Genuine Empty Follicle Syndrome: Role of Double Trigger and Delayed Oocyte Retrieval (DTDO).
Journal of human reproductive sciences
BACKGROUND:Empty follicle syndrome (EFS) is a condition of undetermined etiology where no oocytes are retrieved in an ART cycle despite adequate response to ovarian stimulation and diligent follicular aspiration. Because of the rarity of this condition, no much published strategies are available to tackle this. AIM:The aim of this study was to evaluate whether sequential administration of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) as a trigger at 40 h and 36 h, respectively, before oocyte retrieval (OCR) could correct genuine empty follicle syndrome (GEFS). STUDY SETTING AND DESIGN:This retrospective observational cohort study was conducted in a tertiary fertility center over a period of 6 years from January 2014 to December 2019. Patients with a history of GEFS were administered GnRHa and recombinant hCG subcutaneously at 40 h and 36 h, respectively, before OCR, i.e., double trigger and delayed oocyte retrieval (DTDO) ( = 13). The primary outcome measures studied were number of mature oocytes retrieved, oocyte maturation index (OMI), number of fertilized oocytes, and number of embryos available for embryo transfer. The secondary outcome measures were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), miscarriage rate (MR) and live birth rate (LBR) per first frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycle, incidence of inadvertent premature ovulation, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS:Comparison between the groups was analysed by Fisher's exact test and paired -test. RESULTS:Patients in the DTDO group showed a significant improvement ( < 0.01) in the number of mature oocytes retrieved, OMI, number of fertilized oocytes, and number of embryos available for embryo transfer. In the first FET cycle, CPR (44.44%), LBR (44.44%), and MR (11.11%) were observed in the DTDO group. CONCLUSION:Our findings implicate that double trigger and delayed OCR (DTDO) is a safe and efficacious treatment strategy for GEFS.
10.4103/jhrs.jhrs_230_20
The FIGO Ovulatory Disorders Classification System.
Fertility and sterility
Ovulatory disorders are common causes of amenorrhea, abnormal uterine bleeding, and infertility, and are frequent manifestations of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). There are many potential causes and contributors to ovulatory dysfunction that challenge clinicians, trainees, educators, and those who perform basic, translational, clinical, and epidemiological research. Similarly, therapeutic approaches to ovulatory dysfunction potentially involve a spectrum of lifestyle, psychological, medical, and procedural interventions. Collaborative research, effective education, and consistent clinical care remain challenged by the absence of a consensus comprehensive system for classification of these disorders. The existing and complex system, attributed to WHO, was developed more than three decades ago and did not consider more than 30 years of research into these disorders in addition to technical advances in imaging and endocrinology. This manuscript describes the development of a new classification of ovulatory disorders performed under the aegis of the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) and conducted using a rigorously applied Delphi process. The stakeholder organizations and individuals who participated in this process comprised specialty journals, experts at large, national, specialty obstetrical and gynecological societies, and informed lay representatives. After two face-to-face meetings and five Delphi rounds, the result is a three-level multi-tiered system. The system is applied after a preliminary assessment identifies the presence of an ovulatory disorder. The primary level of the system is based on an anatomic model (Hypothalamus, Pituitary, Ovary) that is completed with a separate category for PCOS. This core component of the system is easily remembered using the acronym HyPO-P. Each anatomic category is stratified in the second layer of the system to provide granularity for investigators, clinicians, and trainees using the "GAIN-FIT-PIE" mnemonic (Genetic, Autoimmune, Iatrogenic, Neoplasm; Functional, Infectious and Inflammatory, Trauma and vascular; Physiological, Idiopathic, Endocrine). The tertiary level allows for specific diagnostic entities. It is anticipated that, if widely adopted, this system will facilitate education, clinical care, and the design and interpretation of research in a fashion that better informs progress in this field. Integral to the deployment of this system is a periodic process of reevaluation and appropriate revision, reflecting an improved understanding of this collection of disorders.
10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.07.009
Predictive models of pregnancy based on data from a preconception cohort study.
Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
STUDY QUESTION:Can we derive adequate models to predict the probability of conception among couples actively trying to conceive? SUMMARY ANSWER:Leveraging data collected from female participants in a North American preconception cohort study, we developed models to predict pregnancy with performance of ∼70% in the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY:Earlier work has focused primarily on identifying individual risk factors for infertility. Several predictive models have been developed in subfertile populations, with relatively low discrimination (AUC: 59-64%). STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION:Study participants were female, aged 21-45 years, residents of the USA or Canada, not using fertility treatment, and actively trying to conceive at enrollment (2013-2019). Participants completed a baseline questionnaire at enrollment and follow-up questionnaires every 2 months for up to 12 months or until conception. We used data from 4133 participants with no more than one menstrual cycle of pregnancy attempt at study entry. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS:On the baseline questionnaire, participants reported data on sociodemographic factors, lifestyle and behavioral factors, diet quality, medical history and selected male partner characteristics. A total of 163 predictors were considered in this study. We implemented regularized logistic regression, support vector machines, neural networks and gradient boosted decision trees to derive models predicting the probability of pregnancy: (i) within fewer than 12 menstrual cycles of pregnancy attempt time (Model I), and (ii) within 6 menstrual cycles of pregnancy attempt time (Model II). Cox models were used to predict the probability of pregnancy within each menstrual cycle for up to 12 cycles of follow-up (Model III). We assessed model performance using the AUC and the weighted-F1 score for Models I and II, and the concordance index for Model III. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE:Model I and II AUCs were 70% and 66%, respectively, in parsimonious models, and the concordance index for Model III was 63%. The predictors that were positively associated with pregnancy in all models were: having previously breastfed an infant and using multivitamins or folic acid supplements. The predictors that were inversely associated with pregnancy in all models were: female age, female BMI and history of infertility. Among nulligravid women with no history of infertility, the most important predictors were: female age, female BMI, male BMI, use of a fertility app, attempt time at study entry and perceived stress. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION:Reliance on self-reported predictor data could have introduced misclassification, which would likely be non-differential with respect to the pregnancy outcome given the prospective design. In addition, we cannot be certain that all relevant predictor variables were considered. Finally, though we validated the models using split-sample replication techniques, we did not conduct an external validation study. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS:Given a wide range of predictor data, machine learning algorithms can be leveraged to analyze epidemiologic data and predict the probability of conception with discrimination that exceeds earlier work. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S):The research was partially supported by the U.S. National Science Foundation (under grants DMS-1664644, CNS-1645681 and IIS-1914792) and the National Institutes for Health (under grants R01 GM135930 and UL54 TR004130). In the last 3 years, L.A.W. has received in-kind donations for primary data collection in PRESTO from FertilityFriend.com, Kindara.com, Sandstone Diagnostics and Swiss Precision Diagnostics. L.A.W. also serves as a fibroid consultant to AbbVie, Inc. The other authors declare no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:N/A.
10.1093/humrep/deab280
Impact of letrozole co-treatment during ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophins for IVF: a multicentre, randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled trial.
Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
STUDY QUESTION:Does letrozole co-treatment during ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophins for IVF reduce the proportion of women with premature progesterone levels above 1.5 ng/ml at the time of triggering final oocyte maturation? SUMMARY ANSWER:The proportion of women with premature progesterone above 1.5 ng/ml was not significantly affected by letrozole co-treatment. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY:IVF creates multiple follicles with supraphysiological levels of sex steroids interrupting the endocrine milieu and affects the window of implantation. Letrozole is an effective aromatase inhibitor, normalizing serum oestradiol, thereby ameliorating some of the detrimental effects of IVF treatment. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION:A randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled trial investigated letrozole intervention during stimulation for IVF with FSH. The trial was conducted at four fertility clinics at University Hospitals in Denmark from August 2016 to November 2018. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS:A cohort of 129 women with expected normal ovarian reserve (anti-Müllerian hormone 8-32 nmol/l) completed an IVF cycle with fresh embryo transfer and received co-treatment with either 5 mg/day letrozole (n = 67) or placebo (n = 62), along with the FSH. Progesterone, oestradiol, FSH, LH and androgens were analysed in repeated serum samples collected from the start of the stimulation to the mid-luteal phase. In addition, the effect of letrozole on reproductive outcomes, total FSH consumption and adverse events were assessed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE:The proportion of women with premature progesterone >1.5 ng/ml was similar (6% vs 0% (OR 0.0, 95% CI [0.0; 1.6], P = 0.12) in the letrozole versus placebo groups, respectively), whereas the proportion of women with mid-luteal progesterone >30 ng/ml was significantly increased in the letrozole group: (59% vs 31% (OR 3.3, 95% CI [1.4; 7.1], P = 0.005)). Letrozole versus placebo decreased oestradiol levels on the ovulation trigger day by 68% (95% CI [60%; 75%], P < 0.0001). Other hormonal profiles, measured as AUC, showed the following results. The increase in LH in the letrozole group versus placebo group was 38% (95% CI [21%; 58%], P < 0.0001) and 34% (95% CI [11%; 61%], P = 0.006) in the follicular and luteal phases, respectively. In the letrozole group versus placebo group, testosterone increased by 79% (95% CI [55%; 105%], P < 0.0001) and 49% (95% CI [30%; 72%], P < 0.0001) in the follicular and luteal phases, respectively. In the letrozole group versus placebo group, the increase in androstenedione was by 85% (95% CI [59%; 114%], P < 0.0001) and 69% (95% CI [48%; 94%], P < 0.0001) in the follicular and luteal phases, respectively. The ongoing pregnancy rate was similar between the letrozole and placebo groups (31% vs 39% (risk-difference of 8%, 95% CI [-25%; 11%], P = 0.55)). No serious adverse reactions were recorded in either group. The total duration of exogenous FSH stimulation was 1 day shorter in the intervention group, significantly reducing total FSH consumption (mean difference -100 IU, 95% CI [-192; -21], P = 0.03). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION:Late follicular progesterone samples were collected on the day before and day of ovulation triggering for patient logistic considerations, and the recently emerged knowledge about diurnal variation of progesterone was not taken into account. The study was powered to detect hormonal variations but not differences in pregnancy outcomes. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS:Although the use of letrozole has no effect on the primary outcome, the number of women with a premature increase in progesterone on the day of ovulation triggering, the increased progesterone in the mid-luteal phase due to letrozole may contribute to optimizing the luteal phase endocrinology. The effect of letrozole on increasing androgens and reducing FSH consumption may be used in poor responders. However, the effect of letrozole on implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates should be evaluated in a meta-analysis or larger randomized controlled trial (RCT). STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S):Funding was received from EU Interreg for ReproUnion and Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics contributed with assays. N.S.M. and A.P. have received grants from Ferring, Merck Serono, Anecova and Gedeon Richter, and/or personal fees from IBSA, Vivoplex, ArtPred and SPD, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS:NCT02939898 and NCT02946684. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE:15 August 2016. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT:22 August 2016.
