Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 May 10:12:675670.
doi: 10.3389/fendo.2021.675670. eCollection 2021.

Optimising Follicular Development, Pituitary Suppression, Triggering and Luteal Phase Support During Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Delphi Consensus

Affiliations

Optimising Follicular Development, Pituitary Suppression, Triggering and Luteal Phase Support During Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Delphi Consensus

Raoul Orvieto et al. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). .

Abstract

Background: A Delphi consensus was conducted to evaluate global expert opinions on key aspects of assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment.

Methods: Ten experts plus the Scientific Coordinator discussed and amended statements plus supporting references proposed by the Scientific Coordinator. The statements were distributed via an online survey to 35 experts, who voted on their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement. Consensus was reached if the proportion of participants agreeing or disagreeing with a statement was >66%.

Results: Eighteen statements were developed. All statements reached consensus and the most relevant are summarised here. (1) Follicular development and stimulation with gonadotropins (n = 9 statements): Recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (r-hFSH) alone is sufficient for follicular development in normogonadotropic patients aged <35 years. Oocyte number and live birth rate are strongly correlated; there is a positive linear correlation with cumulative live birth rate. Different r-hFSH preparations have identical polypeptide chains but different glycosylation patterns, affecting the biospecific activity of r-hFSH. r-hFSH plus recombinant human LH (r-hFSH:r-hLH) demonstrates improved pregnancy rates and cost efficacy versus human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) in patients with severe FSH and LH deficiency. (2) Pituitary suppression (n = 2 statements): Gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists are associated with lower rates of any grade ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and cycle cancellation versus GnRH agonists. (3) Final oocyte maturation triggering (n=4 statements): Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) represents the gold standard in fresh cycles. The efficacy of hCG triggering for frozen transfers in modified natural cycles is controversial compared with LH peak monitoring. Current evidence supports significantly higher pregnancy rates with hCG + GnRH agonist versus hCG alone, but further evidence is needed. GnRH agonist trigger, in GnRH antagonist protocol, is recommended for final oocyte maturation in women at risk of OHSS. (4) Luteal-phase support (n = 3 statements): Vaginal progesterone therapy represents the gold standard for luteal-phase support.

Conclusions: This Delphi consensus provides a real-world clinical perspective on the specific approaches during the key steps of ART treatment from a diverse group of international experts. Additional guidance from clinicians on ART strategies could complement guidelines and policies, and may help to further improve treatment outcomes.

Keywords: assisted reproductive technology (ART); expert opinion; gonadotropins; luteal phase support; oocyte maturation; optimisation; ovarian stimulation; trigger.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

TD and SL are employees of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. RO received speaker fees/honoraria from Ferring and Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. CV is supported by a NHMRC Early Career Fellowship (GNT1147154). He also has equity interests in Virtus Health and reports grants, personal fees and non-financial support from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, personal fees and non-financial support from MSD, grants and non-financial support from Ferring, personal fees from Besins Healthcare, and grants and non-financial support from Abbott. HF received speaker fees/honoraria/grants from MSD, Ferring, Besin, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, and Sun Pharma. RF received consulting fees and honoraria from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. YK received speaker fees/honoraria/grants from MSD, Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, Besins Healthcare, Gedeon Richter, Abbott, Bayer, and Sun Pharma. MH declares receipt of research grants from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, and lecture fees from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany and Ferring. MG received fees from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, MSD, IBSA. SE declares receipt of unrestricted research grants from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, and lecture fees from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, Gedeon Richter and Medical Education Academy. SS was speaker at non-promotional educational symposia by Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany and Ferring in the last 12 months. YL received speaker fees/grants from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany, MSD, and Bayer. CA received consulting fees and payment/honoraria from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The three steps of the Delphi consensus process. The consensus comprised three steps. Step 1: Statements and supporting references initially developed by the Scientific Coordinator were discussed and amended by the 11 members of the Scientific Board. Step 2: An extended panel of 35 experts voted on their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement. Step 3: The consensus results were communicated to the participating experts. *One new statement (Statement 18) was added during Step 1, following disagreement on the wording of Statement 17; 28/35 (80%) of panel members completed the entire survey; Statement 17 reworded and sent for a second round of voting during Step 2.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Level of agreement/disagreement with each statement (Step 2). The 35-member Extended Panel voted on their levels of agreement/disagreement with each of the 18 statements using a 5-item Likert scale (1 = absolutely disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = more than agree, 5 = absolutely agree). Consensus was considered to have been achieved if the proportion of participants either agreeing with the statement (responding 3, 4 or 5) or disagreeing with the statement (responding 1 or 2) exceeded 66%.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S, Racowsky C, de Mouzon J, Sokol R, et al. . The International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care, 2017. Hum Reprod (Oxford England) (2017) 32(9):1786–801. 10.1093/humrep/dex234 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Definitions of Infertility and Recurrent Pregnancy Loss: A Committee Opinion. Fertil Steril (2020) 113(3):533–5. 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2019.11.025 - DOI - PubMed
    1. World Health Organization . World Report on Disability (2011). Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/70670/WHO_NMH_VIP_11.01... (Accessed 27 May 2020).
    1. World Health Organization . Fact Sheet: Fertility (2020). Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/infertility (Accessed 27/01/2021).
    1. Greenhall E, Vessey M. The Prevalence of Subfertility: A Review of the Current Confusion and a Report of Two New Studies. Fertil Steril (1990) 54(6):978–83. 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)53990-9 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances