The effect of ovarian injection of autologous platelet rich plasma in patients with poor ovarian responder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

To evaluate the effects of ovarian injection of autologous platelet rich plasma (aPRP) on patients with poor ovarian responder (POR) based on the existing clinical evidence.

Methods

According to systematic review and meta-analysis, we comprehensively searched nine databases established as of September 6, 2023, and evaluated the impact of ovarian PRP infusion on poor ovarian responder. The research results include serum follicle-stimulating hormone(FSH) and anti-Mullerian hormone(AMH) levels, antral Follicle Count(AFC), oocyte number, and embryo number. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) was used to evaluate the quality of inclusion in trials.

Results

Add up to 10 studies consisting of 793 participants were included in the meta-analysis. A review of existing evidence showed that intraovarian injection of PRP has significant therapeutic effects in increasing levels of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) (SMD=0.44,95% CI [0.07,0.81], p=0.02), antral follicle count (AFC) (MD=1.15,95% CI [0.4,1.90], p=0.003), oocyte count (MD=0.91, 95% CI [0.40, 1.41], p=0.0004), and embryo number (MD=0.78, 95% CI [0.5,1.07], p<0.0001). We compared the relevant data of patients before and after treatment after 2 months of intervention. It can be seen that ovarian injection of PRP treatment for 2 months has better effects in reducing FSH levels, increasing AMH levels, increasing antral follicle count, and increasing the number of oocytes and embryos (p<0.05). When the dose of PRP injected into each ovary was ≥ 4ml, there was also a significant correlation (p<0.05) with improving the number of AFC, oocytes and embryos. Significant heterogeneity existed among the studies.

Conclusion

The pooled results suggest that intra-ovarian injection of PRP can promote ovarian regeneration and improve the reproductive outcomes of patients with ovarian dysfunction. This therapy may have significant clinical potential in improving sex hormone levels, increasing AFC, oocyte count, and embryo count. However, this findings still requires more rigorous and extensive trials worldwide to determine the value of intra-ovarian injection of PRP in POR patients.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk, Identifier CRD42023451232.

The BISTIM study: a randomized controlled trial comparing dual ovarian stimulation (duostim) with two conventional ovarian stimulations in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF

STUDY QUESTION

Is the total number of oocytes retrieved with dual ovarian stimulation in the same cycle (duostim) higher than with two consecutive antagonist cycles in poor responders?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Based on the number of total and mature oocytes retrieved in women with poor ovarian response (POR), there is no benefit of duostim versus two consecutive antagonist cycles.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Recent studies have shown the ability to obtain oocytes with equivalent quality from the follicular and the luteal phase, and a higher number of oocytes within one cycle when using duostim. If during follicular stimulation smaller follicles are sensitized and recruited, this may increase the number of follicles selected in the consecutive luteal phase stimulation, as shown in non-randomized controlled trials (RCT). This could be particularly relevant for women with POR.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This is a multicentre, open-labelled RCT, performed in four IVF centres from September 2018 to March 2021. The primary outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved over the two cycles. The primary objective was to demonstrate in women with POR that two ovarian stimulations within the same cycle (first in the follicular phase, followed by a second in the luteal phase) led to the retrieval of 1.5 (2) more oocytes than the cumulative number of oocytes from two consecutive conventional stimulations with an antagonist protocol. In a superiority hypothesis, with power 0.8 alpha-risk 0.05 and a 35% cancellation rate, 44 patients were needed in each group. Patients were randomized by computer allocation.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Eighty-eight women with POR, defined using adjusted Bologna criteria (antral follicle count ≤5 and/or anti-Müllerian hormone ≤1.2 ng/ml) were randomized, 44 in the duostim group and 44 in the conventional (control) group. HMG 300 IU/day with flexible antagonist protocol was used for ovarian stimulation, except in luteal phase stimulation of the duostim group. In the duostim group, oocytes were pooled and inseminated after the second retrieval, with a freeze-all protocol. Fresh transfers were performed in the control group, frozen embryo transfers were performed in both control and duostim groups in natural cycles. Data underwent intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

