The stimulation protocol in poor responder IVF; a minimal or high-dose stimulation? - A meta-analysis

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.

The Conundrum of Poor Ovarian Response: From Diagnosis to Treatment

Despite recent striking advances in assisted reproductive technology (ART), poor ovarian response (POR) diagnosis and treatment is still considered challenging. Poor responders constitute a heterogeneous cohort with the common denominator of under-responding to controlled ovarian stimulation. Inevitably, respective success rates are significantly compromised. As POR pathophysiology entails the elusive factor of compromised ovarian function, both diagnosis and management fuel an ongoing heated debate depicted in the literature. From the criteria employed for diagnosis to the plethora of strategies and adjuvant therapies proposed, the conundrum of POR still puzzles the practitioner. What is more, novel treatment approaches from stem cell therapy and platelet-rich plasma intra-ovarian infusion to mitochondrial replacement therapy have emerged, albeit not claiming clinical routine status yet. The complex and time sensitive nature of this subgroup of infertile patients indicates the demand for a consensus on a horizontally accepted definition, diagnosis and subsequent effective treating strategy. This critical review analyzes the standing criteria employed in order to diagnose and aptly categorize POR patients, while it proceeds to critically evaluate current and novel strategies regarding their management. Discrepancies in diagnosis and respective implications are discussed, while the existing diversity in management options highlights the need for individualized management.

Cumulative Live Birth Rate and Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone-Antagonist Protocol and Multiple Minimal Ovarian Stimulation in Poor Responders

BACKGROUND

The overall cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) of poor ovarian responders (POR) is extremely low. Minimal ovarian stimulation (MOS) provides a relatively realistic solution for ovarian stimulation in POR. Our study aimed to investigate whether multiple MOS strategies resulted in higher CLBR compared to conventional gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists in POR.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 699 patients (1,058 cycles) from one center, who fulfilled the Bologna criteria between 2010 and 2018. Overall, 325 women (325 cycles) were treated with one-time conventional GnRH antagonist ovarian stimulation (GnRH-antagonist). Another 374 patients (733 cycles) were treated with multiple MOS including natural cycles. CLBR and time-and-cost-benefit analyses were compared between these two groups of women.

RESULTS

GnRH antagonists provided more retrieved oocytes, meiosis II oocytes, fertilized oocytes, and more viable embryos compared to both the first MOS (p < 0.001) and the cumulative corresponding numbers in multiple MOSs (p < 0.001). For the first in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle, GnRH antagonists resulted in higher CLBR than MOS [12.92 versus 4.54%, adjusted OR (odds ratio) 2.606; 95% CI (confidence interval) 1.386, 4.899, p = 0.003]. The one-time GnRH-antagonist induced comparable CLBR (12.92 versus 7.92%, adjusted OR 1.702; 95% CI 0.971, 2.982, p = 0.063), but a shorter time to live birth [9 (8, 10.75) months versus 11 (9, 14) months, p = 0.014] and similar financial expenditure compared to repeated MOS [20,838 (17,953, 23,422) ¥ versus 21,261.5 (15,892.5, 35,140.25) ¥, p = 0.13].

CONCLUSION

Both minimal ovarian stimulation (MOS) and GnRH-antagonists provide low chances of live birth in poor responders. The GnRH antagonist protocol is considered a suitable choice for PORs with comparable CLBR, shorter times to live birth, and similar financial expenditure compared to repeated MOS.