Panay N, Anderson RA, Bennie A, Cedars M, Davies M, Ee C, Gravholt CH, Kalantaridou S, Kallen A, Kim KQ, Misrahi M, Mousa A, Nappi RE, Rocca WA, Ruan X, Teede H, Vermeulen N, Vogt E, Vincent AJ, ESHRE, ASRM, CREWHIRL, and IMS Guideline Group on POI
How should premature/primary ovarian insufficiency (POI) be diagnosed and managed based on the best available evidence from published literature?Summary answerThe current guideline provides 145 recommendations on symptoms, diagnosis, causation, sequelae, and treatment of POI.
What Is Known Already
Premature ovarian insufficiency (POI) presents a significant challenge to women's health, with far-reaching implications, both physically and emotionally. The potential implications include adverse effects on quality of life; fertility; and bone, cardiovascular, and cognitive health. Although hormone therapy (HT) can mitigate some of these effects, many questions still remain regarding the optimal management of POI.Study design size durationThe guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. Key questions were determined by a group of experts and informed by a scoping survey of women and health care professionals. Literature searches and assessments were then performed. Papers published up to 30 January 2024 and written in English were included in the guideline. An integrity review was conducted for the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on POI included in the guideline.
Participants/materials setting methodsBased on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed within the guideline development group until consensus was reached. Women with lived experience of POI informed the recommendations in general, and particularly on those on provision of care. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the guideline development group and the ESHRE Executive Committee.
Main Result
s and the role of chanceNew data indicate a higher prevalence of POI, 3.5%, than was previously thought. This guideline aims to help health care professionals to apply best practice care for women with POI. The recent update of the POI guideline covers 40 clinical questions on diagnosis of the condition, the different sequelae, including bone, cardiovascular, neurological and sexual function, fertility and general well-being, and treatment options, including HT. The list of clinical questions was expanded from the previous iteration of the guideline (2015) based on the scoping survey and appreciation of emerging knowledge of POI. Questions were added on the role of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) in the diagnosis of POI, fertility preservation, muscle health, and specific considerations for HT in iatrogenic POI. Additionally, the topic on complementary treatments was extended with specific focus on non-hormonal treatments and lifestyle management options. Significant changes from the previous 2015 guideline include the recommendations that only one elevated FSH >25 IU is required for diagnosis of POI, and guidance that AMH testing, repeat FSH measurement, and/or AMH may be required where there is diagnostic uncertainty. Recommendations were also updated regarding genetic testing, estrogen doses and regimens, use of the combined oral contraceptive and testosterone therapy. Women with lived experience of POI informed the recommendations on provision of care.
Limitations reasons for cautionThe guideline describes different management options, but it must be acknowledged that for most of these options, supporting evidence is limited for POI.
Wider Implication
s of the findingsThe guideline provides health care professionals with clear advice on best practice in POI care, based on the best evidence currently available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to guide further studies in POI.Study funding/competing interestsThe guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), Centre for Research Excellence in Women's Health in Reproduction Life (CRE-WHiRL), and International Menopause Society (IMS), covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, literature searches, and dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payments. N.P. declared grants from Bayer Pharma (research and consultancy) and NIHR-research POISE; consulting fees from Abbott, Astellas, Bayer, Besins, Lawley, Mithra, Theramex, Viatris; honoraria from Astellas, Bayer, Besins, Gedeon Richter, Theramex, Viatris; support for attending meetings and/or travel from Astellas, Bayer, Theramex, Viatris; President, International Menopause Society, Medical Advisory Committee member, British Menopause Society, Patron Daisy Network. A.J.V. declared grants from Amgen Australia, Australian NHMRC, and