There was no difference between the groups regarding demographics, ovarian reserve markers, and stimulation parameters. The mean (SD) cumulative number of oocytes retrieved from two ovarian stimulations was not statistically different between the control and duostim groups, respectively, 4.6 (3.4) and 5.0 (3.4) [mean difference (MD) [95% CI] +0.4 [-1.1; 1.9], P = 0.56]. The mean cumulative numbersof mature oocytes and total embryos obtained were not significantly different between groups. The total number of embryos transferred by patient was significantly higher in the control group 1.5 (1.1) versus the duostim group 0.9 (1.1) (P = 0.03). After two cumulative cycles, 78% of women in the control group and 53.8% in the duostim group had at least one embryo transfer (P = 0.02). There was no statistical difference in the mean number of total and mature oocytes retrieved per cycle comparing Cycle 1 versus Cycle 2, both in control and duostim groups. The time to the second oocyte retrieval was significantly longer in controls, at 2.8 (1.3) months compared to 0.3 (0.5) months in the duostim group (P < 0.001). The implantation rate was similar between groups. The cumulative live birth rate was not statistically different, comparing controls versus the duostim group, 34.1% versus 17.9%, respectively (P = 0.08). The time to transfer resulting in an ongoing pregnancy did not differ in controls 1.7 (1.5) months versus the duostim group, 3.0 (1.6) (P = 0.08). No serious adverse events were reported.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The RCT was impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and the halt in IVF activities for 10 weeks. Delays were recalculated to exclude this period; however, one woman in the duostim group could not have the luteal stimulation. We also faced unexpected good ovarian responses and pregnancies after the first oocyte retrieval in both groups, with a higher incidence in the control group. However, our hypothesis was based on 1.5 more oocytes in the luteal than the follicular phase in the duostim group, and the number of patients to treat was reached in this group (N = 28). This study was only powered for cumulative number of oocytes retrieved.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This is the first RCT comparing the outcome of two consecutive cycles, either in the same menstrual cycle or in two consecutive menstrual cycles. In routine practice, the benefit of duostim in patients with POR regarding fresh embryo transfer is not confirmed in this RCT: first, because this study demonstrates no improvement in the number of oocytes retrieved in the luteal phase after follicular phase stimulation, in contrast to previous non-randomized studies, and second, because the freeze-all strategy avoids a pregnancy with fresh embryo transfer after the first cycle. However, duostim appears to be safe for women. In duostim, the two consecutive processes of freezing/thawing are mandatory and increase the risk of wastage of oocytes/embryos. The only benefit of duostim is to shorten the time to a second retrieval by 2 weeks if accumulation of oocytes/embryos is needed.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

This is an investigator-initiated study supported by a research Grant from IBSA Pharma. N.M. declares grants paid to their institution from MSD (Organon France); consulting fees from MSD (Organon France), Ferring, and Merck KGaA; honoraria from Merck KGaA, General Electrics, Genevrier (IBSA Pharma), and Theramex; support for travel and meetings from Theramex, Merck KGaG, and Gedeon Richter; and equipment paid to their institution from Goodlife Pharma. I.A. declares honoraria from GISKIT and support for travel and meetings from GISKIT. G.P.-B. declares Consulting fees from Ferring and Merck KGaA; honoraria from Theramex, Gedeon Richter, and Ferring; payment for expert testimony from Ferring, Merck KGaA, and Gedeon Richter; and support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. N.C. declares grants from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaA, Ferring, and Gedeon Richter; support for travel and meetings from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaG, MSD (Organon France), Gedeon Richter, and Theramex; and participation on advisory board from Merck KGaA. E.D. declares support for travel and meetings from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaG, MSD (Organon France), Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Theramex, and General Electrics. C.P.-V. declares support for travel and meetings from IBSA Pharma, Merck KGaA, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, and Theramex. M.Pi. declares support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Gedeon Richetr, and Merck KGaA. M.Pa. declares honoraria from Merck KGaA, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter; support for travel and meetings from Merck KGaA, IBSA Pharma, Theramex, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, and MSD (Organon France). H.B.-G. declares honoraria from Merck KGaA, and Gedeon Richter and support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Merck KGaA, IBSA Pharma, MSD (Organon France), Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. S.G. and M.B. have nothing to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Registration number EudraCT: 2017-003223-30. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03803228.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