10.1093/humrep/deab249
Growth hormone for in vitro fertilisation (IVF).
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
BACKGROUND:In an effort to improve outcomes of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles, the use of growth hormone (GH) has been considered as adjuvant treatment in ovarian stimulation. Improving the outcomes of IVF is especially important for women with infertility who are considered 'poor responders'. We have compared the outcomes of IVF with adjuvant GH versus no adjuvant treatment in routine use, and specifically in poor responders. OBJECTIVES:To assess the effectiveness and safety of growth hormone as an adjunct to IVF compared to standard IVF for women with infertility SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases (to November 2020): Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Epistemonikos database and trial registers together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA:We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adjuvant GH treatment in IVF compared with no adjuvant treatment for women with infertility. We excluded trials where additional adjuvant treatments were used with GH. We also excluded trials comparing different IVF protocols. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors independently performed assessment of trial risk of bias and extraction of relevant data. The primary review outcome was live birth rate. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate, oocytes retrieved, embryo transfer, units of gonadotropin used and adverse events, i.e. ectopic pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), congenital anomalies, oedema. MAIN RESULTS:We included 16 RCTs (1352 women). Two RCTs (80 women) studied GH in routine use, and 14 RCTs (1272 women) studied GH in poor responders. The evidence was low to very low certainty, the main limitations being risk of bias, imprecision and heterogeneity. Adjuvant growth hormone compared to no adjuvant: routine use for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on live birth rate per woman randomised for routine use in IVF (odds ratio (OR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 4.43; I = 0%; 2 trials, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). If the chance of live birth without adjuvant GH is assumed to be 15%, the chance of live birth with GH would be between 6% and 43%. There was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion regarding clinical pregnancy rates per woman randomised, number of women with at least one oocyte retrieved per woman randomised and embryo transfer achieved per woman randomised; reported data were unsuitable for analysis. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on mean number of oocytes retrieved in normal responders (mean difference (MD) -0.02, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.74; I = 0%; 2 trials, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on mean units of gonadotropin used in normal responders (MD 13.57, 95% CI -112.88 to 140.01; I = 0%; 2 trials, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of GH on adverse events in normal responders. Adjuvant growth hormone compared to no adjuvant: use in poor responders for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on live birth rate per woman randomised for poor responders (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.70; I = 0%; 8 trials, 737 participants; very low-certainty evidence). If the chance of live birth without adjuvant GH is assumed to be 11%, the chance of live birth with GH would be between 13% and 25%. Adjuvant GH results in a slight increase in pregnancy rates in poor responders (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.53; I = 15%; 11 trials, 1033 participants; low-certainty evidence). The results suggest, if the pregnancy rate without adjuvant GH is assumed to be 15%, with GH the pregnancy rate in poor responders would be between 19% and 31%. The evidence suggests that GH results in little to no difference in number of women with at least one oocyte retrieved (OR 5.67, 95% CI 1.54 to 20.83; I = 0%; 2 trials, 148 participants; low-certainty evidence). If the chance of retrieving at least one oocyte in poor responders was 81%, with GH the chance is between 87% and 99%. There is a slight increase in mean number of oocytes retrieved with the use of GH for poor responders (MD 1.40, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.64; I = 87%; 12 trials, 1153 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on embryo transfer achieved (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.96; I = 25%; 4 trials, 214 participants; very low-certainty evidence). If the chance of achieving embryo transfer is assumed to be 77%, the chance with GH will be 78% to 94%. Use of GH results in reduction of mean units of gonadotropins used for stimulation in poor responders (MD -1088.19, 95% CI -1203.20 to -973.18; I = 91%; 8 trials, 685 participants; low-certainty evidence). High heterogeneity in the analyses for mean number of oocytes retrieved and units of GH used suggests quite different effects according to differences including in trial protocols (populations, GH dose and schedule), so these results should be interpreted with caution. We are uncertain of the effect of GH on adverse events in poor responders as six of the 14 included trials failed to report this outcome. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:The use of adjuvant GH in IVF treatment protocols has uncertain effect on live birth rates and mean number of oocytes retrieved in normal responders. However, it slightly increases the number of oocytes retrieved and pregnancy rates in poor responders, while there is an uncertain effect on live birth rates in this group. The results however, need to be interpreted with caution, as the included trials were small and few in number, with significant bias and imprecision. Also, the dose and regimen of GH used in trials was variable. Therefore, further research is necessary to fully define the role of GH as adjuvant therapy in IVF.
10.1002/14651858.CD000099.pub4
Conventional ovarian stimulation and single embryo transfer for IVF/ICSI. How many oocytes do we need to maximize cumulative live birth rates after utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos?
Drakopoulos Panagiotis,Blockeel Christophe,Stoop Dominic,Camus Michel,de Vos Michel,Tournaye Herman,Polyzos Nikolaos P
Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
STUDY QUESTION:What is the impact of ovarian response on cumulative live birth rates (LBR) following utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos in women undergoing their first ovarian stimulation cycle, planned to undergo single embryo transfer (SET). SUMMARY ANSWER:Cumulative LBR significantly increases with the number of oocytes retrieved. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY:Several studies have addressed the issue of the optimal number of oocytes retrieved following controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for IVF/ICSI and demonstrated that ovarian response is independently related to LBR following IVF/ICSI. The vast majority of studies pertained only to the outcome of the fresh IVF cycle and did not evaluate the cumulative LBR following the transfer of all fresh and frozen-thawed embryos after a single ovarian stimulation, which is the most meaningful outcome for the infertile patient. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION:This study is a large cohort analysis of retrospective data from January 2009 to December 2013 in a tertiary medical centre, at the Centre for Reproductive Medicine at the University Hospital of Brussels. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS:This study included 1099 eligible consecutive women 18-40 years old undergoing their first IVF cycle and planned to undergo SET in their fresh cycle. All patients were treated with a conventional starting gonadotrophin dose of 150-225 IU recombinant FSH (rFSH) in a fixed GnRH antagonist protocol. Vitrification was used as cryopreservation method. To evaluate the impact of oocyte yield on fresh LBR and on cumulative LBR after utilization of all cryopreserved embryos, patients were categorized into four groups according to the number of oocytes retrieved: 1-3 (Group A), 4-9 (Group B), 10-15 (Group C) or >15 oocytes (Group D). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE:Regarding LBR in the fresh IVF/ICSI cycles, unadjusted results did not show any significant difference when comparing either high (>15 oocytes) versus normal (10-15 oocytes) (P = 0.65), or normal (10-15) versus suboptimal (4-9 oocytes) responders (P = 0.2). LBR in the fresh cycles were significantly higher (P < 0.05) in high, normal and suboptimal responders when compared with the low ovarian responder group (1-3 oocytes). Moderate-severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome occurred in 11 out of 1099 patients (1%). The cumulative LBR significantly increased with the number of oocytes retrieved (χ(2) test for trend P < 0.001). High responders (>15 oocytes) demonstrated a significantly higher LBR not only versus poor (0-3 oocytes) (P < 0.001) and suboptimal (4-9) responders (P < 0.001), but also versus women with normal (10-15) ovarian response (P = 0.014). Finally, although suboptimal responders had a better outcome compared with poor ovarian responders (P = 0.002), this group had a significantly lower cumulative LBR compared with normal ovarian responders (P = 0.02). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the ovarian response category remained an independent predictive factor (P < 0.001) for cumulative LBR. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION:This is a cohort analysis based on retrospective data collection. Despite our robust methodological approach, the presence of biases related to retrospective design cannot be excluded. High responders may inherently have had a better prognosis. In addition, we cannot provide any guidance for patients undergoing either multiple embryo transfers or treated with higher gonadotrophin doses. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS:Women undergoing COS for their first IVF/ICSI cycle and SET should be informed that, although the number of oocytes retrieved does not affect LBR in the fresh cycle, the higher the oocyte yield, the higher the probability to achieve a live birth after utilization of all cryopreserved embryos. Large cohort studies are needed in order to confirm our results of cumulative LBR in different ovarian stimulation settings with higher stimulation doses. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS:No external funding was used for this study. No conflicts of interest are declared.