Australian MRFF; consulting fees from IQ Fertility; honoraria from the Australasian Menopause Society; participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board of Astellas; Board Member of the International Menopause Society (2020 to current) and Past president of the Australasian Menopause Society (2017-2019); R.A.A. declared grants from Roche (Research support, to institution), and participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board of Bayer. M.C. declared grants from NHI; payments or honoraria from Up-to-Date (as editor/reviewer); Board Member of American Society of Reproductive Medicine, and of American Gynecological and Obstetrical Society. M.D. declared (NIHR-HTA Reference Number: NIHR133461; NIHR-HTA Reference Number: NIHR128757; Action Medical Research and Borne: GN2818) consulting fees from a small personal medical practice, support for attending meetings and/or travel from ESHRE, Bayer and UCLH special Trustees; Participation on the Advisory Board of the British Menopause Society, UKSTORE project, the Progress Educational Trust, and the Turner Syndrome Support Society UK; Leadership or fiduciary roles in the British Fertility Society (Trustee), Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital Charity (chair of Trustees), and the Essex Wynter charitable trust (Trustee). C.E. declared being Chair of a SIG from the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners Integrative Medicine Specific Interest Group and Program Lead for Next Practice Western Sydney Integrative Health. C.H.G. declared grants from Novo Nordisk Foundation (Nos. NNF15OC0016474 and NNF20OC0060610), sygesikringen danmark (No 2022-0189), and the Independent Research Fund Denmark (Nos. 0134-00406 and 0134-00130B); consulting fees from Novo Nordisk, Merck, and Astra Zeneca. S.K. declared grants from Roche diagnostics. A.K. declared grants from NIH R01 5R01HD101475; consulting fees as Medical Reviewer for Flo and for Healthline; honoraria as Medical Consultant for Summus; support for attending meetings from the Reproductive Scientist Development Program; Society for Reproductive Investigation Council Member and Society for Assisted Reproduction Registry/Validation Chair; R.E.N. declared consulting fees from Astellas, Bayer Pharma, Besins Healthcare, Fidia, Theramex; honoraria from Abbott, Astellas, Exeltis, Fidia, Gedeon Richter, Merck & Co, Novo Nordisk, Shionogi Limited, Theramex, Viatris; payment for expert testimony from Vichy Laboratories; Participation in Data Safety Monitoring Board of Advisory board from Astellas and Bayer Healthcare; President elect of the International Menopause Society (IMS). H.T. declared a grant from NHMRC Centre for Research Excellence for women's health in reproductive life. A.B. declared being chair of the Daisy Network Charity. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.DisclaimerThis guideline represents the views of ESHRE, ASRM, CRE-WHiRL, and IMS, 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 stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgement to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. The collaborating societies make no warranty, expressed or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically exclude any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.).
premature ovarian insufficiency evidence-based guideline, POI diagnosis management ESHRE ASRM guideline 2024, Panay Anderson premature ovarian insufficiency guideline, primary ovarian insufficiency HRT bone cardiovascular, premature ovarian failure diagnosis causation treatment, premature menopause fertility preservation options, POI quality of life emotional cognitive health, hormone replacement therapy premature ovarian insufficiency, Turner syndrome fragile X POI genetic causes, ESHRE ASRM CREWHIRL IMS POI guideline consensus
PMID 39660328 39660328 DOI 10.1093/hropen/hoae065 10.1093/hropen/hoae065
Cite this article
Panay, N., Anderson, R. A., Bennie, A., Cedars, M., Davies, M., Ee, C., Gravholt, C. H., Kalantaridou, S., Kallen, A., Kim, K. Q., Misrahi, M., Mousa, A., Nappi, R. E., Rocca, W. A., Ruan, X., Teede, H., Vermeulen, N., Vogt, E., Vincent, A. J., . . . and IMS Guideline Group on, P. O. I. (2024). Evidence-based guideline: premature ovarian insufficiency. Human reproduction open, 2024(4), hoae065. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoae065
Panay N, Anderson RA, Bennie A, Cedars M, Davies M, Ee C, et al. Evidence-based guideline: premature ovarian insufficiency. Hum Reprod Open. 2024;2024(4):hoae065. doi:10.1093/hropen/hoae065
Panay, N., et al. "Evidence-based guideline: premature ovarian insufficiency." Human reproduction open, vol. 2024, no. 4, 2024, pp. hoae065.