EudraCT: 28 July 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov: 14 January 2019.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

3 September 2018.

Comparison of cumulative live birth rates between progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol and gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in different populations

Objective

To compare cumulative live birth rate (LBR) between progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) and GnRH antagonist protocols of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) cycles in different populations.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study. A total of 865 patients were enrolled and separate analyses were performed for three populations: 498 patients with predicted normal ovarian response (NOR), 285 patients with PCOS, and 82 patients with predicted poor ovarian response (POR). The primary outcome was cumulative LBR for one oocyte retrieval cycle. The results of response to ovarian stimulation were also investigated, including numbers of oocytes retrieved, MII oocytes, 2PN, blastocysts, good-quality blastocysts, and usable blastocysts after biopsy, as well as rates of oocyte yield, blastocyst formation, good-quality blastocysts, and moderate or severe OHSS. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify potential confounders that may be independently associated with cumulative live birth.

Results

In NOR, the cumulative LBR of PPOS protocol was significantly lower than that of GnRH antagonists (28.4% vs. 40.7%; P=0.004). In multivariable analysis, the PPOS protocol was negatively associated with cumulative LBR (adjusted OR=0.556; 95% CI, 0.377-0.822) compared to GnRH antagonists after adjusting for potential confounders. The number and ratio of good-quality blastocysts were significantly reduced in PPOS protocol compared to GnRH antagonists (2.82 ± 2.83 vs. 3.20 ± 2.79; P=0.032 and 63.9% vs. 68.5%; P=0.021), while numbers of oocytes, MII oocytes and 2PN did not show any significant difference between GnRH antagonist and PPOS protocols. PCOS patients had similar outcomes as NOR. The cumulative LBR of PPOS group appeared to be lower than that of GnRH antagonists (37.4% vs. 46.1%; P=0.151), but not significantly. Meanwhile, the proportion of good-quality blastocysts in PPOS protocol was also lower compared to GnRH antagonists (63.5% vs. 68.9%; P=0.014). In patients with POR, the cumulative LBR of PPOS protocol was comparable to that of GnRH antagonists (19.2% vs. 16.7%; P=0.772). There was no statistical difference in the number and rate of good-quality blastocysts between the two protocols in POR, while the proportion of good-quality blastocysts appeared to be higher in PPOS group compared to GnRH antagonists (66.7% vs. 56.3%; P=0.182). In addition, the number of usable blastocysts after biopsy was comparable between the two protocols in three populations.

Conclusion

The cumulative LBR of PPOS protocol in PGT cycles is lower than that of GnRH antagonists in NOR. In patients with PCOS, the cumulative LBR of PPOS protocol appears to be lower than that of GnRH antagonists, albeit lacking statistical difference, whereas in patients with diminished ovarian reserve, the two protocols were comparable. Our findings suggest the need for caution when choosing PPOS protocol to achieve live births, especially for normal and high ovarian responders.

