IVF stimulation: protocols for poor responders

Cumulative live-birth, perinatal and obstetric outcomes for POSEIDON groups after IVF/ICSI cycles: a single-center retrospective study

Recently, perinatal outcomes and cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) have widely been utilized to assess the fertility outcomes and safety of assisted reproductive technology (ART), but more robust research is needed to address the success rates of live-healthy births resulting from this procedure, particularly for patients with low prognosis. This study aims to assess and comparative perinatal outcomes and CLBR per cycle of in vitro fertilization/Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) between four groups of low prognosis characterized by POSEIDON criteria. A retrospective assessment was done among infertile women with a low prognosis undergoing IVF/ICSI at a reproductive center in China. Data were collected between January 2011 and December 2015 with a follow-up of at least two years, and censoring was defined by three-cycle completion, discontinuation, or having a live birth. Participants were grouped into 4 groups according to the POSEIDON classification (POSEIDON1, POSEIDON2, POSEIDON3, and POSEIDON4). The main outcomes were perinatal and obstetric outcomes with CLBR per cycle after IVF/ICSI procedure. And IVF/ICSI-technique outcomes as a secondary outcome. Statistical analyses were performed by SPSS, and a p value of < 0.05 was considered significant. A total of 461 eligible participants underwent a total of 825 IVF/ICSI cycles. POSEIDON1 had the best perinatal outcomes in terms of live births (≥ 28w) (54.8%). POSEIDON4 had a higher risk for perinatal and obstetric complications with abortion rate (9.8%); LBW (11.7%), PTD (23.5%), PROM (11.7%), and gestational diabetes (17.6%). POSEIDON2 had a high rate for malpresentation (14.2%), and cesarean delivery(57.2%), while POSEIDON3 was much associated with the occurrences of placenta previa (9.3%) compared to other groups (p value = 0.001). After adjusting odds ratio by age and BMI, POSEIDON4 had the least odds for biochemical pregnancy (p value = 0.019); and the least odds for clinical pregnancy (p value = 0.001) of the four groups. CLBR per cycle was better in POSEIDON1 and increased with an increasing number of cycles in all groups during the three cycles. Conservative CLBR after three complete cycles were 77.27%, 42.52%, 51.4% and 22.34%, while optimistic CLBR were 79.01%, 51.19%, 58.59% and 34.46% in POSEIDON1 to POSEIDON4, respectively. Younger women with low prognosis and normal ovarian reserve have a higher probability for live births and better perinatal outcomes compared with older women with poor or normal ovarian reserve. Besides, young women with low prognosis, despite ovarian reserve status, can increase their probability of conception and get relatively higher CLBR by undergoing multiple cycles of IVF/ICSI. Age is therefore considered as a critical parameter in predicting the perinatal outcome and CLBR.

Efficacy of Follicle-Stimulating Hormone (FSH) Alone, FSH + Luteinizing Hormone, Human Menopausal Gonadotropin or FSH + Human Chorionic Gonadotropin on Assisted Reproductive Technology Outcomes in the "Personalized" Medicine Era: A Meta-analysis

SETTING

Luteinizing hormone (LH) and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) act on the same receptor, activating different signal transduction pathways. The role of LH or hCG addition to follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) as well as menopausal gonadotropins (human menopausal gonadotropin; hMG) in controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) is debated.

OBJECTIVE

To compare FSH + LH, or FSH + hCG or hMG vs. FSH alone on COS outcomes.

DESIGN

A meta-analysis according to PRISMA statement and Cochrane Collaboration was performed, including prospective, controlled clinical trials published until July 2016, enrolling women treated with FSH alone or combined with other gonadotropins. Trials enrolling women with polycystic ovarian syndrome were excluded (PROSPERO registration no. CRD42016048404).

RESULTS

Considering 70 studies, the administration of FSH alone resulted in higher number of oocytes retrieved than FSH + LH or hMG. The MII oocytes number did not change when FSH alone was compared to FSH + LH, FSH + hCG, or hMG. Embryo number and implantation rate were higher when hMG was used instead of FSH alone. Pregnancy rate was significantly higher in FSH + LH-treated group vs. others. Only 12 studies reported live birth rate, not providing protocol-dependent differences. Patients' stratification by GnRH agonist/antagonist identified patient subgroups benefiting from specific drug combinations.

CONCLUSION

In COS, FSH alone results in higher oocyte number. HMG improves the collection of mature oocytes, embryos, and increases implantation rate. On the other hand, LH addition leads to higher pregnancy rate. This study supports the concept of a different clinical action of gonadotropins in COS, reflecting previous in vitro data.

Comparison of different stimulation protocols used in in vitro fertilization: a review

Infertility is one of the major medical problems in the western world caused by genetic or epigenetic factors, or both, which has led to continuous research and advancements in the field of assisted reproductive technology (ART). Many stimulation protocols are available for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in in vitro fertilization (IVF). This review compares the agonist long protocol, antagonist protocol and minimal stimulation protocol. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist and minimal stimulation protocol has shorter duration of treatment and less gonadotropin use. GnRH agonist long protocol is better in folliculogenesis and pregnancy rate, which is the imperative goal of COH. Despite its costly and lengthy approach, GnRH agonist long protocol has delivered satisfactory results in most women. On the other hand, patients with poor ovarian reserve may have greater advantage when considering minimal stimulation protocol. Evidently, it is crucial to have a larger scale studies with more focused comparisons, which take into account the differences in patients' response criteria and additional confounding variables (age, BMI, previous IVF outcomes etc.), in order to reach to a more definite conclusions.