The addition of growth hormone adjuvant therapy to the long down regulation protocol in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: Randomized control trial

Comparative efficacy of different growth hormone supplementation protocols in improving clinical outcomes in women with poor ovarian response undergoing assisted reproductive therapy: a network meta-analysis

Growth hormone (GH) has a long-standing history of use as an adjunctive therapy in the treatment of poor ovarian response (POR), but the optimal dosage and timing remains unclear. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of different GH supplementation protocols through a network meta-analysis (NMA) and determine the optimal treatment protocol. This study was reported based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews for Network Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-NMA) statement. Databases including PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Embase were searched until June 2023. A total of 524 records were retrieved in our search, and 23 clinical studies comprising 4889 cycles were involved. Seven different GH protocols were identified. Results showed that compared to the control group, daily administration of 4-8 IU of GH during the follicular phase of the stimulation cycle had the best comprehensive therapeutic effects on improving the number of retrieved oocytes, mature oocytes, endometrial thickness, and reducing gonadotropin requirements in POR patients undergoing assisted reproductive therapy, with a relatively brief treatment duration and a moderate total GH dose. Subgroup analysis demonstrated that this protocol could significantly improve the clinical pregnancy rate of POR patients in the randomized controlled trials (RCT) subgroup and the African subgroup. Therefore, its clinical application is suggested. Besides, the potential advantages of long-term GH supplementation protocol (using GH for at least 2 weeks before oocyte retrieval) has merit for further research. Rigorous and well-designed multi-arm RCTs are needed in the future to confirm the conclusions drawn from this study.

The effects of flexible short protocol with gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist on preventing premature ovulation in poor responders

PURPOSE

The proportion of patients with poor ovarian response (POR) is increasing, but effective treatment remains a challenge. To control the hidden peaks of luteinizing hormone (LH) and premature ovulation for poor responders, this study investigated the efficacy of flexible short protocol (FSP) with gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) on trigger day.

METHODS

The 662 cycles of POR patients were retrospectively analyzed. The cohort was divided into control and intervention groups. The intervention group (group A) with 169 cycles received a GnRH-ant given on trigger day. The control (group B) with 493 cycles received only FSP. The clinical outcomes of the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

Compared with group B, with gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) on trigger day in group A the incidences of spontaneous premature ovulation decreased significantly (2.37% vs. 8.72%, P < 0.05). The number of fresh embryo-transfer cycles was 45 in group A and 117 in group B. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes, including implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, live birth rate and the cumulative live birth rate (12.0% vs. 9.34%; 22.22% vs. 21.93%; 17.78% vs. 14.91%; 20.51% vs. 20%, respectively; P > 0.05) between the two group.

CONCLUSION

FSP with GnRH-ant addition on trigger day had no effect on clinical outcomes, but could effectively inhibit the hidden peaks of luteinizing hormone (LH) and spontaneous premature ovulation in POR. Therefore, it is an advantageous option for POR women.

Effects of Melatonin, GM-CSF, IGF-1, and LIF in Culture Media on Embryonic Development: Potential Benefits of Individualization

The implantation of good-quality embryos to the receptive endometrium is essential for successful live birth through in vitro fertilization (IVF). The higher the quality of embryos, the higher the live birth rate per cycle, and so efforts have been made to obtain as many high-quality embryos as possible after fertilization. In addition to an effective controlled ovarian stimulation process to obtain high-quality embryos, the composition of the embryo culture medium in direct contact with embryos in vitro is also important. During embryonic development, under the control of female sex hormones, the fallopian tubes and endometrium create a microenvironment that supplies the nutrients and substances necessary for embryos at each stage. During this process, the development of the embryo is finely regulated by signaling molecules, such as growth factors and cytokines secreted from the epithelial cells of the fallopian tube and uterine endometrium. The development of embryo culture media has continued since the first successful human birth through IVF in 1978. However, there are still limitations to mimicking a microenvironment similar to the reproductive organs of women suitable for embryo development in vitro. Efforts have been made to overcome the harsh in vitro culture environment and obtain high-quality embryos by adding various supplements, such as antioxidants and growth factors, to the embryo culture medium. Recently, there has been an increase in the number of studies on the effect of supplementation in different clinical situations such as old age, recurrent implantation failure (RIF), and unexplained infertility; in addition, anticipation of the potential benefits from individuation is rising. This article reviews the effects of representative supplements in culture media on embryo development.

Growth hormone supplementation ameliorates blastocyst euploidy rates and improves pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy cycles

BACKGROUND

Growth hormone (GH) supplementation has been shown to improve oocyte quality and live birth, but few studies have examined whether GH can reduce embryonic aneuploidy. Chromosomal abnormalities in preimplantation embryos have been regarded as the principal cause of implantation failure and miscarriage, and an increased percentage of aneuploid embryos has been observed in patient cohorts with unexplained recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL), recurrent implantation failure (RIF), and advanced maternal age.

