Letrozole+ GnRH antagonist stimulation protocol in poor ovarian responders undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: An RCT

Letrozole cotreatment progestin-primed ovarian stimulation in women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization

AIM

To investigate the impact of letrozole cotreatment progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) (Le PPOS) in controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and the pregnancy outcomes in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included women who underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). A total of 2575 cycles were included (1675 in the Le PPOS group and 900 in the PPOS group). The primary outcome was the clinical pregnancy rates. The secondary outcome was the live birth rates.

RESULTS

In this study, propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to create a perfect match of 379 patients in each group. After matching, the numbers of oocytes retrieved, mature oocytes, fertilization, and clinical pregnancy rates were more favorable in the Le PPOS group than in the PPOS group (all p < 0.05). The multivariable analysis showed that the clinical pregnancy rate was higher in the Le PPOS than in the PPOS group (odds ratio = 1.46, 95% confidence interval: 1.05-2.04, p = 0.024) after adjusting for potentially confounding factors (age, anti-Müllerian hormone levels, antral follicular count, the type of embryo transferred, number of transferred embryos, body mass index, and follicular stimulating hormone and estradiol levels on starting day).

CONCLUSIONS

This retrospective study with a limited sample size suggests that the Le PPOS protocol might be an alternative to the PPOS protocol in women undergoing COS and could lead to better pregnancy outcomes. The results should be confirmed using a formal randomized controlled trial.

Impact of 2.5 mg versus 5 mg letrozole co-treatment in an antagonist protocol for IVF: a retrospective study

Objective

The present study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two different doses of letrozole (2.5 mg and 5 mg daily) in an antagonist protocol for infertile women with normal ovarian reserve.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included infertile women who underwent in vitro fertilization treatment with letrozole co-treatment at doses of 2.5 mg and 5 mg from 2007 - 2021 at Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital (Shanghai, China). The control group comprised infertile women who received gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist alone. The primary outcome was the cumulative live birth rate, while secondary outcomes included follicular phase endocrine parameters, ovarian stimulation outcomes, pregnancy outcomes, and the incidences of maternal and neonatal complications. Baseline and follow-up data were compared between the groups using ANOVA for normally distributed variables, the Kruskal-Wallis test for non-normally distributed variables, and the Chi-square test for categorical variables.

Results

A total of 422 participants were enrolled in the study, with 211 women in the antagonist group, 109 women in the 2.5 mg letrozole co-treatment group, and 102 women in the 5 mg letrozole co-treatment group. Letrozole co-treatment significantly suppressed oestradiol and follicle-stimulating hormone concentrations from stimulation day 5 and onwards, while increasing luteinizing hormone levels on stimulation day 5 and trigger day. The effect was more pronounced with a 5 mg dose of letrozole compared to a 2.5 mg dose (P < 0.05). Administration of 5 mg letrozole reduced the gonadotropin dose (P < 0.05) without negatively affecting the number of oocytes retrieved and subsequent embryo parameters (P > 0.05). The analysis of cumulative live birth rates showed rates of 29.4% in the letrozole 5 mg group, 27.5% in the letrozole 2.5 mg group, and 33.6% in the control group, with no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). There were no reported pregnancy complications in the two letrozole groups. Additionally, there were no significant differences among the three groups in terms of gestational age and birth weight for both singleton and twin births.

Conclusion

This study indicates that the administration of letrozole in an antagonist protocol, at both 2.5 mg and 5 mg dosages, results in comparable clinical outcomes.

Effects of using letrozole in combination with the GnRH antagonist protocol for patients with poor ovarian response: A meta-analysis

This meta-analysis aimed to compare the outcomes of the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist/letrozole protocol with those of the conventional GnRH antagonist protocol for poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI). We searched for relevant articles in PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and retrieved 452 records. Eventually, we selected five eligible trials with data for 564 patients characterized as poor ovarian responders. Our meta-analysis revealed that the clinical pregnancy rate (per cycle) with administration of letrozole might be a higher than that in the control groups (risk rate [RR]: 1.57, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.00-2.44, p = 0.05). .Moreover,it indicated that the total dose of gonadotrophin was significantly decreased with the administration of letrozole compared to control groups(mean difference [MD]: -529.37, 95% CI: -1207.45 to -111.25, p = 0.001),.However, there was no statistical difference in the number of retrieved oocytes(MD: 0.59, 95% CI: -0.36-1.54, p = 0.22), cycle cancelation rate (RR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.58-1.12, p = 0.20), or estradiol concentration on the day of HCG administration(MD: -28.19, 95% CI: -77.71-21.33, p = 0.26) in the presence or absence of letrozole combination in the GnRH antagonist protocol. In conclusion, letrozole administration might improve clinical pregnancy rate in conventional GnRH antagonist protocol for poor responders. Moreover, letrozole co-treatment aslo can reduce the economic burden of poor responders during the GnRH antagonist cycle. Nevertheless, large-scale and multi-center randomized controlled trials are needed to further evaluate the efficacy of adjunctive letrozole administration in the GnRH antagonist protocol.