Dual trigger with the combination of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist and standard dose of human chorionic gonadotropin improves in vitro fertilisation outcomes in poor ovarian responders

The study aimed to evaluate the impact of the dual trigger with the combination of GnRH agonist and standard dose of recombinant hCG on IVF outcomes in poor ovarian responders with GnRH antagonist protocol. 1283 cycles of 1010 poor responder patients according to Bologna criteria were retrospectively analysed in terms of final oocyte maturation: dual trigger group (250 μg hCG + 0.2 mg triptorelin) or standard group (250 μg hCG). Primary outcome measures were the number of retrieved and mature oocytes. The secondary outcome measures were clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates.The number of retrieved oocytes, mature oocytes, and the top-quality embryos transferred were significantly higher in the dual trigger group (p < .001). Fertilisation rates (73.6% vs 69.6%, p = .009), implantation rates (18.7% vs 14.6, p = .039), clinical pregnancy rate per embryo transfer (27.5% vs. 19.9%, p = .010) and live birth rate per embryo transfer (21.6% vs. 14.9%, p = .011) were also significantly higher in the dual trigger group as compared to the hCG trigger group. The usage of dual trigger with a GnRH agonist and a standard dosage of hCG could improve clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates in poor ovarian responders undergoing GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI cycles.IMPACT STATEMENTWhat is already known on this subject? Dual trigger with standard dose of hCG has been the subject of trials in normal responders to optimise IVF outcomes. The results of these studies showed significant improvements in implantation and pregnancy rates with an increase in the number of mature oocytes retrieved. As a result, dual trigger has become a popular ovulation trigger option in GnRH antagonist cycles.What do the results of this study add? There is limited data about the use of dual trigger in poor ovarian responders (PORs). According to our study, increasing the number of retrieved oocytes, mature oocytes, the number of fertilised oocytes, the number of transferred embryos and top quality embryos transferred by using dual trigger in patients with PORs have a positive impact on pregnancy outcomes.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? These findings implies potential advantages of dual trigger usage for improving IVF outcomes in PORs. With large sample sized prospective randomised trials, dual trigger with combination of GnRHa and a standard dose of hCG might replace the traditional ovulation trigger with hCG in PORs.

Type and dose of gonadotropins in poor ovarian responders: does it matter?

Infertile patients with a diminished ovarian reserve, also referred to as poor ovarian responders, constitute a substantial and increasing population of patients undergoing in vitro fertilization. The management of patients with poor ovarian response is still a controversial issue. Almost a century has passed since the introduction of the first gonadotropin. A broad collection of urinary and recombinant gonadotropins, including biosimilars, is commercially available now. Despite great advances in assisted reproductive technology, there remains uncertainty about the optimal treatment regimen for ovarian stimulation in poor ovarian responders. Although oocyte donation is the most successful and ultimate remedy for poor ovarian responders, most patients persist on using their own oocytes in several attempts, to achieve the desired pregnancy. The aim of this review is twofold: first, to provide an overview of the commercially available gonadotropins and summarize the available evidence supporting the use of one or another for ovarian stimulation in poor ovarian responders, and second, to address the controversies on the dosage of gonadotropins for this specific in vitro fertilization population.

Comparison of Dydrogesterone and Medroxyprogesterone in the Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol for Patients With Poor Ovarian Response

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical outcomes of dydrogesterone (DYG) and medroxyprogesterone (MPA) in the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol for patients with poor ovarian response (POR).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study. Women with POR who underwent IVF/ICSI at the Reproductive Center of Third Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University between January 2020 and January 2021 were included. The primary outcome measure of our study was the number of oocytes retrieved. The secondary outcome measures in the present study were the number of 2PN, number of available embryos, oocyte retrieval rate, fertilization rate, viable embryo rate per oocyte retrieved, cancellation rate and pregnancy outcomes of the first embryo transfer cycle, including the biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy and miscarriage rates.

