Application of GnRH antagonist in combination with clomiphene citrate and hMG for patients with exaggerated ovarian response in previous IVF/ICSI cycles

The addition of clomiphene citrate to ovarian stimulation protocols for poor responders

Poor ovarian response (POR) is one of the most challenging problems in assisted reproduction. Several strategies have been used to improve pregnancy rates. The use of Clomiphene Citrate (CC) has been shown to improve ovarian stimulation outcomes and decrease gonadotropin requirements in women of advanced reproductive age. However, the combination of CC and gonadotropins to improve pregnancy rates after in IVF in poor responders is still unexplored due to the small number of trials with few participants. This is a prospective cohort trial involving 12 patients diagnosed with poor ovarian response who underwent ovarian stimulation during the period between June 2015 and September of 2017. All patients were treated with the maximum dose of gonadotropins (hMG, 300 IU/day, hMG group) according to a short gonadotropin/GnRH antagonist protocol. In a subsequent cycle those patients underwent the same stimulation protocol with the addition of 100 mg of CC from day 3 to day 7 (CC-hMG group). Supplementation with 100 mg of CC resulted in a statistically significant increase in estradiol levels, number of follicles and number of oocytes retrieved, as well as an increase in the number of total embryos available for transfer. Furthermore, a significant reduction was observed in cancellation rates in the CC-hMG group. Two clinical pregnancies, which resulted in two live births and 3 biochemical pregnancies were achieved in the CC/hMG group. Furthermore, by employing open-source, biological data we identified a common gene (Estrogen Receptor 1, ESR1) between genetic targets of clomiphene treatment and POR which could explain the benefits of clomiphene in this group of patients. In conclusion, the addition of CC 100 mg to the stimulation regimen in women diagnosed with POR and previous failed IVF cycles could improve stimulation results, but this study could not demonstrate any benefit in terms of clinical pregnancies and live births. The effectiveness of this treatment requires further investigation.

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.

Diabetes and the female reproductive system

The insulin/insulin-like growth factor (IGF) pathways and glucose metabolism act as mediators of human ovarian function and female fertility. In normal insulin action, insulin binds to its own receptors in the ovary to mediate steroidogenesis and act as a co-gonadotropin. Insulin with other factors may influence ovarian growth and cyst formation. The IGF pathway also seems to influence normal ovarian function. Insulin signaling affects reproductive function. Dysregulation of this pathway leads to altered puberty, ovulation, and fertility. Better understanding of the normal physiology and pathophysiology of insulin, IGF, and glucose effects on the human reproductive system will allow for better outcomes.

Clomiphene combined with gonadotropins and GnRH antagonist versus conventional controlled ovarian hyperstimulation without clomiphene in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) using clomiphene citrate associated with gonadotropin and GnRH antagonist (CC + Ant) versus conventional COH without clomiphene citrate (Non-CC) for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques (ART).

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled-trials comparing CC + Ant versus non-CC. The last search was performed in Apr 13 2012. The following outcomes were retrieved from included trials and compared between CC + Ant versus non-CC: live birth, clinical pregnancy, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, endometrial thickness, total oocytes retrieved, MII oocytes retrieved, total gonadotropin used, and duration of COH.

RESULTS

Seven trials (702 participants) were included. There was no significant difference in live birth (55/182 = 30.2 % vs. 47/181 = 26.0 %, p = 0.26, CC + Ant vs. non-CC, respectively), clinical pregnancy (98/346 = 28.3 % vs. 84/356 = 23.6 %, p = 0.12), miscarriage (6/35 = 17.1 % vs. 7/32 = 21.9 %, p = 0.42), endometrial thickness, and on the number of oocytes retrieved. There was a significant reduction in OHSS (1/216 = 0.5 % vs. 9/217 = 4.1 %, p = 0.01), consumption of gonadotropins, and duration of COH.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to non-CC, CC + Ant is likely to reduce the risk of OHSS, medication costs, and the duration of COH without evidence of effect on live birth and clinical pregnancy. More trials are still needed to improve the quality of the evidence. Future studies should evaluate women with PCOS or at increased risk of OHSS, quality of life, satisfaction with the treatment, total cost per live birth, and frequency of congenital anomalies.

Achieving a successful pregnancy in women with polycystic ovary syndrome

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a disease of complex and still poorly understood cause and of variable phenotypes. It is characterized by anovulation, hyperandrogenism, and polycystic ovaries. Infertility is commonly present. A variety of methods has been used successfully to achieve pregnancy in women with PCOS. Maintenance of pregnancy is complicated by a higher rate of premature spontaneous abortions and high risk of gestational diabetes, hypertension, and preeclampsia. However, with careful monitoring and treatment, the outcome of pregnancy in most women with PCOS is excellent.

Does the addition of clomiphene citrate or letrazole to gonadotropin treatment enhance the oocyte yield in poor responders undergoing IVF?

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effect of adjunctive letrazole or clomiphene in IVF stimulation protocols.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of high dose GnRH antagonist IVF cycles (450-600 IU of gonadotropins) that have met poor responder criteria. Selected consecutive cycles in same patients differed solely in presence or absence of adjunctive clomiphene or letrazole.

RESULTS

Supplementation with clomiphene citrate in poor responders showed significant improvements (p < 0.05) in estradiol levels (1506 vs. 1044 pg/ml), number of dominant follicles (5.6 vs. 3.9), oocytes retrieved (5.2 vs. 3.4) and number of transferred embryos (1.7 vs. 1.1). It significantly improved biochemical pregnancy rates (18.1% vs. 5.9%) while reducing cycle cancellations (11.7% vs. 32.6%). Letrozole supplementation showed similar effects.

CONCLUSION

Both Clomiphene and Letrazole performed similarly and showed significant effects. However, despite increasing oocyte yield and embryo transfer rates, the overall clinical and live birth rate in this population remained low and showed no measurable increase.