Low dosing of gonadotropins in in vitro fertilization cycles for women with poor ovarian reserve: systematic review and meta-analysis

Harnessing Artificial Intelligence to Predict Ovarian Stimulation Outcomes in In Vitro Fertilization: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

In the realm of in vitro fertilization (IVF), artificial intelligence (AI) models serve as invaluable tools for clinicians, offering predictive insights into ovarian stimulation outcomes. Predicting and understanding a patient's response to ovarian stimulation can help in personalizing doses of drugs, preventing adverse outcomes (eg, hyperstimulation), and improving the likelihood of successful fertilization and pregnancy. Given the pivotal role of accurate predictions in IVF procedures, it becomes important to investigate the landscape of AI models that are being used to predict the outcomes of ovarian stimulation.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to comprehensively examine the literature to explore the characteristics of AI models used for predicting ovarian stimulation outcomes in the context of IVF.

METHODS

A total of 6 electronic databases were searched for peer-reviewed literature published before August 2023, using the concepts of IVF and AI, along with their related terms. Records were independently screened by 2 reviewers against the eligibility criteria. The extracted data were then consolidated and presented through narrative synthesis.

RESULTS

Upon reviewing 1348 articles, 30 met the predetermined inclusion criteria. The literature primarily focused on the number of oocytes retrieved as the main predicted outcome. Microscopy images stood out as the primary ground truth reference. The reviewed studies also highlighted that the most frequently adopted stimulation protocol was the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist. In terms of using trigger medication, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) was the most commonly selected option. Among the machine learning techniques, the favored choice was the support vector machine. As for the validation of AI algorithms, the hold-out cross-validation method was the most prevalent. The area under the curve was highlighted as the primary evaluation metric. The literature exhibited a wide variation in the number of features used for AI algorithm development, ranging from 2 to 28,054 features. Data were mostly sourced from patient demographics, followed by laboratory data, specifically hormonal levels. Notably, the vast majority of studies were restricted to a single infertility clinic and exclusively relied on nonpublic data sets.

CONCLUSIONS

These insights highlight an urgent need to diversify data sources and explore varied AI techniques for improved prediction accuracy and generalizability of AI models for the prediction of ovarian stimulation outcomes. Future research should prioritize multiclinic collaborations and consider leveraging public data sets, aiming for more precise AI-driven predictions that ultimately boost patient care and IVF success rates.

Bushen Huoxue formula for the treatment of diminished ovarian reserve: A combined metabolomics and integrated network pharmacology analysis

Objective

This study aimed to explore the mechanism of the Bushen Huoxue Formula (BHF) in treating diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) through the use of metabolomics and integrated network pharmacology.

Methods

The study involved 24 non-pregnant female Sprague-Dawley rats, divided into four groups of six rats each: control, model, BHF, and DHEA (n = 6 per group). The model group was induced with DOR by administering Tripterygium glycosides orally [50 mg (kg·d)-1] for 14 days. Subsequently, BHF and Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) treatments were given to the respective groups. Ovarian reserve function was assessed by measuring anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), estradiol (E2), and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels and conducting hematoxylin-eosin staining. In addition, UHPLC-QTOF-MS analysis was performed to identify differential metabolites and pathways in DOR rats treated with BHF. In this study, LC-MS was utilized to identify the active ingredients of BHF, while network pharmacology was employed to investigate the correlations between BHF-related genes and DOR-related genes. An integrated analysis of metabonomics and network pharmacology was conducted to elucidate the mechanisms underlying the efficacy of BHF in treating DOR.