METHODS

This prospective cohort study was conducted on women whose previous PGT-A cycle ended up with no transferrable blastocysts, or the aneuploidy rate was above 50% and no live birth was acquired. The participants were divided into GH co-treatment and comparison groups according to whether GH was administered in the subsequent PGT-A cycle. In addition, within the GH co-treatment group, the previous failed cycle constituted the self-control group.

RESULTS

208 women were recruited in the study (GH co-treatment group: 96 women, comparison group: 112 women). Compared to the self-control and comparison groups, the rate of euploid blastocysts was significantly higher in the GH co-treatment group (GH vs self-control: 32.00% vs 9.14%, odds ratio [OR]: 4.765, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.420-9.385, P < 0.01; GH vs comparison: 32.00% vs. 21.05%, OR: 1.930, 95% CI: 1.106-3.366, P = 0.021), and their frozen embryo transfers resulted in more pregnancies and live births. In the subgroup analysis, for the <35 and 35-40 years groups, the euploidy rate in the GH co-treatment group was significantly higher than those in the self-control and comparison groups, but in the >40 years group, there was no difference in euploidy rate.

CONCLUSION

Our study presents preliminary evidence that GH supplementation may ameliorate blastocyst aneuploidy and improve pregnancy outcomes in women who have previously experienced pregnancy failures along with high aneuploidy rates, particularly in those younger than 40 years. Therefore, the use of GH in such women should be considered. However, considering the limited sample size and mixed indications for PGT-A, further scientific research on the underlying mechanism as well as clinical trials with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm the effects and optimal protocols.

The Effect of Human Growth Hormone on Endometrial Growth in Controlled Ovarian Hyperstimulation Cycles

This study aims to compare endometrial growth before and after the addition of human growth hormone (hGH) in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) cycles. A 5-year retrospective cohort study of patients treated with hGH to improve oocyte development during COH cycles was conducted. Each patient’s cycle without hGH immediately preceding cycle(s) with hGH was used for patients to serve as their own controls. Primary outcome was absolute growth in endometrial thickness from pre-stimulation start to day of hCG trigger. Mixed-model regression analysis controlled for patient correlation over repeat cycles and potential confounders. 80 patients were included. Mean age was 39.7 years; mean BMI was 23.8 kg/m2. Majority of patients were nulliparous, non-smoking, and White or Asian. Most common diagnosis was diminished ovarian reserve. Endometrial growth was compared between 159 COH cycles with hGH and 80 COH control cycles; mean increase was 4.5 mm and 3.9 mm, respectively-an unadjusted difference of 0.6 mm (95% CI: 0.2−1.1, p = 0.01). After adjusting for demographic/clinical factors, hGH was associated with 0.9 mm greater endometrial growth (0.4−1.4, p < 0.01). Absolute increase in endometrial thickness was higher in COH cycles that included hGH. Further prospective studies in embryo transfer cycles are needed.

Mechanism of Mitochondrial Homeostasis Controlling Ovarian Physiology

Ovarian cells, including oocytes, granulosa/cumulus cells, theca cells, and stromal cells, contain abundant mitochondria, which play indispensable roles in the processes of ovarian follicle development. Ovarian function is closely controlled by mitochondrial proteostasis and mitostasis. While mitochondrial proteostasis and mitostasis are disturbed by several factors, leading to dysfunction of ovarian function and initiating the mitochondrial unfolded protein response (UPRmt) and mitophagy to maintain or recover ovarian function and mitochondrial function, clear interactions between the 2 pathways in the ovary have not been fully elucidated. Here, we comprehensively summarize the molecular networks or regulatory mechanisms behind further mitochondrial research in the ovary. This review provides novel insights into the interactions between the UPRmt and mitophagy in ovarian functions.

The Clinical Application of Growth Hormone and Its Biological and Molecular Mechanisms in Assisted Reproduction

Growth hormone (GH) has been used as a co-gonadotrophin in assisted reproduction, particularly in poor ovarian responders. The application of GH has been alleged to activate primordial follicles and improve oocyte quality, embryo quality, and steroidogenesis. However, the effects of GH on the live birth rate among women is controversial. Additionally, although the basic biological mechanisms that lead to the above clinical differences have been investigated, they are not yet well understood. The actions of GH are mediated by GH receptors (GHRs) or insulin-like growth factors (IGFs). GH regulates the vital signal transduction pathways that are involved in primordial follicular activation, steroidogenesis, and oocyte maturation. However, the therapeutic windows and duration of GH administration during assisted reproductive technology require further investigation. The review aimed to clarify the role of GH in human fertility from a molecular and biological point of view to provide evidence for proper GH administration.

Preliminary report of intraovarian injections of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in extremely poor prognosis patients with only oocyte donation as alternative: a prospective cohort study

STUDY QUESTION

Does intraovarian injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) change ovarian function in patients with extremely low functional ovarian reserve (LFOR) who, otherwise, would likely only have a chance of pregnancy through third-party oocyte donation?

