A comparative study of high fixed-dose and decremental-dose regimens of gonadotropins in a minidose gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist flare protocol for poor responders

Added value of anti-Müllerian hormone serum concentration in assisted reproduction clinical practice using highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (HP-hMG)

INTRODUCTION

The individual response to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) depends on several factors, including the initial dose of gonadotropin. In repeated in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles, the initial dose of gonadotropin is mainly established on the basis of the previous attempts' outcomes. Conversely, in naive patients, the ovarian response should be estimated using other criteria, such as the serum concentration of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). However, in clinical practice, the initial gonadotropin dose is not systematically adapted to the AMH level, despite the known relationship between AMH and ovarian reserve.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

French non-interventional, longitudinal, prospective, multicentre, cohort study that included infertile women who underwent COS with highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (HP-hMG 600 IU/mL) during their first IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycle. Data were collected prospectively during routine follow-up visits from COS initiation to 10-11 weeks after embryo transfer.

RESULTS

Data from 235 of the 297 enrolled women were used for the study. Serum AMH level was negatively correlated with the initial and total HP-hMG doses (p<0.001), and positively correlated with the number of retrieved oocytes (p<0.007). Embryos were obtained for 94.0% of women, and fresh embryo transfer was performed in 72.8% of them. The clinical pregnancy rate was 28.5% after the first embryo transfer.

CONCLUSION

Selecting the appropriate starting dose of gonadotropin is crucial to optimize the IVF/ICSI procedure. For the first attempt, the serum AMH level is a good biomarker to individualize treatment.

Dose adjustment of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) during ovarian stimulation as part of medically-assisted reproduction in clinical studies: a systematic review covering 10 years (2007-2017)

BACKGROUND

Individualization of the follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) starting dose is considered standard clinical practice during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment. Furthermore, the gonadotropin dose is regularly adjusted during COS to avoid hyper- or hypo-ovarian response, but limited data are currently available to characterize such adjustments. This review describes the frequency and direction (increase/decrease) of recombinant-human FSH (r-hFSH) dose adjustment reported in clinical trials.

METHODS

We evaluated the proportion of patients undergoing ART treatment who received ≥ 1 r-hFSH dose adjustments. The inclusion criteria included studies (published Sept 2007 to Sept 2017) in women receiving ART treatment that allowed dose adjustment within the study protocol and that reported ≥ 1 dose adjustments of r-hFSH; studies not allowing/reporting dose adjustment were excluded. Data on study design, dose adjustment and patient characteristics were extracted. Point-incidence estimates were calculated per study and overall based on pooled number of cycles with dose adjustment across studies. The Clopper-Pearson method was used to calculate 95% confidence intervals (CI) for incidence where adjustment occurred in < 10% of patients; otherwise, a normal approximation method was used.

RESULTS

Initially, 1409 publications were identified, of which 318 were excluded during initial screening and 1073 were excluded after full text review for not meeting the inclusion criteria. Eighteen studies (6630 cycles) reported dose adjustment: 5/18 studies (1359 cycles) reported data for an unspecified dose adjustment (direction not defined), in 10/18 studies (3952 cycles) dose increases were reported, and in 11/18 studies (5123 cycles) dose decreases were reported. The studies were performed in women with poor, normal and high response, with one study reporting in oocyte donors and one in obese women. The median day that dose adjustment was permitted was Day 6 after the start of treatment. The point estimates for incidence (95% CI) for unspecified dose adjustment, dose increases, and dose decreases were 45.3% (42.7, 48.0), 19.2% (18.0, 20.5), and 9.5% (8.7, 10.3), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review highlights that, in studies in which dose adjustment was allowed and reported, the estimated incidence of r-hFSH dose adjustments during ovarian stimulation was up to 45%.

ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI†

STUDY QUESTION

What is the recommended management of ovarian stimulation, based on the best available evidence in the literature?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The guideline development group formulated 84 recommendations answering 18 key questions on ovarian stimulation.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI has been discussed briefly in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline on fertility problems, and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist has published a statement on ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. There are, to our knowledge, no evidence-based guidelines dedicated to the process of ovarian stimulation.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. After formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 8 November 2018 and written in English were included. The critical outcomes for this guideline were efficacy in terms of cumulative live birth rate per started cycle or live birth rate per started cycle, as well as safety in terms of the rate of occurrence of moderate and/or severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline group. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the guideline group and the ESHRE Executive Committee.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The guideline provides 84 recommendations: 7 recommendations on pre-stimulation management, 40 recommendations on LH suppression and gonadotrophin stimulation, 11 recommendations on monitoring during ovarian stimulation, 18 recommendations on triggering of final oocyte maturation and luteal support and 8 recommendations on the prevention of OHSS. These include 61 evidence-based recommendations—of which only 21 were formulated as strong recommendations—and 19 good practice points and 4 research-only recommendations. The guideline includes a strong recommendation for the use of either antral follicle count or anti-Müllerian hormone (instead of other ovarian reserve tests) to predict high and poor response to ovarian stimulation. The guideline also includes a strong recommendation for the use of the GnRH antagonist protocol over the GnRH agonist protocols in the general IVF/ICSI population, based on the comparable efficacy and higher safety. For predicted poor responders, GnRH antagonists and GnRH agonists are equally recommended. With regards to hormone pre-treatment and other adjuvant treatments (metformin, growth hormone (GH), testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone, aspirin and sildenafil), the guideline group concluded that none are recommended for increasing efficacy or safety.

LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION

Several newer interventions are not well studied yet. For most of these interventions, a recommendation against the intervention or a research-only recommendation was formulated based on insufficient evidence. Future studies may require these recommendations to be revised.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in ovarian stimulation, based on the best evidence available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to promote further studies in ovarian stimulation.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. F.B. reports research grant from Ferring and consulting fees from Merck, Ferring, Gedeon Richter and speaker’s fees from Merck. N.P. reports research grants from Ferring, MSD, Roche Diagnositics, Theramex and Besins Healthcare; consulting fees from MSD, Ferring and IBSA; and speaker’s fees from Ferring, MSD, Merck Serono, IBSA, Theramex, Besins Healthcare, Gedeon Richter and Roche Diagnostics. A.L.M reports research grants from Ferring, MSD, IBSA, Merck Serono, Gedeon Richter and TEVA and consulting fees from Roche, Beckman-Coulter. G.G. reports consulting fees from MSD, Ferring, Merck Serono, IBSA, Finox, Theramex, Gedeon-Richter, Glycotope, Abbott, Vitrolife, Biosilu, ReprodWissen, Obseva and PregLem and speaker’s fees from MSD, Ferring, Merck Serono, IBSA, Finox, TEVA, Gedeon Richter, Glycotope, Abbott, Vitrolife and Biosilu. E.B. reports research grants from Gedeon Richter; consulting and speaker’s fees from MSD, Ferring, Abbot, Gedeon Richter, Merck Serono, Roche Diagnostics and IBSA; and ownership interest from IVI-RMS Valencia. P.H. reports research grants from Gedeon Richter, Merck, IBSA and Ferring and speaker’s fees from MSD, IBSA, Merck and Gedeon Richter. J.U. reports speaker’s fees from IBSA and Ferring. N.M. reports research grants from MSD, Merck and IBSA; consulting fees from MSD, Merck, IBSA and Ferring and speaker’s fees from MSD, Merck, IBSA, Gedeon Richter and Theramex. M.G. reports speaker’s fees from Merck Serono, Ferring, Gedeon Richter and MSD. S.K.S. reports speaker’s fees from Merck, MSD, Ferring and Pharmasure. E.K. reports speaker’s fees from Merck Serono, Angellini Pharma and MSD. M.K. reports speaker’s fees from Ferring. T.T. reports speaker’s fees from Merck, MSD and MLD. The other authors report no conflicts of interest.