10.1093/humrep/dev316
Extended Injection Intervals of Gonadotropins by Intradermal Administration in IVF Treatment.
Hsu Chao Chin,Hsu Isabel,Chang Hui Hua,Hsu Rosie,Dorjee Sonam
The Journal of clinical endocrinology and metabolism
CONTEXT:Gonadotropins can be administered every 5 days under intradermal injection in in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. OBJECTIVE:To explore the effectiveness of intradermal injection of recombinant human FSH (rhFSH) for women undergoing IVF. METHODS:Women who received their first IVF treatment enrolled in this prospective intervention in 2018. All women received a bolus of 900 IU rhFSH intradermally at day 2 of the treatment cycle followed by additional dosage of rhFSH at day 7 and/or day 10. The main outcome measures included the total dose of rhFSH and number of injections required, sequential serum FSH level detected, and number of mature oocytes retrieved. RESULTS:Seventy women completed the study. On average, 2.31 ± 0.73 injections and 1662 ± 397 IU of rhFSH were administered. While the baseline FSH level was 5.6 ± 2.2 IU/L, the serum concentrations of FSH after rhFSH administration were 35.3 ± 7.0 on the first day (24 hours) and 10.7 ± 3.7 IU/L on the fifth day (120 hours). A total of 10.5 ± 6.6 mature oocytes were retrieved, resulting in 7.3 ± 5.1 pronuclear embryos; 1.8 ± 0.6 embryos were transferred to the uterus. Our findings resulted in 72% fertilization, 91% cleavage, 31% implantation, and 36% live birth rates. Although fewer larger follicles were found, noninferiority results were noted in the mature oocytes retrieved, good embryos available, and clinical pregnancy rate compared with those received conventional daily subcutaneous rhFSH administration. CONCLUSION:Intradermal administration of rhFSH, with a smaller dose of rhFSH and fewer injections, may achieve the goal of a cost-effective and more patient-friendly regimen.
10.1210/clinem/dgab709
Growth hormone alleviates oxidative stress and improves oocyte quality in Chinese women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a randomized controlled trial.
Gong Yan,Luo Shan,Fan Ping,Jin Song,Zhu Huili,Deng Tang,Quan Yi,Huang Wei
Scientific reports
Oxidative stress (OS) is associated with poor oocyte quality and in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) outcomes for patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Growth hormone (GH) can function to reduce OS in some types of cells. Therefore, this prospective randomized study investigated whether GH can significantly improve OS and oocyte quality in women with PCOS. This study enrolled 109 and 50 patients with and without PCOS (controls), respectively. The patients with PCOS were randomly assigned to receive treatment with GH (PCOS-T) or not (PCOS-C). The primary outcome included markers of OS in serum and FF, and secondary outcomes were mitochondrial function in granulosa cells (GCs) and IVF-ET outcomes. The PCOS groups showed higher basal serum total oxidant status (TOS) and OS index (OSI) levels. The follicle fluid (FF) TOS and OSI and GC apoptosis rate were significantly higher, whereas the GC mitochondrial membrane potential (MMP) was significantly lower in the PCOS-C group than in the PCOS-T and non-PCOS control groups (P < 0.05). Significantly more oocytes were fertilised and cleavage stage embryos were produced in the PCOS-T group than in the PCOS-C group (P < 0.05). GH also improved the rates of implantation and clinical pregnancy, but not significantly (P > 0.05). This study showed that GH alleviated the TOS and OSI level in FF and improved GC mitochondrial dysfunction and oocyte quality in patients with PCOS.Clinical Trial Registration Number: This project was prospectively registered on the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on October 20, 2018. (ChiCTR1800019437) ( https://www.chictr.org.cn/edit.aspx?pid=28663&htm=4 ).
10.1038/s41598-020-75107-4
Medroxyprogesterone acetate used in ovarian stimulation is associated with reduced mature oocyte retrieval and blastocyst development: a matched cohort study of 825 freeze-all IVF cycles.
Ozgur Kemal,Berkkanoglu Murat,Bulut Hasan,Donmez Levent,Coetzee Kevin
Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics
PURPOSE:To compare the effectivity of flexible-start medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) co-treatment ovarian stimulations (OS) with flexible-start gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) co-treatment OS, in blastocyst freeze-all IVF cycles. METHOD:This matched cohort study was performed at a single IVF center. Study cycles were extracted from freeze-all IVF cycles performed between February 2015 and June 2018 with cycles grouped according to the co-treatment protocol (MPA and GnRH-ant groups) used. MPA cycles were matched 1:1 using antral follicle count, female age, infertility duration, and female body mass index, with GnRH-ant cycles, resulting in 825 matched cycles. MPA or CET co-treatment was started when leading follicles reached 11-12 mm. RESULTS:Duration of OS was significantly longer, and total FSH dose was significantly higher in the MPA group. Numbers of mature oocytes retrieved were similar; however, the mature oocyte retrieval rate (83.8 vs. 97.1%; p < 0.001), number of blastocysts, blastocyst rate (36.4 vs. 41.4%; p < 0.001) and > 2 viable blastocyst rate were all significantly lower in the MPA group. The live birth (LB) per transfer rates (51.6 vs. 55.7%; p = 0.155) were similar; however, the LB rate per treatment was significantly lower (40.9 vs. 45.8%; p = 0.05). A linear regression included the OS co-treatment protocol (GnRH-ant; 1.4 (1.07-1.81); p = 0.013) in the final model to predict having > 2 viable blastocysts. CONCLUSION:Flexible-start MPA co-treatment OS was as effective in freeze-all IVF cycles as GnRH-ant co-treatment, with similar LB per transfer rates; however, increased cycle cancellation and reduced blastocyst numbers reduced LB per treatment rates significantly.
10.1007/s10815-020-01894-4
Can repeat IVF/ICSI cycles compensate for the natural decline in fertility with age? an estimate of cumulative live birth rates over multiple IVF/ICSI cycles in Chinese advanced-aged population.
Gu Fang,Ruan Simin,Luo Chenxiang,Huang Ying,Luo Lu,Xu Yanwen,Zhou Canquan
Aging
In order to find out to what extent ovarian aging could be compensated by the fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) treatments, a total of 4102 women above the age of 35 undergoing 6489 complete cycles from 2009 to 2015 with follow-up visits until 2017 were retrospectively analyzed. Cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) across multiple IVF/ICSI cycles were compared in the study population stratified by age and ovarian reserve (classified by the POSEIDON criteria). Younger patients (aged between 35 and 40) could well benefit from repeat IVF treatments, with the optimal CLBRs ranging from 62%-72% for up to four complete cycles. However, the CLBRs sharply declined to 7.7%-40% in older patients (>40yrs). In light of ovarian reserve, the optimal-estimated-four-cycle CLBR of younger patients (35-40yrs) in POSEIDON group 2 could approached to those with normal ovarian response (non-POSEIDON), with 57.3%-70% versus 74.5%-81% respectively. However, the CLBR of older patients (>40yrs) in POSEIDON group 2 only reached 50% of their counterparts. Extending the number of IVF cycles beyond three or four is effective for advanced-aged women, especially in younger normal responders (non-POSEIDON) and unexpected poor/suboptimal responders (POSEIDON group 2). The real turning point at which female fecundity dropped after multiple IVF cycles is at the age of 40.
10.18632/aging.203055
In-vitro maturation of oocytes versus conventional IVF in women with infertility and a high antral follicle count: a randomized non-inferiority controlled trial.
