Decreased gonadotropin requirements in once daily compared to twice daily administration: a prospective, randomized study

Do poor-responder patients undergoing IVF benefit from splitting and increasing the daily gonadotropin dose?

We aim to retrospectively evaluate the role of increasing the gonadotropin daily dose from 450 IU/day to 300 IU twice a day on IVF-ET outcome in poor responder patients. All consecutive women admitted to our IVF unit and underwent COH consisting of daily gonadotropin dose of 450 IU, followed by an IVF cycle using 300 IU twice a day, were included. Ovarian stimulation characteristics, number of oocytes retrieved, number of embryo transferred and pregnancy rate was assessed. Twenty-three patients undergoing both cycles were evaluated. While there was no between-group difference in the duration of COH, number of 2PN embryos, fertilization rate and number of embryos transferred, patients receiving daily gonadotropin 300 IU twice a day achieved a significantly higher peak estradiol levels (3350.39 ± 2364.26 vs. 2223.74 ± 1299.91; p < .03, respectively), and yielded significantly higher number of follicles >15 mm in diameter on day of hCG administration (3.2 ± 2.4 vs 1.8 ± 1; p < .03, respectively) and higher number of oocytes retrieved (3.48 ± 2.54 vs 1.87 ± 1.1; p < .02, respectively) with an acceptable live birth rate (5%). To conclude, in poor responders undergoing COH a daily gonadotropin dose of 450 IU, increasing the dose to 300 IU twice daily may result in higher oocyte yield, with the possible improvement in IVF outcome.

A prospective, randomized study comparing morning to evening administration of gonadotropins in ART

OBJECTIVE

We sought to determine whether administering the daily gonadotropin dose in the morning (AM) or in the evening (PM) affects cycle outcome in patients undergoing IVF.

DESIGN

This is a prospective randomized study.

SETTING

The study is performed in a private assisted reproductive technology (ART) clinic.

PATIENT(S)

The study included one hundred and twenty-seven women undergoing IVF.

INTERVENTION(S)

Morning (AM) and evening (PM) administration of gonadotropins (uFSH and hMG) was compared.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Live birth rate was the main outcome measured. Secondary outcomes including total IU use, days of stimulation, peak E₂, peak P₄, endometrial thickness, number of oocytes retrieved, MII oocytes, fertilization rates, #ET, IR, and clinical PR were all assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 127 cycles were included, 61 in the AM group and 67 in the PM group. Baseline and stimulation characteristics were similar in both groups. There was a trend for a higher implantation rate in the AM group vs. the PM group (60.3 vs. 47.2%, P = 0.066). The AM group had a higher chemical pregnancy rate compared to the PM group (81.7 vs. 65.6%, P = 0.024) and a higher clinical pregnancy rate (78.3 vs. 62.1%, P = 0.048), but the delivery rates were similar (68.3 vs. 56.1%, P = 0.16). The study was unfortunately prematurely terminated when uFSH (Bravelle©) was pulled out of the US market.

CONCLUSIONS

AM administration of gonadotropins may be associated with a better ART outcome compared to PM administration. Larger studies are needed to confirm our findings.

Best practices for controlled ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization

As applications for IVF have expanded over the years, so too have approaches to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for IVF. With this expansion and improved knowledge of basic reproductive biology, there is increasing interest in how COS practice influences IVF outcomes, and whether or not specific treatment scenarios call for personalized approaches to COS. For the majority of women undergoing COS and their treating physicians, the goal is to achieve a healthy live birth through IVF in a fresh cycle. Opinions on how COS strategy best leads to this common goal varies among centers as many clinicians base COS strategy not on evidence obtained through prospective randomized trials, but rather through observational studies and experience. Overall, when it comes to COS most clinicians recognize the approach should not be "one size fits all," but rather a patient-centered approach that takes the existing evidence into consideration. We outline the existing evidence for best practices in COS for IVF, highlighting how these practices may be incorporated into a patient-centered approach.