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.

The Frequency of Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome and Thromboembolism with Originator Recombinant Human Follitropin Alfa (GONAL-f) for Medically Assisted Reproduction: A Systematic Review

Background

Recombinant human follitropin alfa (r-hFSH) is used for ovarian stimulation as part of medically assisted reproduction. There is a risk for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) with r-hFSH treatment, and an increased risk for thromboembolic events in the presence of pregnancy with OHSS.

Objectives

To report the frequency of OHSS and thromboembolism with originator follitropin alfa (GONAL-f) based on the Global Safety Database of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany and a systematic review of published data.

Data Sources

Reports of OHSS and thromboembolism were obtained from the Global Safety Database of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany from 20 October 1995 to 19 October 2018. The systematic review was based on MEDLINE and Embase searches from inception to 19 October 2018.

Study Eligibility Criteria

Patients receiving GONAL-f for ovulation induction or ART, with a starting dose within the range included in the prescribing information and providing information on the occurrence of OHSS and/or thromboembolism.

Study Appraisal and Synthesis Matches

In the Global Safety Database of Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany there were an estimated 16,525,975 treatment cycles since 20 October 1995; 1110 reported cases of OHSS and 80 reported cases of thromboembolic events (reporting rates 6.7 and 0.48 per 100,000 treatment cycles, respectively). The systematic review identified 45 studies (5186 patients exposed to GONAL-f; 5240 treatment cycles). There were 272 reports of OHSS (5190 [5.19%] per 100,000 treatment cycles), including 10 cases of severe OHSS (191 [0.19%] per 100,000 treatment cycles).

Limitations

There may be the potential for under-reporting of safety outcomes in the literature, and under-reporting is a well-known phenomenon in spontaneous reporting databases.

Conclusion and Implications of Key Findings

Our analyses demonstrate low rates of OHSS and thromboembolism with GONAL-f.

Electronic Supplementary Material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-020-01512-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Adjuvant treatment strategies in ovarian stimulation for poor responders undergoing IVF: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Despite great advances in assisted reproductive technology, poor ovarian response (POR) is still considered as one of the most challenging tasks in reproductive medicine.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

The aim of this systemic review is to evaluate the role of different adjuvant treatment strategies on the probability of pregnancy achievement in poor responders undergoing IVF. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing 10 adjuvant treatments [testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), letrozole, recombinant LH, recombinant hCG, oestradiol, clomiphene citrate, progesterone, growth hormone (GH) and coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10)] were included.

SEARCH METHODS

Relevant studies published in the English language were comprehensively selected using PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) until 11 July 2018. We included studies that investigated various adjuvant agents, including androgen and androgen-modulating agents, oestrogen, progesterone, clomiphene citrate, GH and CoQ10, during IVF treatment and reported subsequent pregnancy outcomes. The administration of GnRH analogs and gonadotrophins without adjuvant treatment was set as the control. We measured study quality based on the methodology and categories listed in the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook. This review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018086217).

OUTCOMES

Of the 1124 studies initially identified, 46 trials reporting on 6312 women were included in this systematic review, while 19 trials defining POR using the Bologna criteria reporting 2677 women were included in the network meta-analysis. Compared with controls, DHEA and CoQ10 treatments resulted in a significantly higher chance of clinical pregnancy [odds ratio (OR) 2.46, 95% CI 1.16 to 5.23; 2.22, 1.08-4.58, respectively]. With regard to the number of retrieved oocytes, HCG, oestradiol and GH treatments had the highest number of oocytes retrieved [weighted mean difference (WMD) 2.08, 0.72 to 3.44; 2.02, 0.23 to 3.81; 1.72, 0.98 to 2.46, compared with controls, respectively]. With regard to the number of embryos transferred, testosterone and GH treatment led to the highest number of embryos transferred (WMD 0.72, 0.11 to 1.33; 0.67, 0.43 to 0.92; compared with controls, respectively). Moreover, GH resulted in the highest oestradiol level on the HCG day (WMD 797.63, 466.45 to 1128.81, compared with controls). Clomiphene citrate, letrozole and GH groups used the lowest dosages of gonadotrophins for ovarian stimulation (WMD 1760.00, -2890.55 to -629.45; -1110.17, -1753.37 to -466.96; -875.91, -1433.29 to -282.52; compared with controls, respectively). CoQ10 led to the lowest global cancelation rate (OR 0.33, 0.15 to 0.74, compared with controls).