Related articles
AndrologyHealth Prognostic ValueCardiovascular and Metabolic RiskMale Fertility
Open Access
Can semen parameters predict long-term health outcomes in men? There is a lack of evidence to suggest a higher risk of comorbidities in men with poor semen concentration. Male infertility has been long associated with a higher mortality risk and possibly higher chance of developing comorbidities but there has been less focus on semen analysis as a potential predictive factor. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, and EBM databases from inception to December 2023. heading 1 ('OR', semen analysis, sperm count, sperm parameter*, male infertility, azoospermia, aspermia, oligospermia, teratozoospermia, asthenozoospermia) 'AND' heading 2 ('OR', morbidity, mortality, diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular, death, hypertension, stroke, long-term health). We included all studies that analyzed the risk of mortality and/or future development of comorbidities in men with at least one semen analysis. Case series and reviews were excluded. A narrative synthesis was done for all studies and meta-analysis where possible. Odds ratio (ORs) (95% CI, P-value) were calculated for all men with one suboptimal semen parameter and associated with the risk of a particular outcome. The risk of bias was assessed with QUADAS-2. MAIN Twenty-one studies were finally included. There was either a high or unclear risk of bias in all studies. The results only allowed for meta-analysis on categories of sperm concentration. We found a 2-fold increase in mortality risk in azoospermic men compared to oligospermic (OR 1.96, 95% CI: 1.29-2.96) and normozoospermic (OR 2.00, 95% CI: 1.23-3.25) groups, but not in oligospermic compared to normozoospermic (OR 1.04, 95% CI: 0.52-2.09). There was no difference in risk of cardiovascular disease in any of the sperm concentration groups (azoospermic-oligospermic OR 0.94, 95% CI: 0.74-1.20, azoospermic-normozoospermic OR 1.11, 95% CI: 0.71-1.75, and oligospermic-normozoospermic OR 1.12, 95% CI: 0.80-1.55). OR for diabetes in azoospermic men was higher only compared to oligospermic (OR 2.16, 95% CI: 1.55-3.01). The risk of all-site cancer was higher in azoospermic men compared to oligospermic (OR 2.16, 95% CI: 1.55-3.01) and normozoospermic (OR 2.18, 95% CI: 1.20-3.96). Only azoospermic men might be at higher risk of testicular cancer when compared to men with normal sperm concentration (OR 1.80, 95% CI: 1.12-2.89). LIMITATIONS Although our pooled analysis shows an increased risk of mortality and all-site cancer risk in azoospermic men, the results show a lack of evidence to suggest a higher risk of comorbidities in men with poor semen concentration. Given the limited available data, the nature of the studies, and the high risk of bias, the results should be interpreted with caution. There is not enough data to confirm the usability of semen analysis as a predictor of poor long-term health in men, especially within the general population. No funding was obtained for this study. A.M. has received funding from Merck Serono, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Pharmasure, and Cook Medical to attend medical conferences; has been a participant in an advisory board for Ferring; and has given an invited lecture for a Merck Serono advisory board. S.N. has received funding for medical conference attendance from Ferring and Cook Medical. PROSPERO No. CRD42024507563.