Vuong Lan N,Ho Vu N A,Ho Tuong M,Dang Vinh Q,Phung Tuan H,Giang Nhu H,Le Anh H,Pham Toan D,Wang Rui,Smitz Johan,Gilchrist Robert B,Norman Robert J,Mol Ben W
Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
STUDY QUESTION:Is one cycle of IVM non-inferior to one cycle of conventional in IVF with respect to live birth rates in women with high antral follicle counts (AFCs)? SUMMARY ANSWER:We could not demonstrate non-inferiority of IVM compared with IVF. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY:IVF with ovarian hyperstimulation has limitations in some subgroups of women at high risk of ovarian stimulation, such as those with polycystic ovary syndrome. IVM is an alternative ART for these women. IVM may be a feasible alternative to IVF in women with a high AFC, but there is a lack of data from randomized clinical trials comparing IVM with IVF in women at high risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION:This single-center, randomized, controlled non-inferiority trial was conducted at an academic infertility center in Vietnam from January 2018 to April 2019. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS:In total, 546 women with an indication for ART and a high AFC (≥24 follicles in both ovaries) were randomized to the IVM (n = 273) group or the IVF (n = 273) group; each underwent one cycle of IVM with a prematuration step versus one cycle of IVF using a standard gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist triggering. The primary endpoint was live birth rate after the first embryo transfer. The non-inferiority margin for IVM versus IVF was -10%. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE:Live birth after the first embryo transfer occurred in 96 women (35.2%) in the IVM group and 118 women (43.2%) in the IVF group (absolute risk difference -8.1%; 95% confidence interval (CI) -16.6%, 0.5%). Cumulative ongoing pregnancy rates at 12 months after randomization were 44.0% in the IVM group and 62.6% in the IVF group (absolute risk difference -18.7%; 95% CI -27.3%, -10.1%). Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome did not occur in the IVM group, versus two cases in the IVF group. There were no statistically significant differences between the IVM and IVF groups with respect to the occurrence of pregnancy complications, obstetric and perinatal complications, preterm delivery, birth weight and neonatal complications. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION:The main limitation of the study was its open-label design. In addition, the findings are only applicable to IVM conducted using the prematuration step protocol used in this study. Finally, the single ethnicity population limits the external generalizability of the findings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS:Our randomized clinical trial compares live birth rates after IVM and IVF. Although IVM is a viable and safe alternative to IVF that may be suitable for some women seeking a mild ART approach, the current study findings approach inferiority for IVM compared with IVF when cumulative outcomes are considered. Future research should incorporate multiple cycles of IVM in the study design to estimate cumulative fertility outcomes and better inform clinical decision-making. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S):This work was partly supported by Ferring grant number 000323 and funded by the Vietnam National Foundation for Science and Technology Development (NAFOSTED) and by the Fund for Research Flanders (FWO). LNV has received speaker and conference fees from Merck, grant, speaker and conference fees from Merck Sharpe and Dohme, and speaker, conference and scientific board fees from Ferring; TMH has received speaker fees from Merck, Merck Sharp and Dohme, and Ferring; RJN has received conference and scientific board fees from Ferring, is a minor shareholder in an IVF company, and receives grant funding from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia; BWM has acted as a paid consultant to Merck, ObsEva and Guerbet, and is the recipient of grant money from an NHMRC Investigator Grant; RBG reports grants and fellowships from the NHMRC of Australia; JS reports lecture fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Biomérieux, Besins Female Healthcare and Merck, grants from Fund for Research Flanders (FWO), and is co-inventor on granted patents on CAPA-IVM methodology in the US (US10392601B2) and Europe (EP3234112B1); TDP, VQD, VNAH, NHG, AHL, THP and RW have no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, and no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT03405701 (www.clinicaltrials.gov). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE:16 January 2018. DATE OF FIRST PATENT’S ENROLMENT:25 January 2018.
10.1093/humrep/deaa240
Letrozole versus clomiphene for infertility in the polycystic ovary syndrome.
Legro Richard S,Brzyski Robert G,Diamond Michael P,Coutifaris Christos,Schlaff William D,Casson Peter,Christman Gregory M,Huang Hao,Yan Qingshang,Alvero Ruben,Haisenleder Daniel J,Barnhart Kurt T,Bates G Wright,Usadi Rebecca,Lucidi Scott,Baker Valerie,Trussell J C,Krawetz Stephen A,Snyder Peter,Ohl Dana,Santoro Nanette,Eisenberg Esther,Zhang Heping,
The New England journal of medicine
BACKGROUND:Clomiphene is the current first-line infertility treatment in women with the polycystic ovary syndrome, but aromatase inhibitors, including letrozole, might result in better pregnancy outcomes. METHODS:In this double-blind, multicenter trial, we randomly assigned 750 women, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive letrozole or clomiphene for up to five treatment cycles, with visits to determine ovulation and pregnancy, followed by tracking of pregnancies. The polycystic ovary syndrome was defined according to modified Rotterdam criteria (anovulation with either hyperandrogenism or polycystic ovaries). Participants were 18 to 40 years of age, had at least one patent fallopian tube and a normal uterine cavity, and had a male partner with a sperm concentration of at least 14 million per milliliter; the women and their partners agreed to have regular intercourse with the intent of conception during the study. The primary outcome was live birth during the treatment period. RESULTS:Women who received letrozole had more cumulative live births than those who received clomiphene (103 of 374 [27.5%] vs. 72 of 376 [19.1%], P=0.007; rate ratio for live birth, 1.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.10 to 1.87) without significant differences in overall congenital anomalies, though there were four major congenital anomalies in the letrozole group versus one in the clomiphene group (P=0.65). The cumulative ovulation rate was higher with letrozole than with clomiphene (834 of 1352 treatment cycles [61.7%] vs. 688 of 1425 treatment cycles [48.3%], P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in pregnancy loss (49 of 154 pregnancies in the letrozole group [31.8%] and 30 of 103 pregnancies in the clomiphene group [29.1%]) or twin pregnancy (3.4% and 7.4%, respectively). Clomiphene was associated with a higher incidence of hot flushes, and letrozole was associated with higher incidences of fatigue and dizziness. Rates of other adverse events were similar in the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS:As compared with clomiphene, letrozole was associated with higher live-birth and ovulation rates among infertile women with the polycystic ovary syndrome. (Funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00719186.).
10.1056/NEJMoa1313517
Cost-effectiveness analysis of GnRH-agonist long-protocol and GnRH-antagonist protocol for in vitro fertilization.
Jing Miaomiao,Lin Chenxi,Zhu Wenjun,Tu Xiaoyu,Chen Qi,Wang Xiufang,Zheng Youbing,Zhang Runju
Scientific reports
The gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) long-protocols and the GnRH-antagonist protocols are two commonly used protocols for in vitro fertilization (IVF), but their cost-effectiveness has not been studied, especially in China. A retrospective study involving 1638 individuals in GnRH-a long-protocol and 621 in GnRH-antagonist protocol were conducted and a decision tree model analysis was used to analyze the cost-effectiveness. Both direct and indirect costs were calculated. As a result, during the fresh embryo transplantation cycles, there was no significant difference in the rate of ongoing pregnancy between the two protocols, the average cost of per ongoing pregnancy in the GnRH-antagonist protocol was $ 16970.85, and that in the GnRH-agonist long-protocol was $19902.24. The probability of cumulative ongoing pregnancy per start cycle was estimated at 60.65% for the GnRH-antagonist protocol and 71.6% for the GnRH-agonist long-protocol (P < 0.01). Considering the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate, the mean costs per ongoing pregnancy were estimated at $8176.76 and at $7595.28 with GnRH-antagonist protocol and GnRH-agonist long protocol, respectively. In conclusion, in fresh embryo transplantation cycle, the GnRH-antagonist protocol has economic advantage. However, the GnRH-agonist long protocol is more cost effective considering the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate in the fresh embryo and frozen embryo transplantation cycles.
10.1038/s41598-020-65558-0
GnRH antagonist versus long agonist protocols in IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis accounting for patient type.
Human reproduction update
BACKGROUND:Most reviews of IVF ovarian stimulation protocols have insufficiently accounted for various patient populations, such as ovulatory women, women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) or women with poor ovarian response, and have included studies in which the agonist or antagonist was not the only variable between the compared study arms. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE:The aim of the current study was to compare GnRH antagonist protocols versus standard long agonist protocols in couples undergoing IVF or ICSI, while accounting for various patient populations and treatment schedules. SEARCH METHODS:The Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Review Group specialized register of controlled trials and Pubmed and Embase databases were searched from inception until June 2016. Eligible trials were those that compared GnRH antagonist protocols and standard long GnRH agonist protocols in couples undergoing IVF or ICSI. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy rate. Secondary outcomes were: live birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate, number of oocytes retrieved and safety with regard to ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Separate comparisons were performed for the general IVF population, women with PCOS and women with poor ovarian response. Pre-planned subgroup analyses were performed for various antagonist treatment schedules. OUTCOMES:We included 50 studies. Of these, 34 studies reported on general IVF patients, 10 studies reported on PCOS patients and 6 studies reported on poor responders. In general IVF patients, ongoing pregnancy rate was significantly lower in the antagonist group compared with the agonist group (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.96). In women with PCOS and in women with poor ovarian response, there was no evidence of a difference in ongoing pregnancy between the antagonist and agonist groups (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.84-1.11 and RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.65-1.17, respectively). Subgroup analyses for various antagonist treatment schedules compared to the long protocol GnRH agonist showed a significantly lower ongoing pregnancy rate when the oral hormonal programming pill (OHP) pretreatment was combined with a flexible protocol (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.59-0.91) while without OHP, the RR was 0.84, 95% CI 0.71-1.0. Subgroup analysis for the fixed antagonist schedule demonstrated no evidence of a significant difference with or without OHP (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.79-1.12 and RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.83-1.05, respectively). Antagonists resulted in significantly lower OHSS rates both in the general IVF patients and in women with PCOS (RR 0.63, 95% CI 0.50-0.81 and RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.30-0.95, respectively). No data on OHSS was available from trials in poor responders. WIDER IMPLICATIONS:In a general IVF population, GnRH antagonists are associated with lower ongoing pregnancy rates when compared to long protocol agonists, but also with lower OHSS rates. Within this population, antagonist treatment prevents one case of OHSS in 40 patients but results in one less ongoing pregnancy out of every 28 women treated. Thus standard use of the long GnRH agonist treatment is perhaps still the approach of choice for prevention of premature luteinization. In couples with PCOS and poor responders, GnRH antagonists do not seem to compromise ongoing pregnancy rates and are associated with less OHSS and therefore could be considered as standard treatment.
10.1093/humupd/dmx017
Risk of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol: RCT including 1050 first IVF/ICSI cycles.