SUMMARY ANSWER

No clinically significant effects of PRP treatment on ovarian function were observed over 1 year of follow-up.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Several investigators have reported improved responses to ovulation induction after treatment with PRP. However, previous published reports have involved, at most, only small case series. Whether PRP actually improves ovarian performance is, therefore, still unknown. PRP is nevertheless widely offered as an ‘established’ fertility treatment, often under the term ‘ovarian rejuvenation’.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We are reporting a prospective cohort study of 80 consecutive patients at ages 28–54 with LFOR, defined by anti-Müllerian hormone &lt;1.1 ng/ml, FSH &gt;12 mIU/ml or at least one prior IVF cycle with ≤3 oocytes within 1 year. The women were followed for 1 year after an intraovarian PRP procedure.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

PRP (1.5 ml) was injected into the cortex of ovaries with an average of 12 injections per ovary. Study participants were followed every 3 days for 2 weeks after PRP treatment with estradiol and FSH measurements and vaginal ultrasound to observe follicle growth and thereafter followed weekly. Beginning 1 month after their PRP treatment, participants underwent one or more cycles of ovarian stimulation for IVF. Outcome measures were endocrine response, and numbers of oocytes and embryos produced in response to a maximal gonadotropin stimulation before and after PRP treatment.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In this study, women failed to demonstrate statistically significant outcome benefits from intraovarian PRP. However, two 40-year-old very poor-prognosis patients, with prior failed IVF cycles that never reached embryo transfer at other centers, achieved pregnancy, resulting in an ongoing pregnancy rate of 4.7% among patients who, following PRP, produced at least one oocyte (n = 42).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

As an observational study of patients who performed poorly in past ovarian stimulation cycles, the improvement may be accounted for by regression to the mean. Similar considerations may also explain the occurrence of the two pregnancies.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study demonstrates that, even in extremely poor prognosis patients due to LFOR, sporadic pregnancies are possible. The study, however, does not allow for the conclusion that those pregnancies were the consequence of PRP treatments. A case series, indeed, does not allow for such conclusions, even if results are more suggestive than here. This registered study, therefore, must be viewed as a preliminary report, with further data expected from this study but also from two other prospectively randomized ongoing registered studies with more controlled patient selection.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This work was supported by intramural funds from The Center for Human Reproduction and the not-for-profit research Foundation for Reproductive Medicine, both in New York, NY, USA. N.G. and D.H.B. are listed as co-inventors on several US patents. Some of these patents relate to pre-supplementation of hypo-androgenic infertile women with androgens, such as dehydroepiandrosterone and testosterone and, therefore, at least peripherally relate to the subject of this manuscript. They, as well as D.F.A., have also received research support, travel funds and speaker honoraria from several pharmaceutical and medical device companies, though none related to the here presented subject and manuscript. N.G. is a shareholder in Fertility Nutraceuticals and he and D.H.B. receive royalty payments from Fertility Nutraceuticals LLC. E.M. has no conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04275700

Administration of growth hormone improves endometrial function in women undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The positive effects of growth hormone (GH) on IVF are often attributed to improvements in oocyte and embryo quality. While emerging evidence emphasizes GH-induced improvements in the endometrium, these results are controversial.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate whether GH administration improved endometrial function and reproductive outcomes during IVF cycles and to thus guide clinical practice.

SEARCH METHODS

A literature search in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed and Embase was performed through to 30 November 2021, without language restrictions. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of GH on IVF outcomes were included. Risk of bias and quality of evidence (QoE) were assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration's tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Odds ratios (ORs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were assessed by random-effects models.

OUTCOMES

A total of 25 trials with 2424 women were included. Seventeen RCTs with poor responders (n = 1723) showed that GH administration significantly increased endometrial thickness (EMT) (MD = 0.38, 95% CI: 0.18-0.59; moderate QoE), which contributed to an improved live birth rate (OR = 1.67, 95% CI: 1.13-2.49; very low QoE) and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.43-2.72; low QoE). Subgroup analyses showed a dose- and time-dependent relationship between GH cotreatment and IVF outcomes; the optimal recommendation for improving CPR was consistent with that for EMT, rather than for oocytes and embryos. Hence, GH might improve fertility via effects on the endometrium. Administration of GH daily from the follicular phase of previous cycle until the hCG trigger with < 5 IU/day led to a thicker endometrium and a greater chance of becoming pregnant, while 5-10 IU/day or administration from the luteal phase of the previous cycle until the hCG trigger resulted in higher oocyte and embryo quality. Poor responders might benefit from cotreatment with the GnRH agonist long protocol more than other stimulation protocols. Pooled data from four trials (n = 354) on women with a thin endometrium indicated that improved endometrial function might be critical for improving reproductive outcomes during GH treatment, as no improvements in embryo quality were found. GH administration not only increased EMT (MD = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.21-1.75; moderate QoE) but also promoted endometrial morphology (OR = 2.67, 95% CI: 1.36-5.23; low QoE) and perfusion (OR = 5.84, 95% CI: 1.30-26.17; low QoE), thereby improving the CPR (OR = 2.71, 95% CI: 1.69-4.34; P < 0.0001; low QoE). There was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion regarding the effects of GH in normal responders (n = 80). Due to obvious improvements in the CPR, women with a thin endometrium might be the most appropriate population to benefit from GH administration.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Improving endometrial function might be another vital mechanism by which GH improves IVF outcomes. Optimal treatment should be offered to the target population according to their personal conditions and needs. The QoE was moderate to very low, due to limited sample sizes and methodological problems; thus, the results should be interpreted with caution. More rigorous RCTs with large sample sizes are needed to confirm the effects and determine optimal GH protocols.