ESHRE Working Group on Recurrent Implantation Failure, 2023·Human Reproduction Open
STUDY How should recurrent implantation failure (RIF) in patients undergoing ART be defined and managed? This is the first ESHRE good practice recommendations paper providing a definition for RIF together with recommendations on how to investigate causes and contributing factors, and how to improve the chances of a pregnancy. RIF is a challenge in the ART clinic, with a multitude of investigations and interventions offered and applied in clinical practice, often without biological rationale or with unequivocal evidence of benefit. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, This document was developed according to a predefined methodology for ESHRE good practice recommendations. Recommendations are supported by data from the literature, if available, and the results of a previously published survey on clinical practice in RIF and the expertise of the working group. A literature search was performed in PubMed and Cochrane focussing on ‘recurrent reproductive failure’, ‘recurrent implantation failure’, and ‘repeated implantation failure’. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, The ESHRE Working Group on Recurrent Implantation Failure included eight members representing the ESHRE Special Interest Groups for Implantation and Early Pregnancy, Reproductive Endocrinology, and Embryology, with an independent chair and an expert in statistics. The recommendations for clinical practice were formulated based on the expert opinion of the working group, while taking into consideration the published data and results of the survey on uptake in clinical practice. The draft document was then open to ESHRE members for online peer review and was revised in light of the comments received. MAIN The working group recommends considering RIF as a secondary phenomenon of ART, as it can only be observed in patients undergoing IVF, and that the following ‘RIF describes the scenario in which the transfer of embryos considered to be viable has failed to result in a positive pregnancy test sufficiently often in a specific patient to warrant consideration of further investigations and/or interventions'. It was agreed that the recommended threshold for the cumulative predicted chance of implantation to identify RIF for the purposes of initiating further investigation is 60%. When a couple have not had a successful implantation by a certain number of embryo transfers and the cumulative predicted chance of implantation associated with that number is greater than 60%, then they should be counselled on further investigation and/or treatment options. This term defines clinical RIF for which further actions should be considered. Nineteen recommendations were formulated on investigations when RIF is suspected, and 13 on interventions. Recommendations were colour-coded based on whether the investigations/interventions were recommended (green), to be considered (orange), or not recommended, i.e. not to be offered routinely (red). LIMITATIONS, While awaiting the results of further studies and trials, the ESHRE Working Group on Recurrent Implantation Failure recommends identifying RIF based on the chance of successful implantation for the individual patient or couple and to restrict investigations and treatments to those supported by a clear rationale and data indicating their likely benefit. This article provides not only good practice advice but also highlights the investigations and interventions that need further research. This research, when well-conducted, will be key to making progress in the clinical management of RIF. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)
The meetings and technical support for this project were funded by ESHRE. N.M. declared consulting fees from ArtPRED (The Netherlands) and Freya Biosciences (Denmark); Honoraria for lectures from Gedeon Richter, Merck, Abbott, and IBSA; being co-founder of Verso Biosense. He is Co-Chief Editor of Reproductive Biomedicine Online (RBMO). D.C. declared being an Associate Editor of Human Reproduction Update, and declared honoraria for lectures from Merck, Organon, IBSA, and Fairtility; support for attending meetings from Cooper Surgical, Fujifilm Irvine Scientific. G.G. declared that he or his institution received financial or non-financial support for re
Does sexual intercourse enhance the cycle fecundability in women without known subfertility? Sexual intercourse (regardless of timing during the cycle) was associated with cycle characteristics suggesting higher fecundability, including longer luteal phase, less premenstrual spotting and more than 2 days of cervical fluid with estrogen-stimulated qualities. Human females are spontaneous ovulators, experiencing an LH surge and ovulation cyclically, independent of copulation. Natural conception requires intercourse to occur during the fertile window of a woman's menstrual cycle, i.e. the 6-day interval ending on the day of ovulation. However, most women with normal fecundity do not ovulate on Day 14, thus the timing of the hypothetical fertile window varies within and between women. This variability is influenced by age and parity and other known