STUDY QUESTION: Does addition of choriogonadotropin beta (recombinant CG beta) to follitropin delta increase the number of good-quality blastocysts following ovarian stimulation in a long GnRH agonist protocol? SUMMARY ANSWER: At the doses investigated, the addition of CG beta reduced the number of intermediate follicles and related down-stream parameters including the number of oocytes and blastocysts. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: CG beta is a novel recombinant hCG (rhCG) molecule expressed by a human cell line (PER.C6®) and has a different glycosylation profile compared to urinary hCG or rhCG derived from a Chinese Hamster Ovary (CHO) cell line. In the first-in-human trial, the CG beta pharmacokinetics were similar between men and women. In women, the AUC and the peak serum concentration (Cmax) increased approximately dose proportionally following single and multiple daily doses. In men, a single dose of CG beta provided higher exposure with a longer half-life and proportionately higher testosterone production than CHO cell-derived rhCG. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized trial (RAINBOW) was conducted in five European countries to explore the efficacy and safety of CG beta as add-on treatment to follitropin delta in women undergoing ovarian stimulation in a long GnRH agonist protocol. Randomization was stratified by centre and age (30-37 and 38-42 years). The primary endpoint was the number of good-quality blastocysts (Grade 3 BB or higher). Subjects were randomized to receive either placebo or 1, 2, 4, 8 or 12 µg CG beta added to the daily individualized follitropin delta dose during ovarian stimulation. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In total, 620 women (30-42 years) with anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels between 5 and 35 pmol/l were randomized in equal proportions to the six treatment groups and 619 subjects started treatment. All 619 subjects were treated with an individualized dose of follitropin delta determined based on AMH (Elecsys AMH Plus Immunoassay) and body weight. Triggering with rhCG was performed when 3 follicles were ≥17 mm but no more than 25 follicles ≥12 mm were reached. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The demographic characteristics were comparable between the six treatment groups and the overall mean age, body weight and AMH were 35.6 ± 3.3 years, 65.3 ± 10.7 kg and 15.3 ± 7.0 pmol/l, respectively. The incidence of cycle cancellation (range 0-2.9%), total follitropin delta dose (mean 112 µg) and duration of stimulation (mean 10 days) were similar across the groups. At stimulation Day 6, the number and size of follicles was similar between the treatment groups, whereas at the end-of-stimulation dose-related decrease of the intermediate follicles between 12 and 17 mm was observed in comparison to the placebo group. In contrast, the number of follicles ≥17 mm was similar between the CG beta dose groups and the placebo group. A reduced number of intermediate follicles (12 to 17 mm) and fewer oocytes (mean range 9.7 to 11.2) were observed for all doses of CG beta compared to the follitropin delta only group (mean 12.5). The mean number of good-quality blastocysts was 3.3 in the follitropin delta group and ranged between 2.1 and 3.0 across the CG beta groups. The incidence of transfer cancellation was higher in the 4, 8 and 12 µg group, mostly as no blastocyst was available for transfer. In the group receiving only follitropin delta, the ongoing pregnancy rate (10-11 weeks after transfer) was 43% per started cycle versus 28-39% in CG beta groups and 49% per transfer versus 38-50% in the CG beta groups. There was no apparent effect of CG beta on the incidence of adverse events, which was 48.1% in the placebo group and 39.6-52.3% in the CG beta dose groups. In line with the number of collected oocytes, the overall ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome incidence remained lower following follitropin delta with CG beta (2.0-10.3%) compared with follitropin delta only treatment (11.5%). Regardless of the dose, CG beta was safe and well-tolerated with low risk of immunogenicity. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The effect of the unique glycosylation of CG beta and its associated potency implications in women were not known prior to this trial. Further studies will be needed to evaluate optimal doses of CG beta for this and/or different indications. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The high ongoing pregnancy rate in the follitropin delta group supports the use of individualized follitropin delta dosing in a long GnRH agonist protocol. The addition of CG beta reduced the presence of intermediate follicles with the investigated doses and negatively affected all down-stream parameters. Further clinical research will be needed to assess the optimal dose of CG beta in the optimal ratio to follitropin delta to develop this novel combination product containing both FSH and LH activity for ovarian stimulation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The study was funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Copenhagen, Denmark. B.M. and P.L. are employees of Ferring Pharmaceuticals. M.F.S., H.V., C.Y.A., M.F., C.B., A.P. and Y.K. have received institutional clinical trial fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. C.B. has received payments for lectures from Organon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S and Abbott. M.F.S. has received payment for lectures from Ferring Pharmaceuticals. Y.K. has received payment for lectures from Merck and travel support from Gedeon Richter. H.V. has received consulting fees from Oxo and Obseva and travel support from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and Merck. C.Y.A. has received payment for lectures from IBSA, Switzerland. M.F and C.Y.A. were reimbursed as members of the Data Monitoring Board in this trial. M.F. has an issued patent about unitary combination of FSH and hCG (EP1633389). TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: 2017-003810-13 (EudraCT Number). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 21 May 2018. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT: 13 June 2018.