Ovarian Stimulation in Assisted Reproductive Technology Cycles for Varied Patient Profiles: An Indian Perspective

Controlled ovarian stimulation has been an integral part of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment cycles. Availability of different gonadotropins for ovarian stimulation and gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues for prevention of premature rise of leutinising hormone during follicular phase offer an opportunity to utilise them for a successful outcome in women with different subsets of ovarian response. Further, use of GnRH agonist as an alternative for human chorionic gonadotropin improves safety of ovarian stimulation in hyper-responders. Mild ovarian stimulation protocols have emerged as an alternative to conventional protocols in the recent years. Individualisation plays an important role in improving safety of IVF in hyper-responders while efforts continue to improve efficacy in poor responders. Some of the follicular and peri-ovulatory phase interventions may be associated with negative impact on the luteal phase and segmentalisation of the treatment with frozen embryo transfer may be an effective strategy in such a clinical scenario. This narrative review looks at the available evidence on various aspects of ovarian stimulation strategies and their consequences. In addition, it provides a concise summary of the evidence that has emerged from India on various aspects of ovarian stimulation.

Growth hormone in fertility and infertility: Mechanisms of action and clinical applications

Secreted by the anterior pituitary gland, growth hormone (GH) is a peptide that plays a critical role in regulating cell growth, development, and metabolism in multiple targeted tissues. Studies have shown that GH and its functional receptor are also expressed in the female reproductive system, including the ovaries and uterus. The experimental data suggest putative roles for GH and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1, induced by GH activity) signaling in the direct control of multiple reproductive functions, including activation of primordial follicles, folliculogenesis, ovarian steroidogenesis, oocyte maturation, and embryo implantation. In addition, GH enhances granulosa cell responsiveness to gonadotropin by upregulating the expression of gonadotropin receptors (follicle-stimulating hormone receptor and luteinizing hormone receptor), indicating crosstalk between this ovarian regulator and the endocrine signaling system. Notably, natural gene mutation of GH and the age-related decline in GH levels may have a detrimental effect on female reproductive function, leading to several reproductive pathologies, such as diminished ovarian reserve, poor ovarian response during assisted reproductive technology (ART), and implantation failure. Association studies using clinical samples showed that mature GH peptide is present in human follicular fluid, and the concentration of GH in this fluid is positively correlated with oocyte quality and the subsequent embryo morphology and cleavage rate. Furthermore, the results obtained from animal experiments and human samples indicate that supplementation with GH in the in vitro culture system increases steroid hormone production, prevents cell apoptosis, and enhances oocyte maturation and embryo quality. The uterine endometrium is another GH target site, as GH promotes endometrial receptivity and pregnancy by facilitating the implantation process, and the targeted depletion of GH receptors in mice results in fewer uterine implantation sites. Although still controversial, the administration of GH during ovarian stimulation alleviates age-related decreases in ART efficiency, including the number of oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate, embryo quality, implantation rate, pregnancy rate, and live birth rate, especially in patients with poor ovarian response and recurrent implantation failure.

Growth hormone for in vitro fertilisation (IVF)