or unknown elements. While the impact of sexual intercourse around the time of implantation on the probability of achieving a pregnancy has been discussed by some researchers, there are limited data regarding how sexual intercourse may influence ovulation occurrence and menstrual cycle characteristics in humans. This study is a pooled analysis of three cohorts of women, enrolled at Creighton Model FertilityCare 'Creighton Model MultiCenter Fecundability Study' (CMFS: retrospective cohort, 1990-1996), 'Time to Pregnancy in Normal Fertility' (TTP: randomized trial, 2003-2006) and 'Creighton Model Effectiveness, Intentions, and Behaviors Assessment' (CEIBA: prospective cohort, 2009-2013). We evaluated cycle phase lengths, bleeding and cervical mucus patterns and estimated the fertile window in 2564 cycles of 530 women, followed for up to 1 year. Participants were US or Canadian women aged 18-40 and not pregnant, who were heterosexually active, without known subfertility and not taking exogenous hormones. Most of the women were intending to avoid pregnancy at the start of follow-up. Women recorded daily vaginal bleeding, mucus discharge and sexual intercourse using a standardized protocol and recording system for up to 1 year, yielding 2564 cycles available for analysis. The peak day of mucus discharge (generally the last day of cervical fluid with estrogen-stimulated qualities of being clear, stretchy or slippery) was used to identify the estimated day of ovulation, which we considered the last day of the follicular phase in ovulatory cycles. We used linear mixed models to assess continuous cycle parameters including cycle, menses and cycle phase lengths, and generalized linear models using Poisson regression with robust variance to assess dichotomous outcomes such as ovulatory function, short luteal phases and presence or absence of follicular or luteal bleeding. Cycles were stratified by the presence or absence of any sexual intercourse, while adjusting for women's parity, age, recent oral contraceptive use and breast feeding. MAIN Most women were <30 years of age (75.5%; median 27, interquartile range 24-29), non-Hispanic white (88.1%), with high socioeconomic indicators and nulliparous (70.9%). Cycles with no sexual intercourse compared to cycles with at least 1 day of sexual intercourse were shorter (29.1 days (95% CI 27.6, 30.7) versus 30.1 days (95% CI 28.7, 31.4)), had shorter luteal phases (10.8 days (95% CI 10.2, 11.5) versus 11.4 days (95% CI 10.9, 12.0)), had a higher probability of luteal phase deficiency (<10 days; adjusted probability ratio (PR) 1.31 (95% CI 1.00, 1.71)), had a higher probability of 2 days of premenstrual spotting (adjusted PR 2.15 (95% CI 1.09, 4.24)) and a higher probability of having two or fewer days of peak-type (estrogenic) cervical fluid (adjusted PR 1.49 (95% CI 1.03, 2.15)). LIMITATIONS Our study participants were geographically dispersed but relatively homogeneous in regard to race, ethnicity, income and educational levels, and all had male partners, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. We cannot exclude the possibility of undetected subfertility or related gynecologic disorders among some of the women, such as undetected endometriosis or polycystic ovary syndrome, which would impact the generalizability of our findings. Acute illness or stressful events might have reduced the likelihood of any intercourse during a cycle, while also altering cycle characteristics. Some cycles in the no intercourse group may have actually had undocumented intercourse or other sexual activity, but this would bias our results toward the null. The Creighton Model FertilityCare System (CrM) discourages use of barrier methods, so we believe that most instances of intercourse involved exposure to semen; however, condoms may have been used in some cycles. Our dataset lacks any information about the occurrence of female orgasm, precluding our ability to evaluate the independent or combined impact of female orgasm on cycle characteristics. Sexual activity may change reproductive hormonal patterns, and/or levels of reproductive hormones may influence the likelihood of sexual activity. Future work may help with understanding the extent to which exposure to seminal fluid, and/or female orgasm and/or timing of intercourse could impact menstrual cycle function. In theory, large data sets from women using menstrual and fertility tracking apps could be informative if women can be appropriately incentivized to record intercourse completely. It is also of interest to understand how cycle characteristics may differ in women with gynecological problems or subfertility. Funding for the research on the three cohorts analyzed in this study was provided by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation #029258 (Creighton Model MultiCenter Fecundability Study), the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 1K23 HD0147901-01A1 (Time to Pregnancy in Normal Fertility) and the Office of Family Planning, Office of Population Affairs, Health and Human Services 1FPRPA006035 (Creighton Model Effectiveness, Intentions, and Behaviors Assessment). The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. N/A.