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

For patients with POR, controlled ovarian stimulation protocols using adjuvant treatment with DHEA, CoQ10 and GH showed better clinical outcomes in terms of achieving pregnancy, and a lower dosage of gonadotrophin required for ovulation induction. Furthermore, high-level RCT studies using uniform standards for POR need to be incorporated into future meta-analyses.

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.

Does daily co administration of gonadotropins and letrozole during the ovarian stimulation improve IVF outcome for poor and sub optimal responders?

Background

Co-administration of letrozole during the first 5 days of ovarian stimulation was suggested to improve IVF outcomes in poor responders. We aimed to determine whether poor/sub-optimal responders might benefit from Letrozole co-treatment throughout the entire stimulation course.

Methods

We retrospectively reviewed the medical files of women who demonstrated poor (oocyte yield ≤3) and sub-optimal (4 ≤ oocyte yield ≤9) ovarian response during conventional multiple-dose antagonist stimulation protocols and were co-treated in a subsequent cycle with 5 mg Letrozole from the first day of stimulation until trigger day. A self-paired comparison between gonadotropins-only and gonadotropins-letrozole cycles was performed.

Results

Twenty-four patients were included. Mean patients’ age was 39.83 ± 4.60 and mean day-3-FSH was 12.77 ± 4.49 IU/m. Duration of stimulation and total gonadotropins dose were comparable between the two cycle groups. Peak estradiol levels were significantly lower in gonadotropins-letrozole cycles (2786.74 ± 2118.53 vs 1200.13 ± 535.98, p < 0.05). Number of retrieved oocytes (3.29 ± 2.15 vs 6.46 ± 3.20, p < 0.05), MII-oocytes (2.47 ± 1.65 vs 5.59 ± 3.20, p < 0.05), 2PN-embryos (1.78 ± 1.50, 4.04 ± 2.74, p < 0.05) and top-quality embryos (0.91 ± 0.97 vs. 2.35 ± 1.66, p < 0.05) were significantly higher in the gonadotropins-letrozole cycles. Clinical pregnancy rate in gonadotropins-letrozole cycles was 31.5%.

Conclusion

Letrozole co-treatment during the entire stimulation course improves ovarian response and IVF outcomes in poor/sub-optimal responders.

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 INTERESTS

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 at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.) †ESHRE Pages content is not externally peer reviewed. The manuscript has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

Outcomes of poor responders following growth hormone co-treatment with IVF/ICSI mild stimulation protocol: a retrospective cohort study

PURPOSE

No research has studied the effect of GH co-treatment in mild stimulation protocol for poor responders. We therefore conducted this retrospective analysis to assess the outcome of IVF/ICSI cycles after the adjunct GH use to the mild stimulation protocol in poor responders.

METHODS

132 poor responders who received mild stimulation protocol at Reproductive Medicine Center of Changzheng Hospital from January 2014 to December 2016 were included in this study. Good-quality embryo rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and live birth rate were compared between the GH group (n = 61) and control group (n = 71).

RESULTS

IVF good-quality embryo rate (68.1 versus 51.5%; P = 0.008*) and ICSI good-quality embryo rate (53.9 versus 36.7%; P = 0.045*) was significantly higher in the GH group. Though the clinical outcomes did not reach a statistically significant difference between the two groups due to the limited sample size, there was a trend of higher rate in GH group in the aspect of clinical pregnancy rate (52.4 versus 47.1%; P = 0.609) and live birth rate (35.7 versus 27.5%; P = 0.392).

CONCLUSION

The results suggested that the adjuvant GH treatment in mild stimulation protocol for poor responders could significantly improve good-quality embryo rate, and might therefore improve the clinical outcomes.