RESULTS

In total, 118 women underwent hMG +DYG protocols, and 692 women who underwent hMG +MPA met the Bologna criteria for POR. After baseline characteristics were balanced using the PSM model, 118 hMG +DYG protocols were matched to 118 hMG +MPA protocols, and the baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The numbers of oocytes retrieved, 2PN, and available embryos and the oocyte retrieval rate, fertilization rate, viable embryo rate per oocyte retrieved and cancellation rate of the hMG+DYG and hMG+MPA protocols were comparable. Altogether, 66 women in the hMG+DYG group and 87 women in the hMG+MPA group underwent first embryo transfers. In the hMG+DYG group, 81.8% (54/66) of the patients underwent cleavage embryo transfers; similarly, 79.3% (69/87) of patients in the hMG+MPA group had cleavage embryo transfers (P=0.70).The biochemical pregnancy rate of the hMG+DYG group was 42.4%, and this was comparable to the rate in the hMG+DYG group, at 34.5% (P=0.32). The clinical pregnancy rates were similar between the two groups (36.4% vs. 31.0%, P=0.49), and there was no significant difference in the rate of miscarriage between the two groups (12.5% vs. 29.6%, P=0.14).

CONCLUSION

For women with POR, the clinical outcome of the hMG + DYG group was similar to that of the hMG + MPA group, indicating that both combinations can be useful options for PPOS protocols.

Growth Hormone Supplementation May Not Improve Live Birth Rate in Poor Responders

Backgrounds: Growth hormone (GH) was used for many years to increase ovarian response in poor ovarian responders (PORs). Although meta-analysis suggested that GH therapy improve early clinical outcomes, the benefit of GH usage on chance of live birth was still widely debated. This study was to determine whether or not GH supplementation influences the live birth rate (LBR). Methods: A total of 3,080 expected PORs receiving and not receiving (control) GH adjuvant therapy at Peking University Third Hospital from January 2017 to March 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. The basal characteristics of patients were compared using analysis of variance (continuous variables) and categorical variables were evaluated with a chi-square test. Logistic regression analyses were used to evaluate potential associations of LBR with GH treatment while adjusting other confounding factors. Results: No statistically significant differences existed in miscarriage rate (5.3 vs. 12.5%; p = 0.076) and LBR (37.7 vs. 34.5%; p = 0.426) in young expected PORs (< 35 years of age). Moreover, no significant differences existed in the miscarriage rate (25.6 vs. 23.3%; p = 0.681), and LBR (17.8 vs. 17.9%; p = 0.977) in the old expected PORs (≥35 years of age). Logistic regression suggested that GH adjuvant therapy did not improve the LBR in young (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 0.88-1.85; p = 0.203) and elderly expected PORs (OR, 1.20; 95% CI, 0.82-1.76; p = 0.342), while GH was not associated with risk of miscarriage in young (OR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.11-1.24; p = 0.108) and elderly expected PORs (OR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.43-1.93; p = 0.813). In subgroup analysis, GH treatment significantly increased the day 3 embryos available rate in the subgroup of young PORs with the long down-regulation (63.11 vs. 49.35%; p = 0.004), while significantly reduced the risk of miscarriage in the subgroup of young PORs with GnRH antagonist protocol (0.00 vs. 12. %; p = 0.023). There was no significant difference for LBR in PORs with GnRH antagonist (<35 years [35.19 vs. 28.45%; p = 0.183]; ≥35 years [12.96 vs. 14.03%; p = 0.707]), GnRH-a long (<35 years [33.33 vs. 36.99%; p = 0.597]; ≥35 years [17.44 vs. 20.28%; p = 0.574]) and long down-regulation (<35 years [58.82 vs. 41.90%; p = 0.193]; ≥35 years [43.33 vs. 25.30%; p = 0.065]). Conclusions: Growth hormone treatment may not improve live birth rate in expected poor responders.

