BACKGROUND: The sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) has been suggested as a predictor of fertility in vivo as well as in vitro. The available data however, have been based on limited numbers of treatments. We aimed to define the clinical role of SCSA in assisted reproduction. METHODS: A total of 998 cycles [387 intrauterine insemination (IUI), 388 IVF and 223 ICSI] from 637 couples were included. SCSA results were expressed as DNA fragmentation index (DFI) and high DNA stainable (HDS) cell fractions. Outcome parameters were biochemical pregnancy (BP), clinical pregnancy (CP) and delivery (D). RESULTS: For IUI, the odds ratios (ORs) for BP, CP and D were significantly lower for couples with DFI >30% as compared with those with DFI ≤30%. No statistical difference between the outcomes of ICSI versus IVF in the group with DFI ≤30% was seen. In the DFI >30% group, the results of ICSI were significantly better than those of IVF. CONCLUSIONS: DFI can be used as an independent predictor of fertility in couples undergoing IUI. As a result, we propose that all infertile men should be tested with SCSA as a supplement to the standard semen analysis. When DFI exceeds 30%, ICSI should be the method of choice.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the recommended management of ovarian stimulation, based on the best available evidence in the literature?SUMMARY ANSWER: The guideline development group formulated 84 recommendations answering 18 key questions on ovarian stimulation.WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: 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.STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: 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).PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: 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.MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: 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.LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION: 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.WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: 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.STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): 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.Disclaimer: 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...

BACKGROUND: We aimed to determine the efficacy of ovarian hyperstimulation protocols employing a GnRH antagonist to prevent a premature LH rise allowing final oocyte maturation and ovulation to be induced by a single bolus of either a GnRH agonist or hCG. METHODS: A total of 122 normogonadotrophic patients following a flexible antagonist protocol was stimulated with recombinant human FSH and prospectively randomized (sealed envelopes) to ovulation induction with a single bolus of either 0.5 mg buserelin s.c. (n=55) or 10 000 IU of hCG (n=67). A maximum of two embryos was transferred. Luteal support consisted of micronized progesterone vaginally, 90 mg a day, and estradiol, 4 mg a day per os. RESULTS: Ovulation was induced with GnRH agonist in 55 patients and hCG in 67 patients. Significantly more metaphase II (MII) oocytes were retrieved in the GnRH agonist group (P<0.02). Significantly higher levels of LH and FSH (P<0.001) and significantly lower levels of progesterone and estradiol (P<0.001) were seen in the GnRH agonist group during the luteal phase. The implantation rate, 33/97 versus 3/89 (P<0.001), clinical pregnancy rate, 36 versus 6% (P=0.002), and rate of early pregnancy loss, 4% versus 79% (P=0.005), were significantly in favour of hCG. CONCLUSIONS: Ovulation induction with a GnRH agonist resulted in significantly more MII oocytes. However, a significantly lower implantation rate and clinical pregnancy rate in addition to a significantly higher rate of early pregnancy loss was seen in the GnRH agonist group, most probably due to a luteal phase deficiency.

INTRODUCTION: Sperm chromatin integrity assessment has been suggested as a fertility predictor. The aim of this study was to examine the relationship between the results of sperm chromatin structure assay (SCSA) and the outcome of IVF, ICSI and intrauterine insemination (IUI). METHODS: A total of 306 consecutive couples undergoing assisted reproduction were included. IUI was performed in 131, IVF in 109 and ICSI in 66. SCSA results were expressed as DNA fractionation index (DFI) and highly DNA stainable (HDS) cell fractions. Reproductive outcome parameters were biochemical pregnancy (BP), clinical pregnancy (CP) and delivery (D). RESULTS: For IUI, the chance of pregnancy/delivery was significantly higher in the group with DFI ≤27% and HDS ≤10% than in patients with DFI >27% or HDS >10%. The odds ratios (ORs) (95% confidence intervals) were 20 (2.3–117), 16 (1.9–137) and 14 (1.6–110) for BP, CP and D, respectively. No statistical difference between the outcomes of IVF versus ICSI was observed in the group with DFI ≤27%. In the DFI >27% group, however, the results of ICSI were significantly better than those of IVF. Comparing ICSI with IVF, the OR (95% CI) for BP was 26 (1.9–350). CONCLUSIONS: SCSA is a useful method for prediction of the outcome of assisted reproduction.

We herein summarise the evidence concerning the impact of sperm DNA fragmentation in various clinical infertility scenarios and the advances on sperm DNA fragmentation tests. The collected evidence was used to formulate 41 recommendations. Of these, 13 recommendations concern technical aspects of sperm DNA fragmentation testing, including pre‐analytical information, clinical thresholds and interpretation of results. The remaining 28 recommendations relate to indications for sperm DNA fragmentation testing and clinical management. Clinical scenarios like varicocele, unexplained infertility, idiopathic infertility, recurrent pregnancy loss, intrauterine insemination, in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection, fertility counselling for men with infertility risk factors and sperm cryopreservation have been contemplated. The bulk evidence supporting the recommendations has increased in recent years, but it is still of moderate to low quality. This practice guideline provides clinicians with advice on best practices in sperm DNA fragmentation testing. Also, recommendations are provided on possible management strategies to overcome infertility related to sperm DNA fragmentation, based on the best available evidence. Lastly, we identified gaps in knowledge and opportunities for research and elaborated a list of recommendations to stimulate further investigation concerning sperm DNA fragmentation testing and management of sperm DNA fragmentation‐related infertility conditions.