Toftager M,Bogstad J,Bryndorf T,Løssl K,Roskær J,Holland T,Prætorius L,Zedeler A,Nilas L,Pinborg A
Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
STUDY QUESTION:Is the risk of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) similar in a short GnRH antagonist and long GnRH agonist protocol in first cycle IVF/ICSI patients less than 40 years of age?. SUMMARY ANSWER:There is an increased risk of severe OHSS in the long GnRH agonist group compared with the short GnRH antagonist protocol. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY?: In the most recent Cochrane review, the GnRH antagonist protocol was associated with a similar live birth rate (LBR), a similar on-going pregnancy rate (OPR), and a lower incidence of OHSS (odds ratio (OR) = 0.43 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.33-0.57) compared with the traditional GnRH agonist protocol. Previous trials comparing the two protocols mainly included selected patient populations, a limited number of patients and the applied OHSS criteria differed, making direct comparisons difficult. In two recent large meta-analyses, no significant differences in LBR (OR = 0.86; 95% CI: 0.72-1.02) or in the incidence of severe OHSS were reported, while others found a lower LBR (OR = 0.82; 95% CI: 0.68-0.97) and a reduced risk of severe OHSS using the GnRH antagonist protocol (OR = 0.60; 95% CI: 0.40-0.88). STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION:Phase IV, dual-centre, open-label, RCT including 1050 women allocated to either short GnRH antagonist or long GnRH agonist protocol in a 1:1 ratio and enrolled over a 5-year period using a web-based concealed randomization code. This is a superiority study designed to detect a difference in severe OHSS, the primary outcome, between the two groups with a power of 80% and stratified for age, assisted reproductive technology (ART) clinic and planned fertilization procedure (IVF/ICSI). The secondary aims were to compare rates of mild and moderate OHSS, positive plasma (p)-hCG, on-going pregnancy and live birth between the two arms. None of the women had undergone previous ART treatment. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS:All infertile women referred for their first IVF/ICSI at two public fertility clinics, less than 40 years of age and with no uterine malformations were asked to participate. A total of 1099 subjects were randomized, including women with poor ovarian reserve, polycystic ovary syndrome and irregular cycles. A total of 49 women withdrew their consent, thus 1050 subjects were allocated to the GnRH antagonist (n = 534) and agonist protocol (n = 516), respectively. In total 1023 women started recombinant human follitropin-β (rFSH) stimulation, 528 in the GnRH antagonist group and 495 in the GnRH agonist group. All subjects were given a fixed rFSH dose of 150 IU or 225 IU according to age ≤36 years or >36 years, with the option to adjust dose at stimulation day 6. Clinical OHSS parameters were collected at oocyte retrieval, and Days 3 and 14 post-transfer. On-going pregnancy was determined by transvaginal ultrasonography at gestational weeks 7-9. In the intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis for reproductive outcomes, 1050 subjects were included. For the ITT analyses on OHSS 1023 subjects who started gonadotrophin stimulation were included. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE:The incidence of severe OHSS [5.1% (27/528) versus 8.9% (44/495) (difference in proportion percentage point (Δpp) = -3.8pp; 95% CI: -7.1 to -0.4; P = 0.02)] and moderate OHSS [10.2% (54/528) versus 15.6% (77/495) (Δpp = -5.3pp; 95% CI: -9.6 to -1.0; P = 0.01) ] was significantly lower in the GnRH antagonist group compared with the agonist group, respectively. In the GnRH antagonist and agonist group, respectively, 4.7% (25/528) versus 8.5% (42/495) women were seen by a physician due to OHSS (P = 0.01), and 1.7% (9/528) versus 3.6% (18/495) were admitted to hospital due to OHSS (P = 0.06). No women had ascites-puncture in the GnRH antagonist group versus 2.0% (10/495) in the GnRH agonist group (P < 0.01). LBRs were 22.8% (122/534) versus 23.8% (123/516) (Δpp = -1.0pp; 95% CI: -6.3 to 4.3; P = 0.70) and OPRs were 24.9% (133/528) versus 26.2% (135/516) (Δpp = -1.3pp; 95% CI: -6.7 to 4.2; P = 0.64) per randomized subject in the GnRH antagonist versus agonist group, with a mean number of 1.1 versus 1.2 embryos transferred in the two groups. Pregnancy rates (PR) per randomized subject, per started gonadotrophin stimulation and per embryo transfer were all similar in the two groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION:A possible limitation is the duration of the trial, with new methods, such as 'freeze all' and 'GnRH agonist triggering', being developed during the trial, the new methods were sought avoided, however a total number of 32 women had 'freeze all' and 'GnRH agonist triggering' was performed in three cases. Ultrasonic measurements were performed by different physicians and inter-observer bias may be present. Measures of anti-Mullerian hormone and antral follicle count, to estimate ovarian reserve and thus predict risk of OHSS, were not performed. Finally, the physicians were not blinded to GnRH treatment group after randomization. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS:The short GnRH antagonist protocol should be the protocol of choice for patients undergoing their first ART cycle in females <40 years of age including both low and high responders when an age-dependent initially fixed gonadotrophin dose is used, as an increased risk of severe OHSS and the associated complications is seen in the long GnRH agonist group and as PRs and LBRs are similar in the two groups. Patients at risk of OHSS particularly benefit from the short GnRH antagonist treatment as GnRH agonist triggering can be used. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS:An unrestricted research grant is funded by Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., a subsidiary of Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA (MSD). The funders had no influence on the data collection, analyses or conclusions of the study. No conflict of interests to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:EudraCT #: 2008-005452-24. ClinicalTrial.gov: NCT00756028. Trial registration date: 18 September 2008. Date of first patient's enrolment: 14 January 2009.
10.1093/humrep/dew051
Fertility outcomes of IVF/ICSI after Caesarean section: a cohort study.
Wang Lan,Yao Wen,Tang Xianan,Yao Haixia,Wei Sheng,Huang Jiao,Mol Ben Willem J,Jin Lei,Yue Jing,Wang Rui
Reproductive biomedicine online
RESEARCH QUESTION:The study objective was to evaluate the impact of a previous Caesarean section on fertility outcomes in women undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). DESIGN:A retrospective cohort study was designed that included 1793 women undergoing IVF/ICSI who had had a previous delivery from January 2015 to December 2016. The primary outcome was live birth. Secondary outcomes were implantation, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, multiple pregnancy and perinatal complications. RESULTS:Of the 1793 women included, 796 had had a previous Caesarean section and 997 a previous vaginal delivery. Propensity score matching in a 1:1 ratio resulted in 538 women per group. Compared with women with a previous vaginal delivery, women with a previous Caesarean section had a lower live birth rate (30.1% versus 38.1%, odds ratio [OR] 0.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.54-0.90) and a higher miscarriage rate (25.9% versus 17.5%, OR 1.65, 95% CI 1.06-2.56). Among other secondary outcomes, implantation rates were 32.9% and 37.1% (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.69-1.01), and clinical pregnancy rates were 42.4% and 46.8% (OR 0.84, 95% CI 0.66-1.06), in the Caesarean section group and vaginal delivery group, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in terms of ectopic pregnancy, multiple pregnancy or perinatal outcomes between the groups. Further adjustment for confounders did not change the result of the primary outcome (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.49-0.84). CONCLUSIONS:Women undergoing IVF/ICSI who have had a previous Caesarean section have a lower live birth rate and a higher miscarriage rate than those with a previous vaginal delivery.
10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.12.004
Evolution of cumulative live birth and dropout rates over six complete IVF/ICSI cycles: a large prospective cohort study.
De Neubourg Diane,Bogaerts Kris,Anagnostou Elisabeth,Autin Candice,Blockeel Christophe,Coetsier Tom,Delbaere Anne,Gillain Nicolas,Vandekerckhove Frank,Wyns Christine
Reproductive biomedicine online
RESEARCH QUESTION:How do cumulative live birth rates (CLBR), cumulative multiple live birth rates (CMLBR) and dropout rates over six IVF and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles change over time? DESIGN:Prospective longitudinal cohort (n = 16,073 patients; 48,946 cycles) starting a first fresh assisted reproductive technology cycle between 1 January 2014 and 31 December 2016, with follow-up until 31 December 2017. Outcomes between the periods 2014-2017 and 2009-2012 were compared. RESULTS:Conservative estimates of CLBR after six complete cycles were significantly higher in women younger than 35 years after every cycle: one to three, adjusted P-value [p adj] < 0.0001; four, p = 0.01; five, p adj = 0.03; six, p adj = 0.04) and after the first cycle in women aged 35-37 years (p adj = 0.04) in 2014-2017 versus 2009-2012. For an optimal estimate, the CLBR was significantly higher after the first three cycles in women younger than 35 years (all p adj < 0.0001) and after the first cycle in women aged 35-37 years (p adj = 0.04). The CMLBR rate decreased from 5.1% ± 0.19 (SE) to 4.1% ± 0.16 for the conservative estimate and from 8.6% ±0.37 (SE) to 6.7% ± 0.30 for the optimal estimate after six complete cycles for the whole cohort. Dropout rates of complete cycles were 26.5% 29.4%, 33.4%, 38.9% and 47.3% after the first to fifth cycle, respectively. Compared with 2009-2012, the dropout rate in the current period was significantly higher for the first (P < 0.0001) and second (P = 0.0124) cycle. CONCLUSION:Over six complete IVF/ICSI cycles, CLBR and dropout rates increased and multiple live birth rates decreased when 2014-2017 was compared with 2009-2012.
10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.01.005
Monitoring of stimulated cycles in assisted reproduction (IVF and ICSI).