• Keywords
• FE 999302, blastocyst quality, choriogonadotropin beta, combined ovarian stimulation, long GnRH agonist protocol, recombinant hCG,
• MeSH
• Anti-Mullerian Hormone MeSH
• CHO Cells MeSH
• Chorionic Gonadotropin MeSH
• Cricetulus MeSH
• Fertilization in Vitro methods   MeSH
• Follicle Stimulating Hormone, Human * MeSH
• Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone MeSH
• Ovulation Induction * methods   MeSH
• Cricetinae MeSH
• Pharmaceutical Preparations MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Chorionic Gonadotropin, beta Subunit, Human MeSH
• Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic MeSH
• Recombinant Proteins MeSH
• Pregnancy MeSH
• Body Weight MeSH
• Pregnancy Rate MeSH
• Animals MeSH
• Check Tag
• Cricetinae MeSH
• Humans MeSH
• Pregnancy MeSH
• Female MeSH
• Animals MeSH
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't MeSH
• Clinical Trial Protocol MeSH
• Names of Substances
• Anti-Mullerian Hormone MeSH
• Chorionic Gonadotropin MeSH
• Follicle Stimulating Hormone, Human * MeSH
• follitropin delta MeSH Browser
• Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone MeSH
• Pharmaceutical Preparations MeSH
• Chorionic Gonadotropin, beta Subunit, Human MeSH
• Recombinant Proteins MeSH

STUDY QUESTION: Is it possible to define a set of performance indicators (PIs) for clinical work in ART, which can create competency profiles for clinicians and for specific clinical process steps? SUMMARY ANSWER: The current paper recommends six PIs to be used for monitoring clinical work in ovarian stimulation for ART, embryo transfer, and pregnancy achievement: cycle cancellation rate (before oocyte pick-up (OPU)) (%CCR), rate of cycles with moderate/severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (%mosOHSS), the proportion of mature (MII) oocytes at ICSI (%MII), complication rate after OPU (%CoOPU), clinical pregnancy rate (%CPR), and multiple pregnancy rate (%MPR). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: PIs are objective measures for evaluating critical healthcare domains. In 2017, ART laboratory key PIs (KPIs) were defined. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: A list of possible indicators was defined by a working group. The value and limitations of each indicator were confirmed through assessing published data and acceptability was evaluated through an online survey among members of ESHRE, mostly clinicians, of the special interest group Reproductive Endocrinology. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: The online survey was open for 5 weeks and 222 replies were received. Statements (indicators, indicator definitions, or general statements) were considered accepted when ≥70% of the responders agreed (agreed or strongly agreed). There was only one round to seek levels of agreement between the stakeholders.Indicators that were accepted by the survey responders were included in the final list of indicators. Statements reaching less than 70% were not included in the final list but were discussed in the paper. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Cycle cancellation rate (before OPU) and the rate of cycles with moderate/severe OHSS, calculated on the number of started cycles, were defined as relevant PIs for monitoring ovarian stimulation. For monitoring ovarian response, trigger and OPU, the proportion of MII oocytes at ICSI and complication rate after OPU were listed as PIs: the latter PI was defined as the number of complications (any) that require an (additional) medical intervention or hospital admission (apart from OHSS) over the number of OPUs performed. Finally, clinical pregnancy rate and multiple pregnancy rate were considered relevant PIs for embryo transfer and pregnancy. The defined PIs should be calculated every 6 months or per 100 cycles, whichever comes first. Clinical pregnancy rate and multiple pregnancy rate should be monitored more frequently (every 3 months or per 50 cycles). Live birth rate (LBR) is a generally accepted and an important parameter for measuring ART success. However, LBR is affected by many factors, even apart from ART, and it cannot be adequately used to monitor clinical practice. In addition to monitoring performance in general, PIs are essential for managing the performance of staff over time, and more specifically the gap between expected performance and actual performance measured. Individual clinics should determine which indicators are key to the success in their organisation based on their patient population, protocols, and procedures, and as such, which are their KPIs. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The consensus values are based on data found in the literature and suggestions of experts. When calculated and compared to the competence/benchmark limits, prudent interpretation is necessary taking into account the specific clinical practice of each individual centre. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The defined PIs complement the earlier defined indicators for the ART laboratory. Together, both sets of indicators aim to enhance the overall quality of the ART practice and are an essential part of the total quality management. PIs are important for education and can be applied during clinical subspecialty. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This paper was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with meetings, literature searches, and dissemination. The writing group members did not receive payment.Dr G.G. reports personal fees from Merck, MSD, Ferring, Theramex, Finox, Gedeon-Richter, Abbott, Biosilu, ReprodWissen, Obseva, PregLem, and Guerbet, outside the submitted work. Dr A.D. reports personal fees from Cook, outside the submitted work; Dr S.A. reports starting a new employment in May 2020 at Vitrolife. Previously, she has been part of the Nordic Embryology Academic Team, with meetings were sponsored by Gedeon Richter. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. DISCLAIMER: This document represents the views of ESHRE, which are the result of consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders and where relevant based on the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation.The recommendations should be used for informational and educational purposes. They should not be interpreted as setting a standard of care, or be deemed inclusive of all proper methods of care nor exclusive of other methods of care reasonably directed to obtaining the same results. They do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type.Furthermore, ESHREs recommendations do not constitute or imply the endorsement, recommendation, or favouring of any of the included technologies by ESHRE.

• Keywords
• ART, IVF/ICSI, consensus, data collection, key performance indicators, ovarian stimulation, performance, quality management,
• Publication type
• Journal Article MeSH