BACKGROUND

In an effort to improve outcomes of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles, the use of growth hormone (GH) has been considered as adjuvant treatment in ovarian stimulation. Improving the outcomes of IVF is especially important for women with infertility who are considered 'poor responders'. We have compared the outcomes of IVF with adjuvant GH versus no adjuvant treatment in routine use, and specifically in poor responders.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of growth hormone as an adjunct to IVF compared to standard IVF for women with infertility SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases (to November 2020): Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility (CGF) Group specialised register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Epistemonikos database and trial registers together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of adjuvant GH treatment in IVF compared with no adjuvant treatment for women with infertility. We excluded trials where additional adjuvant treatments were used with GH. We also excluded trials comparing different IVF protocols.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Two review authors independently performed assessment of trial risk of bias and extraction of relevant data. The primary review outcome was live birth rate. The secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate, oocytes retrieved, embryo transfer, units of gonadotropin used and adverse events, i.e. ectopic pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), congenital anomalies, oedema.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 16 RCTs (1352 women). Two RCTs (80 women) studied GH in routine use, and 14 RCTs (1272 women) studied GH in poor responders. The evidence was low to very low certainty, the main limitations being risk of bias, imprecision and heterogeneity. Adjuvant growth hormone compared to no adjuvant: routine use for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on live birth rate per woman randomised for routine use in IVF (odds ratio (OR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40 to 4.43; I² = 0%; 2 trials, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). If the chance of live birth without adjuvant GH is assumed to be 15%, the chance of live birth with GH would be between 6% and 43%. There was insufficient evidence to reach a conclusion regarding clinical pregnancy rates per woman randomised, number of women with at least one oocyte retrieved per woman randomised and embryo transfer achieved per woman randomised; reported data were unsuitable for analysis. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on mean number of oocytes retrieved in normal responders (mean difference (MD) -0.02, 95% CI -0.79 to 0.74; I² = 0%; 2 trials, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on mean units of gonadotropin used in normal responders (MD 13.57, 95% CI -112.88 to 140.01; I² = 0%; 2 trials, 80 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effect of GH on adverse events in normal responders. Adjuvant growth hormone compared to no adjuvant: use in poor responders for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on live birth rate per woman randomised for poor responders (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.17 to 2.70; I² = 0%; 8 trials, 737 participants; very low-certainty evidence). If the chance of live birth without adjuvant GH is assumed to be 11%, the chance of live birth with GH would be between 13% and 25%. Adjuvant GH results in a slight increase in pregnancy rates in poor responders (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.35 to 2.53; I² = 15%; 11 trials, 1033 participants; low-certainty evidence). The results suggest, if the pregnancy rate without adjuvant GH is assumed to be 15%, with GH the pregnancy rate in poor responders would be between 19% and 31%. The evidence suggests that GH results in little to no difference in number of women with at least one oocyte retrieved (OR 5.67, 95% CI 1.54 to 20.83; I² = 0%; 2 trials, 148 participants; low-certainty evidence). If the chance of retrieving at least one oocyte in poor responders was 81%, with GH the chance is between 87% and 99%. There is a slight increase in mean number of oocytes retrieved with the use of GH for poor responders (MD 1.40, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.64; I² = 87%; 12 trials, 1153 participants; low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GH on embryo transfer achieved (OR 2.32, 95% CI 1.08 to 4.96; I² = 25%; 4 trials, 214 participants; very low-certainty evidence). If the chance of achieving embryo transfer is assumed to be 77%, the chance with GH will be 78% to 94%. Use of GH results in reduction of mean units of gonadotropins used for stimulation in poor responders (MD -1088.19, 95% CI -1203.20 to -973.18; I² = 91%; 8 trials, 685 participants; low-certainty evidence). High heterogeneity in the analyses for mean number of oocytes retrieved and units of GH used suggests quite different effects according to differences including in trial protocols (populations, GH dose and schedule), so these results should be interpreted with caution. We are uncertain of the effect of GH on adverse events in poor responders as six of the 14 included trials failed to report this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of adjuvant GH in IVF treatment protocols has uncertain effect on live birth rates and mean number of oocytes retrieved in normal responders. However, it slightly increases the number of oocytes retrieved and pregnancy rates in poor responders, while there is an uncertain effect on live birth rates in this group. The results however, need to be interpreted with caution, as the included trials were small and few in number, with significant bias and imprecision. Also, the dose and regimen of GH used in trials was variable. Therefore, further research is necessary to fully define the role of GH as adjuvant therapy in IVF.

Exogenous insulin-like growth factor 1 accelerates growth and maturation of follicles in human cortical xenografts and increases ovarian output in mice

OBJECTIVE

To measure the influence of exogenous insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1) on follicle growth and maturation in human ovarian cortical xenografts.

DESIGN

Xenotransplantation model.

SETTING

University-based research laboratory.

PATIENTS/ANIMALS

Ovarian tissue was donated with consent and institutional review board approval by brain-dead organ donors or patients undergoing ovarian tissue cryopreservation for fertility preservation. Cortical fragments were transplanted into immunocompromised mice.

INTERVENTIONS

Cryopreserved ovarian cortical fragments from four women (aged 19, 25, 33, and 46 years) were transplanted into the gluteus muscle of immunocompromised mice in a fibrin matrix containing endothelial cells that were transduced with lentiviral particles encoding secreted IGF1. Xenografts were recovered after 3, 8, and 14 weeks. In addition, C57/Bl6 mice underwent intraovarian injection of saline or recombinant IGF1 (60 μg), followed by superovulation, analysis of ethynyl-deoxyuridine incorporation, and ribonucleic acid sequencing of the whole ovaries.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

For xenografts: follicle count and distribution; antral follicle count; and corpora lutea/albicans count. For mice: follicle count and distribution; oocyte yield, ethynyl-deoxyuridine incorporation (granulosa cell proliferation); and ovarian transcriptomic signature.

RESULTS

At 3 weeks, xenografts in the IGF1 condition revealed a decreased percentage of primary follicles and increased percentage of secondary follicles that were concentrated in the preantral subtype; at 8 weeks, an increase in secondary follicles was concentrated in the simple subtype; after 14 weeks, primordial follicles were reduced, and while the number of advanced follicles did not power the experiment to demonstrate significance, antral follicles reduced and corpora lutea increased. Supporting experiments in mice revealed an increase in normal oocytes following intraovarian injection of recombinant IGF1 (60 μg) as well as increased proliferative index among follicles of secondary and preantral stages. Ribonucleic acid sequencing analysis of the whole ovaries following injection of recombinant IGF1 (25 μg) revealed an acute (24 hours) upregulation of transcripts related to steroidogenesis and luteinization.