Results

The model group exhibited a poor general condition and a significant decrease in the number of primordial, primary, and secondary follicles (P < 0.05) when compared to the control group. However, BHF intervention resulted in an increase in the number of primordial, primary, and secondary follicles (P < 0.05), along with elevated levels of AMH and E2 (P < 0.05), and a decrease in FSH levels (P < 0.05) in DOR rats. The modeling process identified eleven classes of metabolites, including cholesterol esters (CE), diacylglycerols (DAG), hexosylceramides (HCER), lysophosphatidylcholines (LPC), phosphatidylcholines (PC), phosphatidylethanolamines (PE), sphingomyelins (SM), ceramides (CER), free fatty acids (FFA), triacylglycerols (TAG), and lysophosphatidylethanolamines (LPE). The study found that PC, CE, DAG, and TAG are important metabolites in the treatment of DOR with BHF. LC-MS analysis showed that there were 183 active ingredients in ESI(+) mode and 51 in ESI(-) mode. Network pharmacology analysis identified 285 potential genes associated with BHF treatment for DOR in ESI(+) mode and 177 in ESI(-) mode. The combined analysis indicated that linoleic acid metabolism is the primary pathway in treating DOR with BHF.

Conclusion

BHF was found to improve ovarian function in rats with DOR induced by Tripterygium glycosides. The study identified key metabolites such as phosphatidylcholine (PC), cholesteryl ester (CE), diacylglycerol (DAG), triacylglycerol (TAG), and the linoleic acid metabolism pathway, which were crucial in improving ovarian function in DOR rats treated with BHF.

Migraine and infertility, merging concepts in women's reproductive health: A narrative review

OBJECTIVE

The objective is to examine issues around treating infertility in patients with migraine.

BACKGROUND

Women outnumber men in migraine diagnosis with a 3:1 ratio; the disease is commonly expressed in women of child-bearing age and is influenced by changes in circulating hormones. Infertility is also common, and the use of treatment options, such as assisted reproductive technology, have expanded exponentially in recent years.

METHODS

We summarized the literature around the effect of infertility treatments on headache in the general population and migraine population. We also discuss sociobehavioral, economic, and biological factors affecting fertility in patients with migraine, describe infertility protocols, and propose areas of focus for future research. We searched PubMed for the combined key terms in vitro fertilization or assisted reproductive technology AND migraine, or headache. The search included all dates and specified English-language results only.

RESULTS

Migraine may negatively influence family planning and fertility. Patients face obstacles stemming from the impact of migraine on social relationships and the interference of preventive medications on pregnancy. Migraine may also be associated with an increased prevalence of endocrine disorders which in turn affect fertility. Moreover, infertility treatments are associated with mild headache as a side effect. In addition, we found only one retrospective study demonstrating an increase in headache frequency during in vitro fertilization in the migraine population.

CONCLUSIONS

We determined that there is little research focused specifically on migraine headache exacerbation and other migraine-associated health outcomes with infertility treatment. This topic merits further interdisciplinary exploration.

Does the dose or type of gonadotropins affect the reproductive outcomes of poor responders undergoing modified natural cycle IVF (MNC-IVF)?

OBJECTIVE

Does the dose or type of gonadotropin affect the reproductive outcomes of poor responders undergoing IVF in a modified natural cycle (MNC-IVF)?

STUDY DESIGN

This is a retrospective cohort study including patients attending a tertiary referral University Hospital from 1st January 2017 until 1st March 2020. All predicted poor responders (Poseidon groups 3 and 4) who underwent MNC-IVF in our center were included. Mild ovarian stimulation (rFSH/uFSH/hp-hMG) was started when a follicle with a mean diameter of 12-14 mm was observed on ultrasound scan; GnRH antagonist was added from the next day onwards. Mature oocytes were inseminated using ICSI.

