrification as compared with slow-freezing (RR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.30–1.93; P < 0.001; I2 = 93%). WIDER IMPLICATIONS Data from available RCTs suggest that vitrification/warming is superior to slow-freezing/thawing with regard to clinical outcomes (low quality of the evidence) and cryosurvival rates (moderate quality of the evidence) for oocytes, cleavage-stage embryos and blastocysts. The results were confirmed by cohort studies. The improvements obtained with the introduction of vitrification have several important clinical implications in ART. Based on this evidence, in particular regarding cryosurvival rates, laboratories that continue to use slow-freezing should consider transitioning to the use of vitrification for cryopreservation

Cancer and fertility preservation: International recommendations from an expert meeting

In the last years, thanks to the improvement in the prognosis of cancer patients, a growing attention has been given to the fertility issues. International guidelines on fertility preservation in cancer patients recommend that physicians discuss, as early as possible, with all patients of reproductive age their risk of infertility from the disease and/or treatment and their interest in having children after cancer, and help with informed fertility preservation decisions. As recommended by the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology, sperm cryopreservation and embryo/oocyte cryopreservation are standard strategies for fertility preservations in male and female patients, respectively; other strategies (e.g. pharmacological protection of the gonads and gonadal tissue cryopreservation) are considered experimental techniques. However, since then, new data have become available, and several issues in this field are still controversial and should be addressed by both patients and their treating physicians. In April 2015, physicians with expertise in the field of fertility preservation in cancer patients from several European countries were invited in Genova (Italy) to participate in a workshop on the topic of "cancer and fertility preservation". A total of ten controversial issues were discussed at the conference. Experts were asked to present an up-to-date review of the literature published on these topics and the presentation of own unpublished data was encouraged. On the basis of the data presented, as well as the expertise of the invited speakers, a total of ten recommendations were discussed and prepared with the aim to help physicians in counseling their young patients interested in fertility preservation. Although there is a great interest in this field, due to the lack of large prospective cohort studies and randomized trials on these topics, the level of evidence is not higher than 3 for most of the recommendations highlighting the need of further research efforts in many areas of this field. The participation to the ongoing registries and prospective studies is crucial to acquire more robust information in order to provide evidence-based recommendations

Table of Contents

Chromosome errors, or aneuploidy, affect an exceptionally high number of human conceptions, causing pregnancy loss and congenital disorders. Here, we have followed chromosome segregation in human oocytes from females aged 9 to 43 years and report that aneuploidy follows a U-curve. Specific segregation error types show different age dependencies, providing a quantitative explanation for the U-curve. Whole-chromosome nondisjunction events are preferentially associated with increased aneuploidy in young girls, whereas centromeric and more extensive cohesion loss limit fertility as women age. Our findings suggest that chromosomal errors originating in oocytes determine the curve of natural fertility in humans. [Abstract copyright: Copyright © 2019 The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works.

The use of ovarian reserve markers in IVF clinical practice: a national consensus

Ovarian reserve markers have been documented to perform very well in the clinical practice. While this is widely recognized, still now there is no consensus on how to use new biomarkers in the clinical practice. This study was conducted among Italian IVF centres using the Delphi technique, a validated consensus-building process. Briefly three consecutive questionnaires were developed for clinicians in charge of IVF centres. In the first rounds, participants were asked to rate the importance of a list of statements regarding the categorization of ovarian response and the diagnostic role of biomarkers. In round 3, participants were asked to rate their agreement and consensus on the list of statements derived from the first two rounds. There were 120 respondents. Consensus was achieved for many points: (a) poor ovarian response is predicted on the basis of the following: AMH &lt; 1 ng/ml or AFC &lt; 7, FSH ≥ 10 IU/l, age ≥ 40 yrs; (b) hyper-response is predicted on the basis of the following: AMH &gt; 3 ng/ml or AFC &gt; 14; (c) day 3 FSH measurement should always be associated to estradiol; (d) AMH can be measured on a random basis; (e) the measurement of the AFC with the 2D technology may be considered adequate and (f) the AFC should be measured in the early follicular phase and consists in the total number of 2-9 mm follicles in both the ovaries. The present study suggests that extensive consensus on the importance and use of new ovarian reserve markers to improve IVF safety and performance is already present among clinicians

Double stimulation in the same ovarian cycle (DuoStim) is an intriguing strategy to improve oocyte yield and the number of competent embryos in a short timeframe

: Proper ovarian stimulation regimens are crucial for any patient undergoing in-vitro fertilization (IVF). However, maximizing the oocyte yield in advanced maternal age patients with poor or suboptimal response is still a challenge. In fact, no standard treatment has been outlined yet to manage these women. Across the last years, an improved efficiency of the IVF units via blastocyst culture, vitrification and reliable embryo selection approaches paved the way to the investigation of novel unconventional stimulation protocols, like double stimulation in a single ovarian cycle (DuoStim). DuoStim, by conjugating follicular phase stimulation (FPS) and luteal phase stimulation (LPS) in the same ovarian cycle, allows to maximize the number of oocytes obtained in a short timeframe, a precious outcome when we aim at shortening time to pregnancy. In this regard, LPS seems to contribute to conventional stimulation with more oocytes with a comparable competence as FPS, retrieved per ovarian cycle. Although any stimulation protocol which exploits anovulatory waves of follicular growth needs a thorough investigation, no evidence has been produced to question the safety of DuoStim, which to date represents the most intriguing strategy to treat poor prognosis in IVF