Disclaimer

This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained.

Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type.

ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available atwww.eshre.eu/guidelines.)

^†ESHRE Pages content is not externally peer reviewed. The manuscript has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

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

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of low doses of gonadotropins and gonadotropins combined with oral compounds compared with high doses of gonadotropins in ovarian stimulation regimens in terms of ongoing pregnancy per fresh IVF attempt in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies that evaluate the effectiveness of low dosing of gonadotropins alone or combined with oral compounds compared with high doses of gonadotropins in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Subfertile women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment.

INTERVENTION(S)

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and the Clinical Trials Registry using medical subject headings and free text terms up to June 2016, without language or year restrictions. We included randomized controlled studies (RCTs) enrolling subfertile women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment and comparing low doses of gonadotropins and gonadotropins combined with oral compounds versus high doses of gonadotropins. We assessed the risk of bias using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. We pooled the results by meta-analysis using the fixed and random effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE(S)

The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy rate (PR) per woman randomized.

RESULT(S)

We retrieved 787 records. Fourteen RCTs (N = 2,104 women) were included in the analysis. Five studies (N = 717 women) compared low doses of gonadotropins versus high doses of gonadotropins. There was no evidence of a difference in ongoing PR (2 RCTs: risk rate 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.62-1.57, I² = 0). Nine studies (N = 1,387 women) compared ovarian stimulation using gonadotropins combined with the oral compounds letrozole (n = 6) or clomiphene citrate (CC) (n = 3) versus high doses of gonadotropins. There was no evidence of a difference in ongoing PR (3 RCTs: risk rate 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.63-1.27, I² = 0).

CONCLUSION(S)

We found no evidence of a difference in pregnancy outcomes between low doses of gonadotropins and gonadotropins combined with oral compounds compared with high doses of gonadotropins in ovarian stimulation regimens. Whether low doses of gonadotropins or gonadotropins combined with oral compounds is to be preferred is unknown, as they have never been compared head to head. A health economic analysis to test the hypothesis that an ovarian stimulation with low dosing is more cost-effective than high doses of gonadotropins is needed.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016041301.

Defining Low Prognosis Patients Undergoing Assisted Reproductive Technology: POSEIDON Criteria-The Why

Women with impaired ovarian reserve or poor ovarian response (POR) to exogenous gonadotropin stimulation present a challenge for reproductive specialists. The primary reasons relate to the still limited knowledge about the POR pathophysiology and the lack of practical solutions for the management of these conditions. Indeed, clinical trials using the current standards to define POR failed to show evidence in favor of a particular treatment modality. Furthermore, critical factors for reproductive success, such as the age-dependent embryo aneuploidy rates and the intrinsic ovarian resistance to gonadotropin stimulation, are not taken into consideration by the current POR criteria. As a result, the accepted definitions for POR have been criticized for their inadequacy concerning the proper patient characterization and for not providing clinicians a guide for therapeutic management. A novel system to classify infertility patients with "expected" or "unexpected" inappropriate ovarian response to exogenous gonadotropins-the POSEIDON criteria-was developed to provide a more nuanced picture of POR and to guide physicians in the management of such patients. The new standards are provoking as they challenge the current terminology of POR in favor of the newly defined concept of "low prognosis." This article provides readers a critical appraisal of the existing criteria that standardize the definition of POR and explains the primary reasons for the development of the POSEIDON criteria.

Comparison of the standard GnRH antagonist protocol and the luteal phase estradiol/GnRH antagonist priming protocol in poor ovarian responders

BACKGROUND/AIM

The aim of the study was to compare the luteal estradiol patch/GnRH antagonists priming protocol (LPP) with the standard GnRH antagonist protocol in poor ovarian responders (PORs) in terms of the outcomes of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

IVF outcomes of 265 cycles in 265 patients (106 in the LPP group, 159 in the standard GnRH antagonist group) were evaluated retrospectively.