RESULTS

In total 484 patients undergoing 1398 cycles were included. Mean (SD) age and serum AMH were 38.2 (3.7) years and 0.28 (0.26) ng/ml, respectively. The daily dose of gonadotropins was either < 75 IU/d [11/1398 (0.8 %)] or 75 to < 100 IU/d [1303/1398 (93.2 %)] or ≥ 100 to 150 IU/d [84/1398 (6 %)]. Patients were stimulated with rFSH [251/1398 (18 %)], uFSH [45/1398 (3.2 %)] or hp-hMG [1102/1398 (78.8 %)]. Clinical pregnancy rate was 119/1398 (8.5 %). Live birth was achieved in 80/1398 (5.7 %) of cycles. There was no significant difference in rates of pregnancy and live birth across different types and doses of gonadotropins. The GEE multivariate regression analysis, adjusting for relevant confounders, showed that the type of treatment strategy (rFSH/uFSH/hp-hMG) and the daily dose of gonadotropins were not associated with live birth rates (LBR) (p value 0.08 and 0.8, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The type and daily dose of gonadotropins do not affect the reproductive outcome of poor responders undergoing MNC-IVF.

Poor ovarian response and the possible role of natural and modified natural cycles

About 20% of women undergoing in vitro fertilization struggle with poor ovarian response, indicating a poor prognosis related to low response following ovarian stimulation. Indeed, poor ovarian response, that is associated with both high cancelation rates and low live birth rates, still represents one of the most important therapeutic challenges in in vitro fertilization. In this context, natural cycle/modified natural cycle–in vitro fertilization, as a ‘milder’ approach, could be a reasonable alternative to high-dose/conventional ovarian stimulation in poor ovarian responders, with the aim to retrieve a single oocyte with better characteristics that may result in a single top-quality embryo, transferred to a more receptive endometrium. Moreover, modified natural cycle–in vitro fertilization may be cost-effective because of the reduced gonadotropin consumption. Several studies have been published during the last 20 years reporting conflicting results regarding the use of natural cycle/modified natural cycle–in vitro fertilization in women with poor ovarian response; however, while most of the studies concluded that mild stimulation regimens, including natural cycle/modified natural cycle–in vitro fertilization, have low, but acceptable success rates in this difficult group of patients, others did not replicate these findings. The aim of this narrative review is to appraise the current evidence regarding the use of natural cycle/modified natural cycle–in vitro fertilization in poor ovarian responders.

Double or dual stimulation in poor ovarian responders: where do we stand?

Recent advances in our recognition of two to three follicular waves of development in a single menstrual cycle has challenged the dogmatic approach of ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization starting in the early follicular phase. First shown in veterinary medicine and thereafter in women, luteal phase stimulation–derived oocytes are at least as competent as those retrieved following follicular phase stimulation. Poor ovarian responders still remain a challenge for many decades simply because they do not respond to ovarian stimulation. Performing follicular phase stimulation and luteal phase stimulation in the same menstrual cycle, named as double stimulation/dual stimulation, clearly increases the number of oocytes, which is a robust surrogate marker of live birth rate in in vitro fertilization across all female ages. Of interest, apart from one study, the bulk of evidence reports significantly higher number of oocytes following luteal phase stimulation when compared with follicular phase stimulation; hence, performing double stimulation/dual stimulation doubles the number of oocytes leading to a marked decrease in patient drop-out rate which is one of the major factors limiting cumulative live birth rates in such poor prognosis patients. The limited data with double stimulation/dual stimulation-derived embryos is reassuring for obstetric and neonatal outcome. The mandatory requirement of freeze-all and lack of cost-effectiveness data are limitations of this novel approach. Double stimulation/dual stimulation is an effective strategy when the need to obtain oocytes is urgent, including patients with malignant diseases undergoing oocyte cryopreservation and patients of advanced maternal age or with reduced ovarian reserve.

Individualized ovarian stimulation in IVF/ICSI treatment: it is time to stop using high FSH doses in predicted low responders

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).

Minimal ovarian stimulation is an alternative to conventional protocols for older women according to Poseidon's stratification: a retrospective multicenter cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate whether minimal ovarian stimulation (mOS) is as effective as conventional ovarian stimulation (cOS) for older women belonging to different groups according to the Poseidon criteria.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Observational retrospective multicentre cohort including women from Poseidon's groups 2 and 4 that underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF). We performed a mixed-effects logistic regression model, adding as a random effect the patients and the stimulation cycle considering the dependence of data. Survival curves were employed as a measure of the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR). The primary outcomes were live birth rate per embryo transfer and CLBR per consecutive embryo transfer and oocyte consumed until a live birth was achieved.