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews
BACKGROUND:Monitoring of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is necessary to detect as well as reduce the incidence and severity of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) whilst achieving the optimal ovarian response needed for assisted reproduction treatment. Traditional monitoring of ovarian hyperstimulation during in vitro fertilisation IVF and ICSI treatment has included transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) plus serum estradiol levels. The need for combined monitoring (using TVUS and serum estradiol) during ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction is controversial. It has been suggested that combined monitoring is time consuming, expensive and inconvenient for women and that simplification of IVF and ICSI therapy by using TVUS only should be considered. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of monitoring controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in IVF and ICSI cycles in subfertile couples with TVUS only versus TVUS plus serum estradiol concentration, with respect to rates of live birth, pregnancy and OHSS. SEARCH METHODS:In this update conducted in March 2020, two review authors searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the National Research Register, and web-based trial registers. There was no language restriction applied. All references in the identified trials and background papers were checked and authors were contacted to identify relevant published and unpublished data. SELECTION CRITERIA:Only randomised controlled trials that compared monitoring with TVUS only versus TVUS plus serum estradiol concentrations in women undergoing COH for IVF and ICSI treatment were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:Two review authors (IK, AW) independently selected the studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Outcomes data were pooled and summary statistics were presented when appropriate. The quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE methods. MAIN RESULTS:We did not identify any new eligible studies in this update in 2020. The evidence based on the six trials identified in 2014 remained unchanged. They included 781 women undergoing monitoring of COH with either TVUS alone or a combination of TVUS and serum estradiol concentration during IVF or ICSI treatment. None of the six studies reported our primary outcome of live birth rate. Two studies presented pregnancy rate per initiated cycle and per embryo transfer, respectively. Four studies reported pregnancy rate per woman with pooled data; we are uncertain of the effect of monitoring with TVUS only versus combined monitoring on clinical pregnancy rate per woman (odds ratio (OR) 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.54; four studies; N = 617; I² = 5%; low quality evidence). This suggests in women with a 36% chance of clinical pregnancy using monitoring with TVUS plus serum estradiol, the clinical pregnancy rate using TVUS only would be between 31% and 46%. We are uncertain of any effect in the mean number of oocytes retrieved per woman (mean difference (MD) 0.32; 95% CI -0.60 to 1.24; five studies; N = 596; I² = 17%; low quality evidence). We are uncertain whether monitoring with TVUS only versus combined monitoring affected the incidence of OHSS (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.48 to 2.20; six studies; N = 781; I² = 0%; low quality evidence), suggesting that in women with a 4% chance of OHSS using monitoring with TVUS plus serum estradiol, the OHSS rate monitored by TVUS only would be between 2% and 8%. The cycle cancellation rate was similar in both arms of two studies (0/34 versus 1/31, 1/25 versus 1/25; OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.07 to 4.39; N = 115; I² = 0%; low quality evidence). The evidence was low quality for all comparisons. Limitations included imprecision and potential bias due to unclear randomisation methods, allocation concealment and blinding, as well as differences in treatment protocols. Quality assessment was hampered by the lack of methodological descriptions in several studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS:This review update found no new randomised trials. Evidence from the six studies previously identified did not suggest that combined monitoring by TVUS and serum estradiol is more efficacious than monitoring by TVUS alone with regard to clinical pregnancy rates and the incidence of OHSS. The number of oocytes retrieved appeared similar for both monitoring protocols. The data suggest that both these monitoring methods are safe and reliable. However, these results should be interpreted with caution because the overall quality of the evidence was low. Results were compromised by imprecision and poor reporting of study methodology. The choice of one or the other method may depend upon the convenience of its use, and the associated costs. An economic evaluation of the costs involved with the two methods and the views of the women undergoing cycle monitoring would be welcome.
10.1002/14651858.CD005289.pub4
Randomised controlled trial on the effect of clomiphene citrate and gonadotropin dose on ovarian response markers and IVF outcomes in poor responders.
Moffat R,Hansali C,Schoetzau A,Ahler A,Gobrecht U,Beutler S,Raggi A,Sartorius G,De Geyter C
Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
STUDY QUESTION:Does the gonadotropin (GN) starting dose and the addition of clomiphene citrate (CC) during the early follicular phase influence oocyte yield in poor responders undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER:The number of retrieved oocytes was similar regardless of the starting dose of GN (150 versus 450 IU) with or without the addition of CC (100 mg from Day 3 to 7 versus placebo). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY:ART in poor responders is a challenge for patients and clinicians. So far, randomised controlled studies addressing interventions have shown that neither the GN dose nor the addition of oral medication has any significant effect on the clinical outcome of ART in poor responders. There is limited knowledge about the effect of GN starting dose in combination with CC during the early follicular phase of ovarian stimulation on ovarian response markers and ART outcome. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION:This single-centre randomised double-blinded clinical trial was conducted from August 2013 until November 2017. Using the Bologna criteria, 220 of 2288 patients (9.6%) were identified as poor responders and 114 eligible participants underwent ovarian stimulation in a GnRH-antagonist protocol for ART. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS:The participants were equally randomised to one of four treatment arms: Group A (n = 28) received 100 mg CC (Day 3-7) and a starting dose of 450 IU HMG, Group B (n = 29) received 100 mg CC and a starting dose of 150 IU HMG, Group C (n = 30) received placebo and a starting dose of 450 IU HMG and Group D (n = 27) received placebo and a starting dose of 150 IU HMG. Serum levels of FSH, LH, estradiol and progesterone were measured on Day 1 and 5 and on the day of ovulation induction. Available embryos were cultured up to the blastocyst stage and were always transferred in the same cycle. The primary outcome was the number of oocytes collected after ovarian stimulation. Other outcome measures were response to ovarian stimulation, embryo development and obstetrical outcome. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE:All study participants (n = 114) fulfilled at least two of the Bologna criteria for poor responders. Median age of the study population was 38.5 years. There were 109 patients who underwent oocyte retrieval. The number of oocytes retrieved was similar among the groups (±SD; 95% confidence intervals); A: 2.85 (±0.48; 2.04-3.98), B: 4.32 (±0.59; 3.31-5.64); C: 3.33 (±0.52; 2.45-4.54); D: 3.22 (±0.51; 2.36-4.41); P overall = 0.246. However, ovarian stimulation with 150 IU plus CC resulted in a higher number of blastocysts compared to ovarian stimulation with 450 IU plus CC (±SD; 95% confidence intervals); A: 0.83 (±0.15; 0.58-1.2), B: 1.77 (±0.21; 1.42-2.22); P overall = 0.006. Mean FSH serum levels were lower in the groups with a starting dose of 150 IU. Adding CC did not affect mean serum FSH levels. There were no differences in estradiol concentrations among the groups. Endometrial thickness was lower in the groups receiving CC. The overall live birth rate (LBR) was 12.3%, and the cumulative LBR was 14.7%. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION:The trial was powered to detect differences in neither the number of blastocysts nor the LBR, which would be the preferable primary outcome of interventional trials in ART. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS:We found that ovarian stimulation with 150 IU gonadotrophin in combination with 100 mg CC produced more blastocysts. The effect of adding CC to GN on LBR in poor responders remains to be proven in randomised trials. High GN doses (450 IU) resulted in high FSH serum levels but increased neither the estradiol levels nor the number of retrieved oocytes, implying that granulosa cell function is not improved by high FSH serum levels. Lower starting doses of GN lead to a reduction of costs of medication. The small but significant difference in blastocyst formation and the lower FSH levels in the treatment groups receiving less GN may be an indication of better oocyte quality with higher developmental competence. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S):The costs for the HMG used for ovarian stimulation were provided by IBSA Switzerland. The study was also supported by the Repronatal Foundation, Basel, Switzerland. The authors declare no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT01577472. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE:13 April 2012. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT:August 2013.
10.1093/humrep/deaa336
Individualized ovarian stimulation in IVF/ICSI treatment: it is time to stop using high FSH doses in predicted low responders.
Leijdekkers Jori A,Torrance Helen L,Schouten Nienke E,van Tilborg Theodora C,Oudshoorn Simone C,Mol Ben Willem J,Eijkemans Marinus J C,Broekmans Frank J M
Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
In IVF/ICSI treatment, the FSH starting dose is often increased in predicted low responders from the belief that it improves the chance of having a baby by maximizing the number of retrieved oocytes. This intervention has been evaluated in several randomized controlled trials, and despite a slight increase in the number of oocytes-on average one to two more oocytes in the high versus standard dose group-no beneficial impact on the probability of a live birth has been demonstrated (risk difference, -0.02; 95% CI, -0.11 to 0.06). Still, many clinicians and researchers maintain a highly ingrained belief in 'the more oocytes, the better'. This is mainly based on cross-sectional studies, where the positive correlation between the number of retrieved oocytes and the probability of a live birth is interpreted as a direct causal relation. If the latter would be present, indeed, maximizing the oocyte number would benefit our patients. The current paper argues that the use of high FSH doses may not actually improve the probability of a live birth for predicted low responders undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment and exemplifies the flaws of directly using cross-sectional data to guide FSH dosing in clinical practice. Also, difficulties in the de-implementation of the increased FSH dosing strategy are discussed, which include the prioritization of intermediate outcomes (such as cycle cancellations) and the potential biases in the interpretation of study findings (such as confirmation or rescue bias).
10.1093/humrep/dez184
Do we trust scientific evidence? A multicentre retrospective analysis of first IVF/ICSI cycles before and after the OPTIMIST trial.