RESULTS

Mean length of stimulation (11.4 ± 2.7 vs. 10.0 ± 2.7 days; P < 0.05) and the total gonadotropin dose (3403 ± 1060 vs. 2984 ± 1112) used were significantly greater in the LPP group than in the standard GnRH antagonist protocol group. The mean number of oocytes retrieved (3.5 ± 2.6 vs. 3.7 ± 2.8), the number of mature oocytes (2.8 ± 2.2 vs. 2.6 ± 2.2), fertilization rates (65% vs. 62%), the number of embryos transferred (1.6 ± 0.6 vs. 1.7 ± 0.6), and implantation rates (16% vs. 13%) were similar. The cancellation rate did not significantly differ between the groups (9.4% vs. 13.2%). There were no significant differences in the clinical pregnancy (11.3% vs. 13.2%) or live birth rates per patient (3.8% vs. 9.4%) and clinical pregnancy (18.8% vs. 22.6%) or live birth rates per embryo transfer (6.3% vs. 12.9%) between the groups.

CONCLUSION

LPP does not improve IVF outcomes when compared with the standard GnRH antagonist protocol in PORs.

An upper limit of gonadotropin dose in patients undergoing ART should be advocated

AIM

As no upper limit of the daily dose of gonadotropins (DD GN) used for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) has been established, we aimed to evaluate the efficacy of using different DD GN in terms of live-birth achievement.

METHODS

Data of patients treated at a single university medical center during the same period was analyzed retrospectively. Four groups were analyzed according to the DD GN administered: group I ("high dose"):  >225- ≤ 375 IU; Group II ("Very high dose"): 376-450 IU; group III ("extremely high dose"): 451-600 IU. Normo-responders treated with DD GN ≤250 IU served as control (C). Variables included were DD GN, total GN dose/cycle, age, FSH, BMI, gravidity, parity, cycle number, IVF/ICSI, infertility diagnosis treatment protocol and outcome parameters.

RESULTS

The analysis of 1394 treatment cycles of 943 patients indicated that DD and total dose of GN correlated negatively with the number of oocytes, implantation, clinical pregnancy and live-birth rate (25.9%, 14.6%, 11.4% and 4.7% in groups C, I, II and III, respectively) The logistic regression analysis indicated that the adjusted odds ratios for LBR correlated inversely with the DD administered - independently from age, baseline FSH, BMI and previous failed cycles.

CONCLUSIONS

Increasing the daily dose of GN to doses higher than 450 IU or a total dose of 3000 IU/cycle is at least questionable if not harmful.

A mild ovarian stimulation strategy in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF: a multicenter randomized non-inferiority trial

STUDY QUESTION

In subfertile women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF does a mild ovarian stimulation strategy lead to comparable ongoing pregnancy rates in comparison to a conventional ovarian stimulation strategy?

SUMMARY ANSWER

A mild ovarian stimulation strategy in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF leads to similar ongoing pregnancy rates as a conventional ovarian stimulation strategy.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Women diagnosed with poor ovarian reserve are treated with a conventional ovarian stimulation strategy consisting of high-dose gonadotropins and pituitary downregulation with a long mid-luteal start GnRH-agonist protocol. Previous studies comparing a conventional strategy with a mild ovarian stimulation strategy consisting of low-dose gonadotropins and pituitary downregulation with a GnRH-antagonist have been under powered and their effectiveness is inconclusive.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This open label multicenter randomized trial was designed to compare one cycle of a mild ovarian stimulation strategy consisting of low-dose gonadotropins (150 IU FSH) and pituitary downregulation with a GnRH-antagonist to one cycle of a conventional ovarian stimulation strategy consisting of high-dose gonadotropins (450 IU HMG) and pituitary downregulation with a long mid-luteal GnRH-agonist in women of advanced maternal age and/or women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF between May 2011 and April 2014.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Couples seeking infertility treatment were eligible if they fulfilled the following inclusion criteria: female age ≥35 years, a raised basal FSH level >10 IU/ml irrespective of age, a low antral follicular count of ≤5 follicles or poor ovarian response or cycle cancellation during a previous IVF cycle irrespective of age. The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy rate per woman randomized. Analyses were on an intention-to-treat basis. We randomly assigned 195 women to the mild ovarian stimulation strategy and 199 women to the conventional ovarian stimulation strategy.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Ongoing pregnancy rate was 12.8% (25/195) for mild ovarian stimulation versus 13.6% (27/199) for conventional ovarian stimulation leading to a risk ratio of 0.95 (95% CI: 0.57-1.57), representing an absolute difference of -0.7% (95% CI: -7.4 to 5.9). This 95% CI does not extend below the predefined threshold of 10% for inferiority. The duration of ovarian stimulation was significantly lower in the mild ovarian stimulation strategy than in the conventional ovarian stimulation strategy (mean difference -1.2 days, 95% CI: -1.88 to -0.62). Also, a significantly lower amount of gonadotropins was used in the mild simulation strategy, with a mean difference of 3135 IU (95% CI: -3331 to -2940).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