RESULTS

A total of 2002 patients underwent 3056 embryo transfers (mOS = 497 and cOS = 2559). The live birth rates per embryo transfer in mOS and cOS showed no significant difference in both Poseidon's groups. Likewise, the logistic regression showed similar live birth rates between the two protocols in Poseidon's groups 2 (OR 1.165, 95% CI 0.77-1.77; p = 0.710) and 4 (OR 1.264 95% CI 0.59-2.70; p = 0.387). However, the survival curves showed higher CLBR per oocyte in women that received mOS (Poseidon group 2: p < 0.001 and Poseidon group 4: p = 0.039).

CONCLUSIONS

Minimal ovarian stimulation is a good alternative to COS as a first-line treatment for patients belonging to Poseidon's groups 2 and 4. The number of oocytes needed to achieve a live birth seems inferior in mOS strategy than cOS.

Oocyte or embryo number needed to optimize live birth and cumulative live birth rates in mild stimulation IVF cycles

RESEARCH QUESTION

How many oocytes or embryos are needed to optimize the live birth rate (LBR) per cycle and cumulative LBR (CLBR) following mild stimulation IVF (MS-IVF) in women with uncompromised ovarian reserve?

DESIGN

Retrospective analysis of a 4-year database of five fertility centres. The study population included women with normal/high ovarian reserve, who underwent autologous MS-IVF (daily ≤150 IU gonadotrophin) with fresh and subsequent frozen embryo transfer(s) (FET) from surplus embryos. Only the first cycle of each patient was included. Cycles with >150 IU daily average of gonadotrophin were excluded. 'Freeze-all embryo' (FAE) cycles were analysed separately.

RESULTS

A total of 862 consecutive cycles fulfilled the inclusion criteria; 592 were eligible for fresh embryo transfer, 239 had non-elective 'freeze-all' cycles. Median age (25-75th percentile) of women who had fresh embryo transfer was 35 (32-37) years, median antral follicle count 19 (14-28) and anti-Müllerian hormone 19.2 (13-28.9) pmol/l. LBR/fresh cycle and CLBR inclusive of FAE cycles in the <35, 35-37, 38-39 and 40-42 year age groups were 37.8% and 45.1%, 36.0% and 41.6%, 18.4% and 29.1%, and 8.9% and 18.1%, respectively. The LBR following fresh embryo transfer plateaued after nine oocytes (40.3%) or four embryos (40.8%). The CLBR optimized when 12 oocytes (42.9%) or nine embryos (53.8%) were obtained. The LBR per oocyte peaked in women under 35 years when <5 oocytes were retrieved (11.4%), then declined with age and with higher oocyte yield. There were no cases of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).

CONCLUSION

Nine oocytes, or four embryos, can optimize fresh transfer cycle LBR in MS-IVF. The CLBR are optimized with 12 oocytes, or nine embryos in predicted normal responders, while safeguarding against OHSS.

Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for poor ovarian responders undergoing in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a protocol for systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) is the routine regimen used to generate a sufficient number of follicles during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment. Poor ovarian response is a challenge encountered by many clinicians during COH and poor ovarian responders (PORs) usually have higher follicle stimulating hormone levels, lower levels of anti-Mullerian hormone and few oocytes retrieved, which have been attributed mainly to advanced maternal age and poor follicle reserve or other reasons that could impair ovarian response during ovarian stimulation. Over the last few decades, researchers have proposed a series of strategies and ovarian stimulation protocols to improve pregnancy outcomes in patients with POR during their IVF/ICSI treatment. However, clinical decisions regarding COH protocols in PORs during IVF/ICSI treatment remain controversial. Traditional pairwise meta-analysis only allows the direct comparison of two protocols in COH for patients with POR. However, many of these COH protocols have not been compared directly in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Thus, we aim to use network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of COH protocols and to generate treatment rankings of these COH protocols for the most clinically important and commonly reported outcomes events.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SinoMed, CNKI, WanFang database and Chongqing VIP information databases will be searched for all RCTs of COH for POR women during IVF/ICSI from inception to 31 March 2020. Primary outcomes will include live birth rate and number of oocytes retrieved. Secondary outcomes will include ongoing pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate, multiple pregnancy rate and cycle cancellation rate. Pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian NMA will be conducted for each outcome. Subgroup analysis, meta-regression, and sensitivity analysis will be performed to assess the robustness of the findings. The generation of NMA plots and subsequent results will be performed by using R V.4.0.1. The assessment of confidence in network estimates will use the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis)web application (see https://cinema.ispm.unibe.ch/).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review does not require ethics approval and the results of the NMA will be submitted to a peer-review journal.

