Progesterone plays a key role in implantation. Several studies reported that lower luteal progesterone levels might be related to decreased chances of pregnancy. This systematic review was conducted using appropriate key words, on MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library, from 1990 up to March 2021 to assess if luteal serum progesterone levels are associated with ongoing pregnancy (OP) and live birth (LB) rates (primary outcomes) and miscarriage rate (secondary outcome), according to the number of corpora lutea (CLs). Overall 2,632 non-duplicate records were identified, of which 32 relevant studies were available for quantitative analysis. In artificial cycles with no CL, OP and LB rates were significantly decreased when the luteal progesterone level falls below a certain threshold (risk ratio [RR] 0.72; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62–0.84 and 0.73; 95% CI 0.59–0.90, respectively), while the miscarriage rate was increased (RR 1.48; 95% CI 1.17–1.86). In stimulated cycles with several CLs, the mean luteal progesterone level in the no OP and no LB groups was significantly lower than in the OP and LB groups [difference in means 68.8 (95% CI 45.6–92.0) and 272.4 (95% CI 10.8–533.9), ng/ml, respectively]. Monitoring luteal serum progesterone levels could help in individualizing progesterone administration to enhance OP and LB rates, especially in cycles without corpus luteum.Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=139019, identifier 139019.

Should we perform oocyte accumulation to preserve fertility in women with Turner syndrome (TS)? The oocyte cryopreservation strategy is not well adapted for all TS women as their combination of high basal FSH with low basal AMH and low percentage of 46,XX cells in the karyotype significantly reduces the chances of freezing sufficient mature oocytes for fertility preservation. An oocyte cryopreservation strategy requiring numerous stimulation cycles is needed to preserve fertility in TS women, to compensate for the low ovarian response, the possible oocyte genetic alterations, the reduced endometrial receptivity, and the increased rate of miscarriage, observed in this specific population. The validation of reliable predictive biomarkers of ovarian response to hormonal stimulation in TS patients is necessary to help practitioners and patients choose the best-personalized fertility preservation strategy. A retrospective bicentric study was performed from 1 January 2011 to 1 January 2023. Clinical and biological data from all TS women who have received from ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation were collected. A systematic review of the current literature on oocyte retrieval outcomes after ovarian stimulation in TS women was also performed (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022362352). A total of 14 TS women who had undergone ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation were included, representing the largest cohort of TS patients published to date (n = 14 patients, 24 cycles). The systematic review of the literature identified 34 additional TS patients with 47 oocyte retrieval outcomes after ovarian stimulation in 14 publications (n = 48 patients, n = 71 cycles in total). The number of cryopreserved mature oocytes on the first cycle for TS patients was low (4.0 ± 3.7). Oocyte accumulation was systematically proposed to increase fertility potential and was accepted by 50% (7/14) of patients (2.4 ± 0.5 cycles), leading to an improved total number of 10.9 ± 7.2 cryopreserved mature oocytes per patient. In the group who refused the oocyte accumulation strategy, only one patient exceeded the threshold of 10 mature cryopreserved oocytes. In contrast, 57.1% (4/7) and 42.9% (3/7) of patients who have underwent the oocyte accumulation strategy reached the threshold of 10 and 15 mature cryopreserved oocytes, respectively (OR = 8 (0.6; 107.0), P = 0.12; OR= 11 (0.5; 282.1), P = 0.13). By analyzing all the data published to date and combining it with our data (n = 48 patients, n = 71 cycles), low basal FSH and high AMH concentrations as well as a higher percentage of 46,XX cells in the karyotype were significantly associated with a higher number of cryopreserved oocytes after the first cycle. Moreover, the combination of low basal FSH concentration (1.13 ng/ml), and the presence of 46,XX cells (>1%) was significantly predictive of obtaining at least six cryopreserved oocytes in the first cycle, representing objective criteria for identifying patients with real chances of preserving an adequate fertility potential by oocyte cryopreservation. Our results should be analyzed with caution, as the optimal oocyte number needed for successful live birth in TS patients is still unknown due to the low number of reports their oocyte use in the literature to date. TS patients should benefit from relevant clinical evaluation, genetic counseling and psychological support to make an informed choice regarding their fertility preservation technique, as numerous stimulation cycles would be necessary to preserve a high number of oocytes. This research received no external funding. The authors declare no conflict of interest. N/A.

Access to in vitro fertilization (IVF) for obese women varies across centers, and the impact of obesity on IVF outcomes is widely discussed. We assessed the impact of obesity and its severity on live birth rate (LBR) after IVF. We included women treated for IVF in our center. Data were prospectively collected in the BabySentry^TM software. LBR per cycle and cumulative LBR including all attempts of the couple were calculated, considering transfer of both fresh and frozen embryos. Of 1588 included women (2379 controlled ovarian stimulations), 70.2%, 19.5%, 7.9%, and 2.4% were normal-weight, overweight, class I obesity, and class II/III obesity, respectively. For each cycle, LBR did not differ according to BMI category. Adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for obtaining a live birth at the first cycle were 1.11 (0.78–1.58) for overweight, 1.17 (0.70–1.95) for class I obese, and 1.05 (0.48–2.31) for class II/III obese women, as compared with normal-weight women. Similarly, no significant associations were found at cycles 2, 3, and 4. Cumulative LBR increased with the number of cycles, independently of the BMI class (p log-rank = 0.91). After adjustment, obesity status did not impact significantly the miscarriage rate, regardless of the cycle. In conclusion, neither women obesity nor its severity impacted the cumulative LBR after IVF.