A limitation of our study was the lack of data concerning the cryopreservation of surplus embryos, so we are not informed on cumulative pregnancy rates. Another limitation is that we were not able to follow up on the ongoing pregnancies in all centers, so we are not informed on live birth rates.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The results are directly applicable in daily clinical practice and may lead to considerable cost savings as high dosages of gonadotropins are not necessary in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF. A health economic analysis of our data planned to test the hypothesis that mild ovarian stimulation strategy is more cost-effective than the conventional ovarian stimulation strategy is underway.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

This study was supported by NUFFIC scholarship (the Netherlands) and STDF short-term fellowship (Egypt).

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NTR2788 (Trialregister.nl).

TRIAL REGISTER DATE

01 March 2011.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT

May 2011.

Assisted reproductive techniques

Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) encompass fertility treatments, which involve manipulations of both oocyte and sperm in vitro. This chapter provides a brief overview of ART, including indications for treatment, ovarian reserve testing, selection of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) protocols, laboratory techniques of ART including in vitro fertilization (IVF), and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), embryo transfer techniques, and luteal phase support. This chapter also discusses potential complications of ART, namely ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and multiple gestations, and the perinatal outcomes of ART.

A systematic review of randomized trials for the treatment of poor ovarian responders: is there any light at the end of the tunnel?

OBJECTIVE

To assess the definitions for "poor ovarian responders" used among randomized trials for the treatment of women with impaired response to stimulation.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

None.

PATIENT(S)

Poor ovarian responders.

INTERVENTION(S)

Treatment modalities for the management of poor ovarian responders.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Number and nature of the criteria used to define poor ovarian response to stimulation and threshold values used.

RESULT(S)

Among 47 randomized trials, 41 different definitions for the patients with poor ovarian response have been used. No more than 3 trials used the same definition, whereas even trials from the same research groups used different definitions across different trials. None of the criteria used was adopted in more than 50% of the trials. Age and antral follicle count were adopted only in 9% of the definitions, whereas the criteria of number of follicles on the final stimulation day and number of oocytes retrieved were used in more than 40% of the trials; nonetheless, even for these criteria, the threshold values were consistently different.

CONCLUSION(S)

The variability regarding the definition of poor ovarian responders appears to be striking. Although the Bologna criteria developed by European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology consensus in 2011 aim to define a consistent group of patients, their applicability needs to be tested through clinical trials. Meanwhile, meta-analyses of the currently available trials should be strongly discouraged because they may lead to the adoption of interventions of ambiguous value.

[Cancellation of IVF-ET cycles: poor prognosis, poor responder, or variability of the response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation? An analysis of 142 cancellations]

INTRODUCTION

This retrospective study aimed at analyzing IVF-ET management and outcome after cancellation of a first cycle for poor response.