Mild versus conventional ovarian stimulation for IVF in poor, normal and hyper-responders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Fresh and cumulative live birth rates in mild versus conventional stimulation for IVF cycles in poor ovarian responders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY QUESTION

Are cumulative and live birth rates (LBRs) comparable in poor ovarian response women treated with different protocols of mild stimulation IVF (i.e. oral compounds, lower doses or shorter treatments) versus conventional IVF?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Mild ovarian stimulation (MOS) results in comparable outcomes to those of conventional stimulation in poor ovarian response patients with low ovarian reserve.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Several randomized trials and meta-analyses have been published evaluating the role of mild (MOS) versus conventional ovarian stimulation in poor ovarian response patients. Most report a potentially higher safety profile, patient satisfaction and lower costs, suggesting that the higher cycle cancellation rate and fewer oocytes retrieved following MOS does not affect the final reproductive outcome. Additionally, over the last few years, new publications have added data regarding MOS, and shown the possible benefit of a higher oocyte yield which may also improve prognosis in patients with poor ovarian response.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

We conducted a systematic search of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS-BIREME, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, CENTRAL (Cochrane Register), Web of Science, Scopus, Trip Database and Open Grey, to identify all relevant studies published up to March 2020. We examined trial registries for ongoing trials. No publication-year or language restrictions were adopted. We explored the reference list of all included studies, reviews and abstracts of major scientific meetings. The primary outcomes were cumulative and fresh LBR (CLBR and FLBR) per woman randomized.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

We included subfertile women undergoing IVF/ICSI characterized as poor responders and compared primary and secondary outcomes between the different protocols of mild stimulation IVF (i.e. oral compounds, lower doses or shorter treatments) and conventional IVF. We used the PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes) model to select our study population.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Overall, 15 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. CLBR and FLBR were comparable between mild versus conventional stimulation (RR 1.15; 95% CI: 0.73 - 1.81; I2 = 0%, n = 424, moderate certainty and RR 1.01; 95% CI: 0.97 - 1.04; I 2 = 0%, n = 1001, low certainty, respectively). No difference was observed either when utilizing oral compounds (i.e. letrozole and clomiphene) or lower doses. Similarly, ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) were equivalent when comparing the two groups (RR 1.01; 95% CI: 0.98 - 1.05; I 2 = 0%, n = 1480, low certainty, and RR 1.00; 95% CI: 0.97 - 1.03; I2 = 0%, n = 2355, low certainty, respectively). A significantly lower oocyte yield (mean differences (MD) -0.80; 95% CI: -1.28, -0.32; I2 = 83%, n = 2516, very low certainty) and higher rate of cycle cancellation (RR 1.48; 95% CI: 1.08 - 2.02; I2 = 62%, n = 2588, low certainty) was observed in the MOS group.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

The overall quality of the included studies was low to moderate. Even though strict inclusion criteria were used, the selected studies were heterogeneous in population characteristics and treatment protocols. We found no differences in CLBR between MOS and COS (95% CI: 0.73 - 1.81.).