CONCLUSIONS

Exogenous IGF1 advances the pace of growth among primordial, primary, and secondary stage follicles but results in near absence of antral stage follicles in long-term (14 weeks) xenografts. In mice, acute administration of IGF1 promotes follicle advance and increased oocyte yield. The results suggest that while superphysiological IGF1 alone advances the pace of growth among early/preantral follicles, a sustained and/or later-stage influence undermines antral follicle growth/survival or promotes premature luteinization. These findings provide a temporal framework for interpreting follicle growth/mobilization and may be useful in understanding the clinical application of human growth hormone in the context of assisted reproduction.

Growth hormone replacement improved oocyte quality in a patient with hypopituitarism: a study of follicular fluid

BACKGROUNDː Growth hormone (GH) is known to be involved in ovarian folliculogenesis and oocyte maturation. In patients with poor ovarian response without growth hormone deficiency (GHD), adjuvant GH treatment improves in-vitro fertilization (IVF) results. Improvement of oocyte quality in IVF by GH replacement was reported in only a few patients with GHD. We report on another case with study of follicular fluid. METHODSː A 29-year-old patient with hypopituitarism was referred to our infertility center. She was undergoing hormonal replacement for hypogonadotropic hypogonadism and diabetes insipidus, and did not at first want GH replacement. Four IVF procedures were performed between 2011 and 2014. Growth hormone replacement (somatotropin 1.1mg/day) was initiated before the fourth IVF procedure and unmasked central hypothyroidism; levothyroxine (75 mg/day) was introduced. It took 10 months to reach the treatment objectives for insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF1), free triiodothyronine (fT3) and free thyroxine (fT4). GH, IGF1 and thyroid hormones were measured in the blood and follicular fluid before and after GH and thyroid hormone replacement. Oocyte and embryo quality were also compared. RESULTSː The first 3 IVF procedures were performed without GH replacement. 62% to 100% of mature oocytes presented one or more morphologic abnormalities: diffuse cytoplasmic granularity, large perivitelline space with fragments, fragmentation of the first polar body, ovoid shape, or difficult denudation. Embryo quality was moderate to poor (grade B to D), and no pregnancy was obtained after embryo transfer. After GH replacement, hormones levels increased in follicular fluid: GH [7.68 vs. 1.39 mIU/L], IGF1 [109 vs. <25 ng/mL], fT3 [3.7 vs. 2.5 pmol/L] and fT4 [1.45 vs. 0.84 ng/mL]. Concomitantly, there was dramatic improvement in oocyte quality (no abnormal morphologies) and embryo quality (grade A), allowing an embryo transfer with successful pregnancy. CONCLUSIONSː This is the first report illustrating changes in hormonal levels in follicular fluid and the beneficial effect of GH replacement on oocyte and embryo quality during an IVF procedure in a patient with hypopituitarism. These results suggest that GH replacement is beneficial for oocyte quality in patients with GHD.

Human growth hormone use in poor ovarian response - caution and opportunities

Human growth hormone has found favour as a co-gonadotrophin in assisted reproduction particularly in the circumstances of a poor response to stimulation. Its use has been based on animal studies suggesting insulin-like growth factor-1 enhances granulosa and cumulus cell function and possibly oocyte quality. While there is limited ovarian cellular information in women, the use of human growth hormone is alleged to improve egg numbers, embryo quality, clinical pregnancies and live birth in women with a poor ovarian response. A number of cohort studies have claimed these benefits compared with prior nil treatment, but there are a limited number of quality randomised controlled studies. The few good randomised trials indicate an enhanced ovarian response in terms of oestradiol secretion and oocyte maturity with controversial improvement in ongoing pregnancy and live birth. Given the cost of the medication, the lack of convincing data on enhanced clinical outcomes and the theoretical possibility of side effects, we propose it is still too early to determine human growth hormone’s true cost-benefit for widespread use. However, a number of emerging randomised trials may tilt the equation to a positive outlook in the future. Meanwhile, the hormone should only be used after full informed consent from the patient as to its effectiveness and efficacy.

WITHDRAWN: Growth hormone improves insulin-like growth factor 1 and steroid hormone levels in follicle fluid, expression of hormone receptors in granulosa cells, and in vitro fertilization outcomes of poor ovarian responders

This article has been withdrawn at the request of the author(s) and/or editor. The Publisher apologizes for any inconvenience this may cause. The full Elsevier Policy on Article Withdrawal can be found at https://www.elsevier.com/about/our-business/policies/article-withdrawal.

Growth Hormone Cotreatment for Low-Prognosis Patients According to the POSEIDON Criteria

BACKGROUND

Poor ovarian response (POR) remains one of the most challenging conditions in assisted reproduction technology. Previous studies seemed to indicate that growth hormone (GH) was a potential solution for the dilemma of POR; however, the role GH played on the low-prognosis patients diagnosed and stratified by the POSEIDON criteria remains indistinct.