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

Background To determine whether a minimal stimulation (MS) or high-dose stimulation (HDS) protocol is a better option for patients classified as poor ovarian responders (POR) in terms of reproductive and pregnancy outcomes. Materials and methods A database search for evaluation of the study outcome by using meta-analysis method was carried out. The primary outcome was the clinical pregnancy (CP) rate for each of two groups, namely, the MS and HDS groups. The secondary outcomes were the gonadotropin dose used, duration of stimulation, cancellation rate, number of oocytes retrieved, number of fertilized oocytes, number of embryos transferred and live birth rates. Results Across five databases, 4670 potential studies for further screening were selected. But ultimately only six studies, three RCTs and three retrospective or case control studies were selected that meet the Bologna criteria for POR. In all there were 624 cycles. Our meta-analysis indicated that the CP rates, cycle cancellation rates, durations of stimulation, numbers of oocytes fertilized and numbers of embryos transferred were not statistically significant. Clearly, the number of oocytes retrieved in the MS group was significantly lower than in the HDS group, while the HDS group consumed significantly higher doses of gonadotropins than the MS group. The live birth rates were significantly higher in the MS group than in the HDS group. Conclusion MS should be the first-line protocol for managing POR because the live birth rate is significantly higher, even with fewer oocytes retrieved.

The impact of dehydroepiandrosterone in poor ovarian responders on assisted reproduction technology treatment

One in six couples worldwide will experience at least one infertility problem during their reproductive years. Between 5.6% and 35.1% of women will exhibit poor ovarian response. A variety of methods have been applied to improve ovarian response, including dehydroepiandrosterone. In the ovaries, dehydroepiandrosterone promotes follicular development and granulosa cell proliferation by increasing intraovarian androgen concentrations while simultaneously enhancing the level of follicular insulin-like growth factor-1, which promotes folliculogenesis. Dehydroepiandrosterone supplementation may improve in vitro fertilization outcomes and ovarian response in patients with poor ovarian response. However, a few questions still loom over the effectiveness of dehydroepiandrosterone.

Six-week pretreatment with growth hormone improves clinical outcomes of poor ovarian responders undergoing in vitro fertilization treatment: A self-controlled clinical study

AIM

The purpose was to explore whether the 6 weeks of growth hormone (GH) pretreatment could increase the live birth rate of poor ovarian responders (POR).

METHODS

This self-controlled, retrospective study was performed among 380 POR who had GH adjuvant (GH+) at a university-affiliated hospital in Guangzhou, China, from October 2010 to April 2016. Growth hormone was injected daily beginning with the previous menstruation and maintained until ovum pickup, for approximately 6 weeks. Clinical variables between the GH+ cycle and the other GH-free (GH-) cycle of each patient were compared. Both cycles were conducted with a similar conventional control ovarian hyperstimulation protocol for in vitro fertilization treatment. One to one case-control matching was performed to adjust essential confounding factors between GH+ cycles and GH- cycles.

RESULTS

GH pretreatment improved embryo quality (1.14 ± 1.50 vs 0.11 ± 0.48, P < 0.05) and decreased miscarriage (18.8% vs 80.0%, P < 0.05) significantly, resulting in an increase in the live birth rate (23.5% vs 3.9%, P < 0.05). The oocyte utilization rate in GH+ cycles was remarkably improved, even with older patients and more failed previous attempts. Significant improvement in embryo quality was shown by an increased number of good-quality embryos and improved oocyte utilization rate after matching.

CONCLUSIONS

The longer term use of low-dose GH administration for 6 weeks could be beneficial for the utilization of oocytes and for finally increasing the live birth rates of POR.

Endometriosis has no negative impact on outcomes of in vitro fertilisation in women with poor ovarian response

OBJECTIVE

To compare the in vitro fertilisation (IVF) outcomes of poor ovarian responders among women with laparoscopically diagnosed minimal-mild endometriosis (Group A), moderate-severe endometriosis (Group B) and those without endometriosis (Group C). The comparisons were made separately for age groups younger than 35 years and 35 years or older.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

A university-affiliated hospital in Guangzhou, China.

POPULATION

495 women younger than 35 years old and 543 women aged 35 or older who had poor ovarian response with or without laparoscopically diagnosed endometriosis.