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

MOS could be considered as a treatment option in low prognosis poor responder patients, given that it results in similar fresh and CLBRs compared with COS. A milder approach is associated with a lower number of oocytes retrieved and a higher cancellation rate, although treatment cost is significantly reduced. Future research should focus on which type of ovarian stimulation may be of benefit in better prognosis women.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

There were no sources of financial support. N.P.P. received research grants, honoraria for lectures from: Merck Serono, MSD, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Besins International, Roche Diagnostics, IBSA, Theramex and Gedeon Richter. P.D. received unrestricted grants and honoraria from Merck Serono, MSD and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. I.G.F. received unrestricted grants and honoraria from Merck Serono, MSD, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Gedeon-Richter and IBSA. P.M.B. reported no conflict of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020167260.

Risk of foetal harm with letrozole use in fertility treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aromatase inhibitor letrozole is increasingly recommended for ovulation induction, as it is more effective with fewer side-effects than other agents. But many clinicians are reluctant to use the drug for fertility treatment due to a strong-label warning against its use, which warns about congenital malformation risk to the foetus in women seeking pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

The aim of this study was to determine the risks of congenital malformations and pregnancy loss with letrozole compared with clomiphene primarily, and with other fertility drugs and natural conception.

SEARCH METHODS

A systematic review and meta-analysis using PRISMA harms guidelines. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and other sources from inception until January 2020, with the MeSH words for 'letrozole' and pregnancy OR foetal/neonatal outcome. We included studies reported on congenital malformations in foetuses born to mothers conceived after fertility treatment, with letrozole versus clomiphene, placebo, gonadotrophins, metformin, natural conception or other agents, from randomised trials, comparative cohort studies and non-comparative observational cohorts. Quality of the studies was assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tool and Newcastle Ottawa Scale. The McMaster tool was used to assess the quality of reported harm for foetal congenital malformations in the studies. We compared the absolute risk of events using risk difference measures and pooled the findings using a fixed-effect model. We evaluated the statistical heterogeneity using forest plots and the I2 statistic and funnel plot to assess publication bias. We assessed the strength of evidence for congenital malformation and pregnancy loss as per the GRADE recommendations and with the Fragility index.

OUTCOMES

We included 46 studies (18 randomised trials; 21 comparative cohorts; 7 non-comparative cohorts). Overall 2.15% (101/4697; 95% CI 1.7 to 2.5) of babies conceived on letrozole for fertility treatment had congenital foetal malformations. We did not observe a significant increase in congenital malformations with letrozole versus clomiphene in the randomised trials (risk difference (RD) 0.01, 95% CI -0.02, 0.03; I2 = 0%; 14 studies) and found a significant reduction in the cohort studies (RD -0.02, 95% CI -0.04, -0.01; I2 = 0%, 11 studies). The fragility index was 44% (7/16) (either an increase in the intervention arm or a decrease in control arm was needed to alter the results). The risks of pregnancy loss were not increased with letrozole versus clomiphene in the 14 randomised trials (RD -0.01, 95% CI -0.06, 0.04; I2 = 0%), and the risks were reduced in the six cohort studies (RD -0.09, 95% CI -0.17, -0.00; I2 = 68%). The GRADE quality of evidence was low to moderate for congenital malformations and pregnancy loss. We did not find any increased congenital malformation risk with letrozole versus gonadotrophins, natural conception or natural cycle ART, but the number of studies was small.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

There is no evidence that letrozole increases the risk of congenital foetal malformation or pregnancy loss compared with clomiphene, natural conception or other fertility agents, to warrant warning against its use. Given its therapeutic benefits and lack of evidence of harm to the foetus, clinicians should consider letrozole as first-line agent for ovulation induction.