PATIENTS AND METHOD

One hundred and forty-two infertile patients were included in this observational study. After an overall analysis on the outcome of the second IVF-ET attempt, a sub-analysis was performed according to the presence or the absence of poor prognostic criteria defined as mentioned: patient age superior to 38 years old, antral follicle count (3-9 mm in diameter) inferior to 10 on cycle day 3 and day 3 serum AMH and FSH levels less than 1 ng/mL and more than 10 IU/mL, respectively. Main outcome measures were the cancellation rates, pregnancy and live birth rates.

RESULTS

When a controlled ovarian stimulation was performed, patients with poor prognosis had higher cancellation rates (37.8% vs. 13.3%, P<0.004) and lower pregnancy and live birth rates (22.2% vs. 35.0%, P<0.05 and 11.1% vs. 26.1%, P<0.05, respectively) as compared to good prognosis women.

CONCLUSION

The relatively high cancellation rate in patients with poor prognosis raises the question of the use of IVF modified natural cycle in this group.

Interventions for 'poor responders' to controlled ovarian hyper stimulation (COH) in in-vitro fertilisation (IVF)

BACKGROUND

The success of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) depends on adequate follicle recruitment by using controlled ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophins. Failure to recruit adequate follicles is called 'poor response'. Various treatment protocols have been proposed that are targeted at this cohort of women, aiming to increase their ovarian response.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of different treatment interventions in women who have poor response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (are poor responders) in the context of IVF.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials (MDSG) (5/1/2009), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL) (4th Quarter 2008), MEDLINE (1950 to November week 3 2008), EMBASE (1980 to 2008 week 52) and The National Research Register (NRR). The citation lists of relevant publications, review articles, abstracts of scientific meetings and included studies were also searched. The authors were contacted to clarify data that were unclear from the trial reports.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one type of intervention versus another for controlled ovarian stimulation of poor responders to a previous IVF treatment, using a standard long protocol were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two reviewers independently scanned the abstracts, identified relevant papers, assessed trial quality and extracted relevant data for inclusion. Validity was assessed in terms of method of randomisation, completeness of treatment cycle and co-intervention. Where possible, data were pooled for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

The new search identified fifteen trials. Three trials were eligible for inclusion. Ten trials involving eight different comparison groups have been included. Only one trial reported live birth rates.The number of oocytes retrieved were significantly less in the conventional GnRHa long protocol compared to stop protocol and GnRH antagonist protocol.Total dose of gonadotrophins used was significantly higher in the GnRHa long protocol group compared to the Stop protocol and GnRH antagonist groups.Cancellation rates were significantly higher in the GnRHa flare up group compared to the GnRHa long protocol group.None of the studies reported a difference in the miscarriage and ectopic pregnancy rates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of any particular intervention either for pituitary down regulation, ovarian stimulation or adjuvant therapy in the management of poor responders to controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF. More robust data from good quality RCTs with relevant outcomes are needed.

What should be the maximum FSH dose in IVF/ICSI in poor responders?

Various protocols of ovarian stimulation have been proposed for optimising IVF/ICSI results in women presenting with a poor response to controlled ovarian stimulation; however, achieving a good response to stimulation for this category of patients still remains a challenge. The most extensively employed strategy to improve follicular response in these so-called 'poor responders' involves the use of high doses of gonadotrophins. A small number of randomised controlled trials and retrospective studies have evaluated the effectiveness of the high-dose FSH regimes over a 300 IU threshold. The results of these studies have shown these approaches to be of little or no clinical benefit, although both the costs of treatment and side-effects were higher. There are other studies that have examined 450 IU FSH regimens or even more. This paper presents an overview in all these clinical trials, trying to evaluate the safest and most effective upper limit of FSH that may be used for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation.

[Premature ovarian failure: which protocols?]

