Mild IVF using GnRH agonist long protocol is possible: comparing stimulations with 100 IU vs. 150 IU recombinant FSH as starting dose

Mild starting dosage ovarian stimulation combined with a modified prolonged GnRH-a protocol improved IVF/ICSI outcomes in normal ovarian responders

INTRODUCTION

Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) is essential for artificial reproduction technology (ART). This study aimed to evaluate the effects of a mild starting dosage of r-FSH ovarian stimulation after the modified prolonged GnRH-a down-regulation protocol for COH on the clinical outcomes in normal ovarian responders undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer (IVF/ICSI-ET).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In the retrospective study, the patients were separated into two groups according to the starting dosage of r-FSH: a mild dosage group (75 IU ≤ r-FSH < 150 IU, n = 858) and a conventional dosage group (150 IU ≤ r-FSH ≤ 225 IU, n = 535). Data were collected from clinical records. The baseline characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Although the duration of r-FSH treatment was a little longer in the mild dosage group, the total r-FSH dosage and the cost of ovarian stimulation were significantly lower than those in the conventional dosage group. Furthermore, compared to the conventional dosage group, the number of retrieved oocytes was also lower in the mild dosage group, whereas the rates of two pronuclei (2PN) fertilized oocytes and good-quality embryos were remarkable higher. The implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate were significantly higher in the mild dosage group. There was no difference in early miscarriages rate, incidence of moderate and severe ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome (OHSS) or incidence of ectopic pregnancy between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

The modified prolonged GnRH-a pituitary down-regulation regimen combined with mild r-FSH starting dosage improved IVF/ICSI outcomes and reduced the financial cost in normal ovarian responders.

A study on the effectiveness of clomiphene citrate in comparison to GnRH antagonist in preventing LH surge among patients undergoing ovulation induction in IVF-ICSI

Abstract: Objective: To determine the efficacy of clomiphene citrate (CC) in preventing luteinizing hormone (LH) surge without adding gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist or GnRH agonist in stimulated first fresh intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle by evaluating the outcome of oocytes and embryo quality. Design: Registry cohort study. Settings: Fertility Clinic Registry at Hospital University Kebangsaan Malaysia. Patients: A total of 235 fresh stimulated ICSI cycle for patients aged 18-40 years old using clomiphene citrate plus gonadotropin (n = 117) and GnRH antagonist plus gonadotropin (n = 118) were studied. Intervention: Comparing two different ovarian stimulation protocol. Main outcome measure(s): Social economical demographic, ovarian stimulation response and laboratory outcome. Fertilization rate as our primary outcome and our secondary outcome were oocyte retrieval rate, mature oocyte rate and top quality embryo rate. Result(s):There were no difference in the demographic and hormonal characteristic of the study groups. The primary outcome of fertilization rate has significant difference with p value of 0.003; 73.2% for CC group and 64.2% for GnRH antagonist group. The secondary outcome of OR rate (78.4% ± 17.6% VS 80.3% ± 13.4%, p = 0.368), mature oocyte rate (85.2% ± 19.0 VS 81.7% ± 16.7%, p = 0.130) and top quality embryo rate (79.4% ± 24.2% VS 74.9% ± 22.9%, p = 0.178) were comparable between both groups. There were significant difference between the endometrial thickness on the day of trigger and OHSS risk among both groups (8.5 mm ± 1.0 mm VS 9.4 mm ± 1.1 mm, p < 0.001 and 12.8% VS 44.1% respectively). Discussion: Minimal stimulation protocol with CC and gonadotropin may be the answer to many infertile couples in need of IVF and yet having financial situation deterring them in attempting IVF treatment. GnRH antagonist could be safely replaced by CC by extending to 10 days as this protocol gives better primary outcome and comparable secondary outcomes with less OHSS. CC is recognized to induce thinning of endometrial lining and thus, may impair embryo implantation. However, with advancement of the vitrification system and higher success rate in frozen-thaw embryo transfer worldwide provides an excellent solution for this issue.

MILD ovarian stimulation with GnRH-antagonist vs. long protocol with low dose FSH for non-PCO high responders undergoing IVF: a prospective, randomized study including thawing cycles

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of two stimulation protocols in non-polycystic ovary (PCO) high responders undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF).

DESIGN

Prospective randomized trial.

SETTING

A Reproductive Medicine and IVF Unit of a University Hospital and a private IVF Clinic.

METHODS

Four hundred-and-twelve normoovulatory women with good ovarian responsiveness were randomized to receive either the "mild" (FSH 150 IU/day from day 4 of a spontaneous cycle followed by GnRH-antagonist from day 8; n = 205) or the "long" (FSH 150 IU/day; n = 207) stimulation protocol. The outcome of these two regimens was compared including "fresh" and thawing cycles.

RESULTS

The total FSH dose and the peak estradiol level were significantly lower in the "mild" protocol, whereas the retrieved oocytes, fertilization rate, number and quality of embryos, pregnancy and implantation rates, cumulative "fresh plus thaw" success rate, and incidence of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome were comparable with the two regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

In young, normoovulatory patients with good ovarian responsiveness undergoing IVF the "mild" stimulation protocol has effectiveness and risks comparable to the "long" protocol with low FSH starting dose, even when thawing cycles are included in the comparison.

Increasing the Stimulation Dose of rFSH in Unexpected Poor Responders Is Not Associated with Better IVF Outcome

The aim of this retrospective study is to determine whether increasing the stimulation dose of rFSH in unexpected poor responders is associated with better in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcome or not. A total of forty eligible women who fulfilled our definition of poor responders and who did not achieve an ongoing pregnancy in the first cycle and returned for a second higher rFSH dose IVF cycle with a long-agonist protocol were included to the study. The first low-dose cycles and the second high-dose cycles were compared to each other. Main outcome measures of the study were duration of stimulation, number of follicles, number of oocytes retrieved, number of embryos, and E2 level on day of hCG injection. There were no significant differences in duration of stimulation, number of follicles, number of oocytes retrieved, number of embryos, and E2 level on day of hCG injection between the first low- and second high-dose cycles. Daily dose and total dose of rFSH were significantly higher in the second high-dose cycles. Increasing the dose of rFSH in a second stimulation cycle after first unsuccessful treatment cycle will add only to the cost and discomfort of the treatment and might adversely affect pregnancy rates.

Milder is better? Advantages and disadvantages of "mild" ovarian stimulation for human in vitro fertilization

In the last decades, several steps have been made aiming at rendering human IVF more successful on one side, more tolerable on the other side. The "mild" ovarian stimulation approach, in which a lower-than-average dose of exogenous gonadotropins is given and gonadotropin treatment is started from day 2 to 7 of the cycle, represents a significant step toward a more patient's friendly IVF. However, a clear view of its virtues and defects is still lacking, because only a few prospective randomized trials comparing "mild" vs. conventional stimulation exist, and they do not consider some important aspects, such as, e.g., thawing cycles. This review gives a complete panorama of the "mild" stimulation philosophy, showing its advantages vs. conventional ovarian stimulation, but also discussing its disadvantages. Both patients with a normal ovarian responsiveness to exogenous gonadotropins and women with a poor ovarian reserve are considered. Overall, we conclude that the level of evidence supporting the use of "mild" stimulation protocols is still rather poor, and further, properly powered prospective studies about "mild" treatment regimens are required.