Papaleo E,Revelli A,Costa M,Bertoli M,Zaffagnini S,Tomei F,Manno M,Rebecchi A,Villanacci R,Vanni V S,Cantatore F,Ruffa A,Colia D,Sironi M,Tessari T,Parissone F,Romanello I,Reschini M,Dallagiovanna C,Somigliana E
Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
STUDY QUESTION:Has the practice of individualizing the recombinant-FSH starting dose been superseded after the largest randomized controlled trial (RCT) in assisted reproduction technology (ART), the OPTIMIST trial? SUMMARY ANSWER:The OPTIMIST trial has influenced our ART daily practice to a limited degree, but adherence is still generally poor. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY:Although the 'one size fits all' approach has been discouraged for decades by most authors, the OPTIMIST study group demonstrated in a large prospective RCT that, in general, dosage individualization does not improve the prospects for live birth, although it may decrease ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) risk in expected high responders. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION:Retrospective analysis of all first in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles from 1st January 2017 to 31st December 2018, before and after the OPTIMIST publication on November 2017. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS:Two thousand six hundred and seventy-seven patients, between 18 and 42 years old, undergoing their first IVF-ICSI cycle in seven Italian fertility centres, were included. Patients were allocated to three groups according to their ovarian reserve markers: predicted poor ovarian responders (POR), predicted normo-responders (NR) and expected hyper-responders (HRs). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE:Between 2017 and 2018, there was an overall increase in prescription of the standard 150 IU dose proposed by the OPTIMIST trial and a reduction in the use of a starting dose >300 IU. After subgroup analysis, the decrease in doses >300 IU remained significant in the POR and NR sub-groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION:The retrospective nature of the study. Physicians need time to adapt to new scientific evidence and a comparison between 2017 and 2019 may have found a greater impact of the Optimist trial, although other changes over the longer time span might have increased confounding. We cannot be sure that the observed changes can be attributed to knowledge of the OPTIMIST trial. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS:Clinicians may be slow to adopt recommendations based on RCTs; more attention should be given to how these are disseminated and promoted. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S):No external funding was used for this study. E.P. reports grants and personal fees from MSD, grants from Ferring, from IBSA, grants and personal fees from Merck, grants from TEVA, grants from Gedeon Richter, outside the submitted work. E.S. reports grants from Ferring, grants and personal fees from Merck-Serono, grants and personal fees from Theramex, outside the submitted work. All other authors do not have conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:Not applicable.
10.1093/humrep/deab047
Mild versus conventional ovarian stimulation for IVF in poor, normal and hyper-responders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Datta Adrija Kumar,Maheshwari Abha,Felix Nirmal,Campbell Stuart,Nargund Geeta
Human reproduction update
BACKGROUND:Mild ovarian stimulation has emerged as an alternative to conventional IVF with the advantages of being more patient-friendly and less expensive. Inadequate data on pregnancy outcomes and concerns about the cycle cancellation rate (CCR) have prevented mild, or low-dose, IVF from gaining wide acceptance. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE:To evaluate parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on IVF where comparisons were made between a mild (≤150 IU daily dose) and conventional stimulation in terms of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness in patients described as poor, normal and non-polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) hyper-responders to IVF. SEARCH METHODS:Searches with no language restrictions were performed using Medline, Embase, Cochrane central, Pre-Medicine from January 1990 until April 2020, using pre-specified search terms. References of included studies were hand-searched as well as advance access articles to key journals. Only parallel-group RCTs that used ≤150 IU daily dose of gonadotrophin as mild-dose IVF (MD-IVF) and compared with a higher conventional dose (CD-IVF) were included. Studies were grouped under poor, normal or hyper-responders as described by the authors in their inclusion criteria. Women with PCOS were excluded in the hyper-responder group. The risk of bias was assessed as per Cochrane Handbook for the included studies. The quality of evidence (QoE) was assessed according to the GRADE system. PRISMA guidance was followed for review methodology. OUTCOMES:A total of 31 RCTs were included in the analysis: 15 in the poor, 14 in the normal and 2 in the hyper-responder group. Live birth rates (LBRs) per randomisation were similar following use of MD-IVF in poor (relative risk (RR) 0.91 (CI 0.68, 1.22)), normal (RR 0.88 (CI 0.69, 1.12)) and hyper-responders (RR 0.98 (CI 0.79, 1.22)) when compared to CD-IVF. QoE was moderate. Cumulative LBRs (5 RCTs, n = 2037) also were similar in all three patient types (RR 0.96 (CI 0.86 1.07) (moderate QoE). Risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome was significantly less with MD-IVF than CD-IVF in both normal (RR 0.22 (CI 0.10, 0.50)) and hyper-responders (RR 0.47 (CI 0.31, 0.72)), with moderate QoE. The CCRs were comparable in poor (RR 1.33 (CI 0.96, 1.85)) and hyper-responders (RR 1.31 (CI 0.98, 1.77)) but increased with MD-IVF among normal responders (RR 2.08 (CI 1.38, 3.14)); all low to very low QoE. Although fewer oocytes were retrieved and fewer embryos created with MD-IVF, the proportion of high-grade embryos was similar in all three population types (low QoE). Compared to CD-IVF, MD-IVF was associated with less gonadotrophin use and lower cost. WIDER IMPLICATIONS:This updated review provides reassurance on using MD-IVF not only for the LBR per cycle but also for the cumulative LBR, with moderate QoE. With risks identified with 'freeze-all' strategies, it may be time to recommend mild-dose ovarian stimulation for IVF for all categories of women i.e. hyper, poor and normal responders to IVF.
10.1093/humupd/dmaa035
The depot GnRH agonist protocol improves the live birth rate per fresh embryo transfer cycle, but not the cumulative live birth rate in normal responders: a randomized controlled trial and molecular mechanism study.
Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
STUDY QUESTION:Do cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) after one complete ART cycle differ between the three commonly used controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocols (GnRH antagonist, depot GnRHa (GnRH agonist) and long GnRHa) in normal responders undergoing IVF/ICSI? SUMMARY ANSWER:There were similar CLBRs between the GnRH antagonist, depot GnRHa and long GnRHa protocols. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY:There is no consensus on which COS protocol is the most optimal in women with normal ovarian response. The CLBR provides the final success rate after one complete ART cycle, including the fresh and all subsequent frozen-thawed embryo transfer (ET) cycles. We suggest that the CLBR measure would allow for better comparisons between the different treatment protocols. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION:A prospective controlled, randomized, open label trial was performed between May 2016 and May 2017. A total of 819 patients were allocated to the GnRH antagonist, depot GnRHa or long GnRHa protocol in a 1:1:1 ratio. The minimum follow-up time from the first IVF cycle was 2 years. To further investigate the potential effect of COS with the GnRH antagonist, depot GnRHa or long GnRHa protocol on endometrial receptivity, the expression of homeobox A10 (HOXA10), myeloid ecotropic viral integration site 1 (MEIS1) and leukemia inhibitory factor (LIF) endometrial receptivity markers was evaluated in endometrial tissue from patients treated with the different COS protocols. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS:Infertile women with normal ovarian response (n = 819) undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment were randomized to the GnRH antagonist, depot GnRHa or long GnRHa protocol. Both IVF and ICSI cycles were included, and the sperm samples used were either fresh or frozen partner ejaculates or frozen donor ejaculates. The primary outcome was the live birth rate (LBR) per fresh ET cycle, and the CLBR after one complete ART cycle, until the birth of a first child (after 28 weeks) or until all frozen embryos were used, whichever occurred first. Pipelle endometrial biopsies from 34 female patients were obtained on Days 7-8 after oocyte retrieval or spontaneous ovulation in natural cycles, respectively, and HOXA10, MEIS1 and LIF mRNA and protein expression levels in the human endometrium was determined by quantitative real-time PCR and western blot, respectively. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE:There were no significant differences in CLBRs between the GnRH antagonist, depot GnRHa or long GnRHa protocol (71.4 versus 75.5 versus 72.2%, respectively). However, there was a significantly higher LBR per fresh ET cycle in the depot GnRHa protocol than in the long GnRHa and GnRH antagonist protocols (62.6 versus 52.1% versus 45.6%, P < 0.05). Furthermore, HOXA10, MEIS1 and LIF mRNA and protein expression in endometrium all showed significantly higher in the depot GnRHa protocol than in the long GnRHa and GnRH antagonist protocols (P < 0.05). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION:A limitation of our study was that both our clinicians and patients were not blinded to the randomization for the randomized controlled trial (RCT). An inclusion criterion for the current retrospective cohort study was based on the 'actual ovarian response' during COS treatment, while the included population for the RCT was 'expected normal responders' based on maternal age and ovarian reserve test. In addition, the analysis was restricted to patients under 40 years of age undergoing their first IVF cycle. Furthermore, the endometrial tissue was collected from patients who cancelled the fresh ET, which may include some patients at risk for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, however only patients with 4-19 oocytes retrieved were included in the molecular study. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS:The depot GnRH agonist protocol improves the live birth rate per fresh ET cycle, but not the cumulative live birth rate in normal responders. A possible explanation for the improved LBR after fresh ET in the depot GnRHa protocol could be molecular signalling at the level of endometrial receptivity. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S):This project was funded by Grant 81571439 from the National Natural Sciences Foundation of China and Grant 2016YFC1000206-5 from the National Key Research & Development Program of China. The authors declare no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:The RCT trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, Study Number: ChiCTR-INR-16008220. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE:5 April 2016. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLLMENT:12 May 2016.