METHODS

Poor ovarian response (POR) was diagnosed using the Bologna criteria. First cycle parameters were analysed over the same period of time from January 2011 to October 2014.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary endpoint was the live birth rate per embryo transfer cycle. Secondary outcome measures were clinical pregnancy rate, cycle cancellation rate and miscarriage rate.

RESULTS

In women aged 35 or older no differences were found among the three subgroups in terms of live birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate, cycle cancellation rate or miscarriage rate; in women aged younger than 35 years, the clinical pregnancy rates were 62.96, 45.45 and 43.27% for Groups A, B and C, respectively (P = 0.028). The live birth rate, cycle cancellation rate and miscarriage rate were not significantly different. Compared with the older group of women, the younger women had a significantly higher live birth rate (P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

A woman's age is the most important factor governing the live birth rate with IVF. Endometriosis has no consistent impact on IVF outcomes in women with POR.

TWEETABLE ABSTRACT

Endometriosis has no negative impact on IVF outcomes in women with poor ovarian response.

A randomized, open phase IV exploratory clinical trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture on the outcome of induction of ovulation in women with poor ovarian response: A study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Women with infertility who have a poor ovarian responder (POR), characterized by a low number of retrieved oocytes after ovulation induction, often have a significantly reduced pregnancy rate after in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET), due to the few transferred embryos. Acupuncture is a form of Korean Traditional Medicine. It involves the insertion of a microscopic needle at a specific point in the body, known as an acupuncture point or an acupoint. In this study, our purpose is to investigate how acupuncture affects the retrieval of mature oocytes after ovulation induction in patients with POR.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study will be a randomized clinical trial comprising an IVF-ET trial and an IVF-ET trial after acupuncture. Seventy patients will by enrolled and randomly assigned to either of the 2 groups. The study subjects will be required to be diagnosed as having POR. Participants will be divided into 2 groups: IVF-ET single treatment group, and acupuncture and IVF-ET combined treatment group. The study subjects will be required to participate in a 15-week trial involving 16 acupuncture treatments over a period of approximately 2 months before ovulation induction for oocyte retrieval. The primary assessment of all participants will be comparing the number of oocytes.

RESULT

This treatment will be a therapeutic model for POR.

DISCUSSION

Our results will provide patients with POR as well as complementary and alternative medicine professionals, such as Korean medicine doctors, about the potential role of acupuncture in the treatment of POR. This will improve the quality of life in women with infertility and provide an important treatment option for patients with POR. Further studies can be performed to determine the optimal treatment for POR.

Protection of cumulus cells following dehydroepiandrosterone supplementation

BACKGROUND

Growing studies have demonstrated that dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) may improve fertility outcomes in poor ovarian responders (PORs). The aim of this study was to compare clinical outcomes and cumulus cell (CC) expression before and after DHEA treatment in PORs undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles.

METHODS

Six patients with poor ovarian response were enrolled in the study according to Bologna criteria. DHEA was supplied at least 2 months before patients entered into the next IVF cycle. Expression of apoptosis-related genes in CCs was determined by quantitative real-time PCR. Mitochondrial dehydrogenase activity of CCs was assessed by cell counting kit-8 assay.

RESULTS

Metaphase II oocytes, maturation rate, embryos at Day 3, and fertilization rate significantly increased following DHEA treatment. Expression of cytochrome c, caspase 9, and caspase 3 genes in CCs were significantly reduced after DHEA therapy. Additionally, increased mitochondrial activity of CCs was observed following DHEA supplementation.

CONCLUSIONS

DHEA supplementation may protect CCs via improved mitochondrial activity and decreased apoptosis, leading to better clinical outcomes in PORs.

Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation is a feasible method for poor ovarian responders undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer treatment compared to a GnRH antagonist protocol: A retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

Poor ovarian response to ovarian hyperstimulation is one of the biggest challenges in assisted reproduction technology. Although many stimulation protocols have been established to improve clinical outcomes in poor ovarian responders (PORs), which protocol is the most effective remains controversial. Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation (LPOS) has been used in normal ovarian responders with satisfactory outcomes. However, the efficacy of LPOS in PORs is unclear. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of LPOS and GnRH antagonist (GnRH-ant) in PORs.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The clinical parameters in PORs who received LPOS (50 cycles in 39 patients) or GnRH-ant (158 cycles in 123 patients) were compared.

RESULTS

Compared with those in the GnRH-ant group, the PORs in the LPOS group showed significantly fewer basal antral follicles (3.1 ± 2.2 vs. 4.1 ± 1.6, p < 0.001) and a higher in vitro fertilization rate. There were no significant differences in the numbers of retrieved oocytes and D3 transferable embryos between the two groups. However, the pregnancy rate in the LPOS group (46.4%) was significantly higher than that in the GnRH-ant group (25.8% overall; 22.9% from fresh embryos and 29.6% from frozen embryos). Moreover, 23 PORs in the LPOS group underwent oocyte retrieval twice in one cycle, and the numbers of retrieved oocytes and transferable embryos from the luteal phase were significantly higher than those from the follicular phase in the same menstrual cycle.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the GnRH-ant protocol, the LPOS protocol may be a better regime for PORs that can increase the numbers of retrieved oocytes and transferable embryos as well as the pregnancy rate.

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.

Younger poor ovarian response women achieved better pregnancy results in the first three IVF cycles

This retrospective cohort study observed the live birth rates as well as cumulative live birth rates in women with poor ovarian response (POR) undergoing IVF-embryo transfer treatment, stratified for age and cycle number. Four hundred and one patients with POR diagnosed according to the Bologna criteria were enrolled and 700 IVF-ET cycles were analysed. The overall live-birth rate per cycle was 18.3%. From cycle 1 up to cycle 3, the live-birth rates decreased significantly from 22.2% to 11.1%. The live-birth rate fell to 2.4% in cycles 4 and over. When age advanced, the live birth rates decreased obviously (P < 0.01): 30.0% for women < 35 years old, 17.0% for those 35-40 years old, and 9.0% for women older than 40 years. Similarly, the cumulative live birth rates dropped from 48.0% (< 35 years) to 16.9% (≥ 40 years) accordingly. Younger patients (< 35 years old) with POR achieved better pregnancy results compared with patients of advanced age. Extremely low live-birth rates could be anticipated after three unsuccessful cycles; therefore it may not be appropriate to suggest more IVF cycles in POR women.

Comparison of different ovarian hyperstimulation protocols efficacy in poor ovarian responders according to the Bologna criteria

Many protocols have been proposed to improve IVF outcomes for poor ovarian responders. The aim of this study was to explore the relationship between age, ovarian hyperstimulation protocol and IVF/ICSI outcomes in poor ovarian responder (POR) according to the Bologna criteria, and to compare the efficacy of different protocols used in PORs undergoing IVF/ICSI. We retrospectively analyzed clinical data of 4875 IVF/ICSI cycles, including 592 cycles of women diagnosed with POR according to Bologna criteria. We explored the association of age, different types of ovarian hyperstimulation protocols and prevalence of POR, IVF/ICSI outcomes. Age, basic FSH, AFC, and as well as ovarian hyperstimulation protocols, were all associated with POR. Irrespective of age, PORs in different ovarian hyperstimulation protocol groups had similar AFC, basic sex hormones, number of retrieved oocyte, implantation rate and clinical pregnancy rate as well. However, PORs treated with mild stimulation protocol used least doses of gonadotropins and shortest days of stimulation compared with those treated with other protocols (P<.05). The current study has shown that age, basic FSH, AFC and ovarian stimulation protocols patients used are all significantly associated with POR according to the Bologna criteria. It seems that there is no difference in clinical outcomes such as clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate and spontaneous abortion rate between different protocols.