METHODS

This retrospective study was performed among women with POR according to the POSEIDON criteria who failed a previous in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycle, and the subsequent cycle was under GH cotreatment and conducted within 12 months. These participants were stratified into four groups according to the POSEIDON criteria. The comparison was implemented between the failed cycle and the cycle treated with GH. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) multivariate regression was applied for data analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 428 low-prognosis women were included in this study. GH supplementation improved the live birth rates (47.66%, 28.33%, 45.45%, and 24.07%; in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively) and the clinical pregnancy rates (OR 19.16, 95% CI 7.87-46.63, p < 0.001; OR 7.44, 95% CI 1.65-33.55, p = 0.009; OR 10.19, 95% CI 2.39-43.52, p = 0.002; OR 27.63, 95% CI 4.46-171.11, p < 0.001; in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively) in all four POSEIDON groups. The number of oocytes retrieved was significantly elevated in the subgroups with normal ovarian reserve (IRR 1.47, 95% CI 1.36-1.59, p < 0.001; IRR 1.31, 95% CI 1.15-1.49, p < 0.001; in groups 1 and 2, respectively). The number of day-3 good-quality embryos was significantly elevated in the subgroups with either normal ovarian reserve or aged young (IRR 2.13, 95% CI 1.78-2.56, p < 0.001; IRR 1.54, 95% CI 1.26-1.89, p < 0.001; IRR 1.47, 95% CI 1.10-1.98, p = 0.010; in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Growth hormone cotreatment could ameliorate the pregnancy outcome for women with POR under the POSEIDON criteria who failed a previous IVF/ICSI cycle. The application of growth hormone for low-prognosis women who experienced a failed cycle might be considered and further studied.

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 effect of growth hormone adjuvant therapy on assisted reproductive technologies outcomes in patients with diminished ovarian reserve or poor ovarian response

Low response of patients with diminished ovarian reserve to exogenous gonadotropins in controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocols is one of the important problems of reproductive endocrinology. Various treatment protocols have been developed in patients with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) or poor ovarian response (POR). Recently, the addition of growth hormone (GH) to treatment protocols has been brought to the agenda in these patients. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effect of GH adjuvant treatment on intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycle results in patients with DOR or POR. This retrospective cohort study was carried out with patients who diagnosed as DOR or POR and underwent ICSI. The patients were divided into the groups according to whether GH was used. In this study, ongoing pregnancy rates and live birth rates were observed to be significantly higher in the group receiving GH compared to the control group. In addition, there was a significant increase in embryo quality in the group receiving GH. As a result, the addition of GH to COS protocols in DOR and POR patients may increase the ongoing pregnancy rate, live birth rate, embryo quality.

Outcomes of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer in women with diminished ovarian reserve after growth hormone pretreatment

The study was to evaluate the in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) outcomes in women with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) after pretreatment with growth hormone (GH). Retrospective propensity score matching study, which included 92 women received GH over 4 weeks pretreatment before their subsequent IVF cycles and 92 matched controls who underwent IVF cycles between July 2017 and August 2018. The evaluation parameters included ovarian response, embryological parameters, and pregnancy outcomes after embryo transfer (ET). The mean number of retrieved oocytes and transferable day-3 embryos were significantly higher after GH pretreatment. The implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and ongoing pregnancy rate per fresh ET cycle were similar between the GH group and control group. In women who either achieved pregnancy or utilized all the embryos resulting from the index stimulation cycle, the cumulative clinical pregnancy rate was significantly higher in women with GH compared to the control group. 4 weeks pretreatment with GH could increase ovarian response to stimulation and then improved IVF-ET outcomes in women with DOR.

Effects of Growth Hormone Supplementation on Poor Ovarian Responders in Assisted Reproductive Technology: a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

To investigate whether additional growth hormone (GH) treatment can improve pregnancy outcomes in poor ovarian responders (POR), this systematic review and meta-analysis is prospectively designed and has been registered in PROSPERO (Registration number: CRD42019137866). Literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from January 2010 to June 2019, and studies before 2010 were included based on a Cochrane review published in 2010. Only English articles and randomized clinical trial studies were included. A total of 12 studies were included for analysis. GH treatment in poor ovarian responders significantly increased the clinical pregnancy rate (odds ratio (OR) = 1.75 (1.23, 2.50)), and the live birth rate also tended to increase after GH treatment (OR = 1.51 (0.97, 2.35)). Other outcomes including the gonadotropin requirement, oocyte retrieval number, endometrium thickness, and the number of patients with available embryos for transfer were also improved by growth hormone treatment (weighted mean differences (WMD) = - 0.78 (- 1.23, - 0.33), 1.41 (0.72, 2.09), 0.36 (0.18, 0.53), OR = 2.67 (1.47, 4.68), respectively). Based on the current study, GH treatment in POR can increase clinical pregnancy rate and show a higher but not statistically significant likelihood of live birth rate. The effect is likely to be mediated by improving ovarian response and endometrium thickness. The effect of GH treatment on live birth rate should be tested by further studies with a larger sample size.

The effect of growth hormone supplementation in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF or ICSI: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effect of growth hormone (GH) supplementation in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

METHODS

PubMed, MEDLINE and Cochrane Library databases were searched for the identification of relevant randomized controlled trials. Outcome measures were live birth rate, clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, cycle cancelation rate, number of retrieved oocytes and total dose of gonadotropin.