10.1093/humrep/deaa086
Effect of progesterone on hCG day-to-basal progesterone ratio on live birth rate in long agonist fresh IVF/ICSI cycles: a 5-year, single-center study of more than 10,000 cycles.
Gynecological endocrinology : the official journal of the International Society of Gynecological Endocrinology
OBJECTIVE:To investigate whether the ratio of the serum progesterone level on the day of human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) administration to the basal serum progesterone level (P/P) is a predictor of pregnancy outcome during fertilization (IVF). METHODS:A total of 12,708 cycles were performed in 9747 patients between 19 and 36 years of age who were undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation from October 2011 to July 2016 for their first or second attempts at IVF followed by fresh embryo transfer (ET). hCG was administered 36 h before oocyte retrieval to trigger final oocyte maturation. The serum progesterone level was measured on menstrual cycle days 2-4 (basal progesterone, P) and on the day of hCG administration (P). P/P was calculated. Live birth rates were compared among various ordinal P/P intervals (< 0.5, 0.5-1.0, 1.0-1.5, 1.5-2.0, 2.0-2.5, > 2.5). RESULTS:The average age of the patients recruited was 29.9 years. The average basal progesterone level was 0.8 ng/ml, while the average progesterone level on the day of hCG administration was 0.9 ng/ml. The live birth rates (according to the abovementioned ordinal P/P intervals) were 47.3, 49.9, 47.8, 46.3, 45.5 and 44.0%, respectively. The live birth rates were significantly higher for patients with P/P between 0.5-1.0 (OR = 1.14, 95% CI, 1.02-1.27, = .02). CONCLUSIONS:P/P between 0.5-1.0 predicts a higher live birth rate in IVF. Both P/P and P on hCG day is less predictive value for predicting live birth rate.
10.1080/09513590.2020.1832067
Early Serum hCG in IVF: Are We Trending in the Right Direction?
Ryniec Jessica,Esfandiari Navid
Reproductive sciences (Thousand Oaks, Calif.)
Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) measurements may be the earliest indicator of fertility cycle success, available several weeks before an ultrasound would be diagnostic for pregnancy. Outcomes of these cycles are high stakes for a couple, and the earliest reassurance of a normal pregnancy would be beneficial for their well-being. Additionally, earlier diagnosis can allow for more rapid management by providers in the case of abnormal pregnancies. Therefore, establishing normal values for initial hCG level and early hCG kinetics is of great interest. There are many factors involved in assisted reproductive techniques that may lead to alterations in hCG kinetics when compared with spontaneous pregnancies. We aim to characterize normal hCG values for in vitro fertilization (IVF) pregnancies and review how different aspects of the IVF process may alter these trends in order to establish how best to counsel patients during the waiting period.
10.1007/s43032-020-00347-8
The early luteal hormonal profile in IVF patients triggered with hCG.
Vuong Lan N,Ho Tuong M,Pham Toan D,Ho Vu N A,Andersen Claus Yding,Humaidan Peter
Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
STUDY QUESTION:What is the early luteal phase hormonal profile in patients undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI followed by hCG trigger and a freeze-all strategy without luteal phase support? SUMMARY ANSWER:The peak concentration of progesterone occurred 4 days after oocyte pick-up (OPU + 4), with an average 35% fall from OPU + 4 to OPU + 6, and progesterone levels before and 12 h after hCG administration predicted levels during the early luteal phase. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY:The luteal phase during IVF differs from that during normal cycles, particularly with respect to the serum progesterone level profile. This can cause asynchrony between the embryo and the endometrium, potentially resulting in implantation failure and poor reproductive outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION:This prospective study included 161 women with normal ovarian reserve receiving GnRH antagonist co-treatment during ovarian stimulation with FSH who were followed up to 6 days after OPU in a single IVF cycle. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS:Women aged 18-42 years undergoing IVF with ovarian stimulation using FSH were included. Ovulation was triggered with recombinant hCG 250 μg. Hormone levels were determined from blood samples taken on the day of trigger, before hCG, at 12, 24 and 36 h after hCG and at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 days after OPU. The primary endpoint was early luteal phase serum concentrations of progesterone, LH, estradiol and hCG. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE:One outlier with a pre-hCG serum progesterone level of 11.42 ng/mL was excluded, so all analyses included 160 subjects. Progesterone levels began to increase 1 day after OPU, peaked 4 days after OPU (114 ng/mL), then declined from OPU + 5 onwards. Peak progesterone levels were at OPU + 4, OPU + 5 or OPU + 6 in 38.8, 29.4 and 13.8% of patients, respectively. Approximately two-thirds of patients had a fall in serum progesterone from OPU + 4 to OPU + 6. Pre-hCG progesterone levels correlated significantly with those at 24 h after hCG (r2 = 0.28; P < 0.001), which in turn correlated significantly with progesterone at OPU + 4 (r2 = 0.32; P < 0.001). LH peaked (4.4 IU/L) 12 h after hCG trigger, persisting for 24 h but was barely elevated compared with physiological levels. Serum estradiol peaked twice: at 24 h post-trigger and at OPU + 4. Highest hCG levels (130 mIU/mL) occurred at 24 h post-injection. The best correlations between the number of follicles ≥11 mm and serum progesterone level were seen at 24 and 36 h after hCG and OPU + 1. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION:The influence of different profiles of serum progesterone on reproductive outcomes could not be determined because a freeze-all strategy was used in all patients. In addition, data were not available to relate serum hormone level findings with endometrial histology or endometrial receptivity analysis to clearly identify the relationship between serum hormones and the window of implantation. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS:Detailed information about early luteal phase hormone levels could be used to optimize and individualize luteal phase support to improve reproductive outcomes. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S):This study was funded by My Duc Hospital, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam. All authors state that they have no conflicts of interest to disclose. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:NCT02798146; NCT03174691.
10.1093/humrep/dez235
Does an FSH surge at the time of hCG trigger improve IVF/ICSI outcomes? A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study.
Qiu Qi,Huang Jia,Li Yu,Chen Xiaoli,Lin Haiyan,Li Lin,Yang Dongzi,Wang Wenjun,Zhang Qingxue
Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
STUDY QUESTION:Does an artificially induced FSH surge at the time of hCG trigger improve IVF/ICSI outcomes? SUMMARY ANSWER:An additional FSH bolus administered at the time of hCG trigger has no effect on clinical pregnancy rate, embryo quality, fertilization rate, implantation rate and live birth rate in women undergoing the long GnRH agonist (GnRHa) protocol for IVF/ICSI. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY:Normal ovulation is preceded by a surge in both LH and FSH. Few randomized clinical trials have specifically investigated the role of the FSH surge. Some studies indicated that FSH given at hCG ovulation trigger boosts fertilization rate and even prevents ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION:This was a randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial conducted at a single IVF center, from June 2012 to November 2013. A sample size calculation indicated that 347 women per group would be adequate. A total of 732 women undergoing IVF/ICSI were randomized, using electronically randomized tables, to the intervention or placebo groups. Participants and clinical doctors were blinded to the treatment allocation. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS:Patients aged ≤42 years who were treated with IVF/ICSI owing to tubal factor, male factor, unexplained, endometriosis and multiple factors were enrolled in this trial. Subjects all received a standard long GnRHa protocol for IVF/ICSI and hCG 6000-10 000 IU to trigger oocyte maturation. A total of 364 and 368 patients were randomized to receive a urinary FSH (uFSH) bolus (6 ampules, 450 IU) and placebo, respectively, at the time of the hCG trigger. The primary outcome measure was clinical pregnancy rate. The secondary outcome measures were FSH level on the day of oocyte retrieval, number of oocytes retrieved, good-quality embryo rate, live birth rate and rate of OHSS. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE:There were no significant differences in the baseline demographic characteristics between the two study groups. There were also no significant differences between groups in cycle characteristics, such as the mean number of stimulation days, total gonadotrophin dose and peak estradiol. The clinical pregnancy rate was 51.6% in the placebo group and 52.7% in the FSH co-trigger group, with an absolute rate difference of 1.1% (95% CI -6.1% to 8.3%). The number of oocytes retrieved was 10.47 ± 4.52 and 10.74 ± 5.01 (P = 0.44), the rate of good-quality embryos was 37% and 33.9% (P = 0.093) and the implantation rate was 35% and 36% (P = 0.7) in the placebo group and the FSH co-trigger group, respectively. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION:This was a single-center study, which may limit its effectiveness. The use of uFSH is a limitation, as this is not the same as the natural FSH. We did not collect follicular fluid for further study of molecular changes after the use of uFSH as a co-trigger. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS:Based on previous data and our results, an additional FSH bolus administered at the time of hCG trigger has no benefit on clinical pregnancy rates in women undergoing the long GnRHa protocol in IVF/ICSI: a single hCG trigger is sufficient. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S):This study was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2016YFC1000205); Sun Yat-Sen University Clinical Research 5010 Program (2016004); the Science and Technology Project of Guangdong Province (2016A020216011 and 2017A020213028); and Science Technology Research Project of Guangdong Province (S2011010004662). There are no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER:The trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-TRC-12002246). TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE:20 May 2012. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT:10 June 2012.
10.1093/humrep/deaa087