Mild versus conventional ovarian stimulation for IVF in poor responders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Mild ovarian stimulation is a treatment option for poor responders in IVF treatment. Our updated review evaluated mild IVF solely from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that used genuine low-dose gonadotrophin (≤150 IU daily) alone or in combination with oral medications, comparing it with conventional-dose (>150 IU/ daily) IVF for poor responders. Electronic searches on MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PreMEDLINE, and hand searches from 2002 up to 31 January 2019, identified 14 RCTs, which were compiled with the above inclusion criteria. The risk of bias (ROB) and quality of evidence (QOE) were assessed as per Cochrane Collaboration. Meta-analyses found no difference in live birth rate (four RCTs, n = 1057, RR 0.91, CI 0.66 to 1.25) (moderate QOE), ongoing pregnancy rate (six RCTs, n = 1782, RR 1.01, CI 0.86 to 1.20) (moderate-high QOE) and cycle cancellation rates (14 RCTs, n = 2746, RR 1.38, CI 0.99 to 1.92) (low QOE). Fewer oocytes and embryos were obtained from mild IVF; however, the number and proportion of high-grade embryos were similar. Mild IVF resulted in reduced gonadotrophin use and cost. The inference remained unchanged when smaller studies with ROB were excluded, or whether gonadotrophin alone or combination with oral medication was used. The evidence of equal efficacy from a pooled population, which was adequately powered for live birth, supported a mild IVF strategy for poor responders in preference to more expensive conventional IVF. Although clinical heterogeneity remained a limiting factor, it increased the generalizability of the findings.

Modified natural cycle IVF versus conventional stimulation in advanced-age Bologna poor responders

RESEARCH QUESTION

Do ongoing pregnancy rates (OPR) differ between modified natural cycle IVF (MNC-IVF) and conventional high-dose ovarian stimulation (HDOS) in advanced-age Bologna poor responders?

DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study including patients with poor ovarian response (POR) attending a tertiary referral university hospital from 1 January 2011 to 1 March 2017. All women who fulfilled the Bologna criteria for POR and aged ≥40 years who underwent their first intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycle in the study centre were included.

RESULTS

In total, 476 advanced-age Bologna poor responder patients were included in the study: 189 in the MNC-IVF group and 287 in the HDOS group. OPR per patient were significantly lower in the MNC-IVF group (5/189, 2.6%) compared with the HDOS group (29/287, 10.1%) (P = 0.002). However, after adjustment for relevant confounders (number of oocytes and presence of at least one top-quality embryo), the multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that the type of treatment strategy (HDOS versus MNC-IVF) was not significantly associated with OPR (odds ratio 2.56, 95% confidence interval 0.9-7.6).

CONCLUSIONS

In advanced-age Bologna poor responders, MNC-IVF, which is a more patient-friendly approach, could be a reasonable alternative in this difficult-to-treat group of women.

Conventional versus minimal ovarian stimulation: an intra-patient comparison of ovarian response in poor-responder women according to Bologna Criteria

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is minimal ovarian stimulation (MOS) as effective as conventional ovarian stimulation (COS) in ovarian response and embryo quality in the same 46 poor-responder patients according to the Bologna criteria?

DESIGN

An intra-patient comparison of patients undergoing both protocols. Ovaries were stimulated with either a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol and a combination of recombinant FSH and highly purified human menotrophin (HP-HMG) daily (COS), or with the use of clomiphene citrate 50 mg daily and 150 IU of HP-HMG or recombinant FSH every other day from simulation day 4 (MOS).

RESULTS

After MOS, significantly more good-quality embryos (1.0 ± 1.2 versus 0.3 ± 0.6) (P = 0.002), oocytes (3.2 ± 1.9 versus 2.0 ± 1.8) (P = 0.002), and mature (metaphase II) oocytes (2.6 ± 1.7 versus 1.6 ± 1.7) (P = 0.001) were obtained. In COS cycles, a significantly higher total gonadotrophin dose was needed per good-quality embryo (+2194 IU; 95% CI 618 to 3170).

CONCLUSIONS

In poor responder patients, MOS is a good alternative when COS has failed, or even as a first-line treatment. It offered a significantly greater number of good-quality embryos as well as a higher number of oocytes, using significantly lower doses of gonadotrophins per oocyte and embryo obtained.