What is the feasibility of a prospective protocol to follow subfertile couples being treated with natural procreative technology for up to 3 years at multiple clinical sites? Overall, clinical sites had missing data for about one-third of participants, the proportion of participants responding to follow-up questionnaires during time periods when participant compensation was available (about two-thirds) was double that of time periods when participant compensation was not available (about one-third) and follow-up information was most complete for pregnancies and births (obtained from both clinics and participants). Several retrospective single-clinic studies from Canada, Ireland and the USA, with subfertile couples receiving restorative reproductive medicine, mostly natural procreative technology, have reported adjusted cumulative live birth rates ranging from 29% to 66%, for treatment for up to 2 years, with a mean women's age of about 35 years. The international Natural Procreative Technology Evaluation and Surveillance of Treatment for Subfertility (iNEST) was designed as a multicenter, prospective cohort study, to enroll subfertile couples seeking treatment for live birth, assess baseline characteristics and follow them up for up to 3 years to report diagnoses, treatments and outcomes of pregnancy and live birth. In addition to obtaining data from medical record abstraction, we sent follow-up questionnaires to participants (both women and men) to obtain information about treatments and pregnancy outcomes, including whether they obtained treatment elsewhere. The study was conducted from 2006 to 2016, with a total of 10 clinics participating for at least some of the study period across four countries (Canada, Poland, UK and USA). The 834 participants were subfertile couples with the woman's age 18 years or more, not pregnant and seeking a live birth, with at least one clinic visit. Couples with known absolute infertility were excluded (i.e. bilateral tubal blockage, azoospermia). Most women were trained to use a standardized protocol for daily vulvar observation, description and recording of cervical mucus and vaginal bleeding (the Creighton Model FertilityCare System). Couples received medical and sometimes surgical evaluation and treatments aimed to restore and optimize female and male reproductive function, to facilitate in vivo conception. MAIN The mean age of women starting treatment was 34.0 years; among those with additional demographic data, 382/478 (80%) had 16 or more years of education, and 199/659 (30%) had a prior live birth. Across 10 clinical sites in four countries (mostly private clinical practices) with family physicians or obstetrician-gynecologists, data about clinic visits were submitted for 60% of participants, and diagnostic data for 77%. For data obtained directly from the couple, 59% of couples had at least one follow-up questionnaire, and the proportion of women and men responding to fill out the follow-up questionnaires was 69% and 67%, respectively, when participant financial compensation was available, compared to 38% and 33% when compensation was not available. Among all couples, 57% had at least one pregnancy and 44% at least one live birth during the follow-up time period, based on data obtained from clinic and/or participant questionnaires. All sites reported on female pelvic surgical procedures, and among all participants, 22% of females underwent a pelvic diagnostic and/or therapeutic procedure, predominantly laparoscopy and hysterosalpingography. Among the 643 (77%) of participants with diagnostic information, ovulation-related disorders were diagnosed in 87%, endometriosis in 31%, nutritional disorders in 47% and abnormalities of semen analysis in 24%. The mean number of diagnoses per couple was 4.7. LIMITATIONS The level of missing data was higher than anticipated, which limits both generalizability and the ability to study different components of treatment and prognosis. Loss to follow-up may also be differential and introduce bias for outcomes. Most of the participating clinicians were not surgeons, which limits the opportunity to study the impact of surgical interventions. Participants were geographically dispersed but relatively homogeneous with regard to socioeconomic status, which may limit the generalizability of current and future findings. Multicenter studies are key to understanding the outcomes of subfertility treatments beyond IVF or IUI in broader populations, and the association of different prognostic factors with outcomes. We anticipate that the iNEST study will provide insight for clinical and treatment factors associated with outcomes of pregnancy and live birth, with appropriate attention to potential biases (including adjustment for potential confounders, multiple imputation for missing data, sensitivity analysis and inverse probability weighting for potential differential loss to follow-up, and assessments for clinical site heterogeneity). Future studies adequate funding to compensate clinics and participants for robust data collection, including targeted randomized trials; or a scaled-down, registry-based approach with targeted data points, similar to the multiple national and regional ART registries. Funding for the study came from the International Institute for Restorative Reproductive Medicine, the University of Utah, Department of Family and Preventive Medicine, Health Studies Fund, the Primary Children's Medical Foundation, the Mary Cross Tippmann Foundation, the Atlas Foundation, the St. Augustine Foundation and the Women's Reproductive Health Foundation. The authors declare no competing interests. The iNEST study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01363596.