This review shows the results of the various studies concerning the protocols applied to the women presenting a premature ovarian failure. Will be thus analyzed the natural cycles (or semi-natural), the increase in the dose of gonadotrophins, the clomiphene citrate and the anti-aromatases, the protocols with GnRH agonists long, short, stop or microdoses, the protocols with GnRH antagonists and the adjuvant treatments: aspirin, nitric oxyde, recombinant LH recombining, growth hormone and androgens. The interest of several protocols is to collect a sufficient number of oocytes (and thus of embryos to be transferred), making it possible to obtain reasonable rates of pregnancy. However, it arises that the rates of pregnancy observed among these women depend not only on their ovarian reserve and their age, but are also function of the type of infertility, of the cycle number and the uterus.

Interventions for 'poor responders' to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in in-vitro fertilisation (IVF)

BACKGROUND

The success of in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment depends on adequate follicle recruitment by using controlled ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophins. Failure to recruit adequate follicles is called 'poor response'. Various treatment protocols have been proposed that are targeted at this cohort of women, aiming to increase their ovarian response.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness of different treatment interventions in women who have poor response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (are poor responders) in the context of in vitro fertilisation.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials (MDSG), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2003, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to August 2006), EMBASE (1980 to August 2006) and The National Research Register (NRR). The citation lists of relevant publications, review articles, abstracts of scientific meetings and included studies were also searched. The authors were contacted to identify or clarify data that were unclear from the trial reports.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one type of intervention versus another for controlled ovarian stimulation of poor responders to a previous IVF treatment, using a standard long protocol were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently scanned the abstracts, identified relevant papers, assessed inclusion and trial quality and extracted relevant data. Validity was assessed in terms of method of randomisation, completeness of treatment cycle and co-intervention. Where possible, data were pooled for analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

Nine trials involving six different comparison groups have been included in this review. Only one trial reported live birth rates. Four groups compared the long protocol with another intervention. Only one comparison group (bromocryptine versus long protocol) reported a higher clinical pregnancy rate per cycle, in the bromocryptine arm (OR 5.60, 95% CI 1.40 to 22.47). Two comparison groups showed a lower number of oocytes in the long protocol group (versus stop and gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocols). However, two comparison groups also showed lower cancellation rates in the long protocol treatment group (versus stop and GnRHa flare-up protocols). None reported any evident difference in the adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support the routine use of any particular intervention either for pituitary downregulation, ovarian stimulation or adjuvant therapy in the management of poor responders to controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF. More robust data from good quality RCTs with relevant outcomes are needed.

A novel protocol of ovulation induction with delayed gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist administration combined with high-dose recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and clomiphene citrate for poor responders and women over 35 years

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of a novel protocol of ovulation induction for poor responders.

DESIGN

Prospective, controlled, clinical study.

SETTING

Research institute's reproductive unit.

PATIENT(S)

One hundred forty-five infertile women, aged 27-39 years, candidates for assisted reproductive techniques (ART).

INTERVENTION(S)

Before undergoing ART, 85 patients received clomiphene citrate, high-dose recombinant human FSH, and a delayed, multidose GnRH antagonist, whereas 60 patients underwent a standard long protocol.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Estradiol levels (pg/mL), cancellation rate, oocyte retrieval, embryo score, and fertilization and pregnancy rates.

RESULT(S)

Patients undergoing the study protocol obtained lower cancellation rates (4.7% vs. 34%) and higher E(2) levels (945.88 +/- 173.2 pg/mL vs. 169.55 +/- 45.07 pg/mL), oocyte retrieval (5.56 +/- 1.13 vs. 3.36 +/- 1.3), and pregnancy (22.2% vs. 15.3%) and implantation rates (13.5% vs. 7.6%) compared with those receiving the long protocol. Age negatively correlated with ovarian response in the latter, whereas the ovarian outcome results were comparable in younger (<35 yrs) and older (>35 yrs) women treated with the study protocol.

CONCLUSION(S)

The proposed protocol of ovulation induction can be usefully administered in poor responders as well as in aged woman, probably because the delayed administration of GnRH antagonist prevents its adverse effects on ovarian paracrine activity and on oocyte maturation.