RESULTS

Fifteen randomized controlled trails (RCTs) involving 1448 patients were eligible for the analysis. GH supplementation improved live birth rate (RR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.19-2.54), clinical pregnancy rate (RR, 1.65; 95% CI, 1.31-2.08) and retrieved oocytes number (SMD, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.28-1.16), while reducing cancelled cycles rate (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44-0.85) and dose of Gonadotropin (SMD,-1.05 95% CI, - 1.62 - -0.49) for poor ovarian response patients. Besides, there was no significant difference in the miscarriage rate between GH group and control group.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the limited available evidence, growth hormone supplementation seems to improve IVF/ICSI outcomes for poor ovarian responders. Further randomized controlled trials with large sample sizes are required to clarify the effect of GH adjuvant therapy in the treatment of women with poor ovarian response.

Growth hormone cotreatment for poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of growth hormone (GH) supplementation in improving the in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes of poor responders.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Poor ovarian responders undergoing conventional IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

INTERVENTION(S)

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of poor ovarian responders undergoing a single IVF/ICSI cycle with GH supplementation versus conventional controlled ovarian stimulation. This review was registered in the PROSPERO database before starting data extraction (CRD42020151681).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Primary outcome was live birth rate. Clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, number of oocytes, number of mature (metaphase II [MII]) oocytes and the number of embryos available to transfer were considered as secondary outcomes.

RESULT(S)

Twelve RCTs were included; 586 women were assigned to the intervention group and 553 to the control group. The analysis revealed that patients receiving GH supplementation did not show an increased live birth rate, miscarriage rate, or ongoing pregnancy rate. However, GH supplementation in poor responders increased clinical pregnancy rate, number of oocytes retrieved (mean difference 1.62), number of MII oocytes (mean difference 2.06), and number of embryos available to transfer (mean difference 0.76). Sensitivity and subgroup analyses did not provide statistical changes to pooled results.

CONCLUSION(S)

The present meta-analysis provides evidence that GH supplementation may improve some reproductive outcomes in poor responders, but not live birth rates.

Hormonal Effects in Reproductive Technology with Focus on Diminished Ovarian Reserve

Modern use of reproductive technologies has revolutionized the treatment of infertile couples. Strategies to improve ovarian function in cases of diminished ovarian reserve are perhaps the least understood area in this field and will be the chief focus of this chapter.

Adjuvants in IVF-evidence for what works and what does not work

The field of assisted reproductive technology is shaped and changed constantly by advances in science and cutting-edge innovations. In a quest to maximise outcomes, add-on interventions are often adopted and utilised prematurely while the principles of evidence-based medicine seem to be less strictly adhered to. In this review we will attempt to summarise the latest evidence about some of the adjuvants.

What Is the Best Regimen for Ovarian Stimulation of Poor Responders in ART/IVF?

The infertile patients with aging ovaries-also sometimes referred to as impending premature ovarian insufficiency (POI), impending premature ovarian failure (POF), or poor ovarian responders (POR), constitute a significant and increasing bulk of the patients appealing to IVF/ART. Different causes have been cited in the literature, among the identified etiologies, including chromosomal and genetic etiology, metabolic, enzymatic, iatrogenic, toxic, autoimmune, and infectious causes. Although the most successful and ultimate treatment of POI/POF/POR patients is egg donation (ED), many, if not most, of these infertile women are reluctant to consent to ED upon the initial diagnostic interview, requesting alternative solutions despite the low odds for success. Despite anecdotal case reports, no unequivocal treatment proved to be successful for these patients in prospective randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, the addition of growth hormone (GH) to ovarian stimulation in POR with GH deficiency may improve the results of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) and the IVF success. In patients with autoimmune etiology for POR/POI, the combination of glucocorticosteroids, pituitary-ovarian suppression, and COH may be successful in achieving the desired conception.

Clinical Outcomes of Frozen-Thawed Embryos Generated From Growth Hormone Stimulation in Expected Poor Responders

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to elucidate whether growth hormone (GH) adjuvant therapy significantly improves clinical outcomes for expected poor responders in frozen-thawed cycles.

METHODS

Expected poor responders undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation with or without GH adjuvant therapy, and subsequently underwent the first frozen-thawed transfer from January 2017 to March 2020 were retrospectively reviewed. Maternal age was matched at a 1:1 ratio between the GH and control groups. All statistical analyses were performed with the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software.

RESULTS

A total of 376 frozen-thawed cycles comprised the GH and control groups at a ratio of 1:1. The number of oocytes (7.13 ± 3.93 vs. 5.89 ± 3.33; p = 0.001), two pronuclei zygotes (4.66 ± 2.76 vs. 3.99 ± 2.31; p = 0.011), and day 3 available embryos (3.86 ± 2.62 vs. 3.26 ± 2.04; p = 0.014) obtained in the GH group was significantly higher than the control group in corresponding fresh cycles. The clinical pregnancy (30.3 vs. 31.0%; p = 0.883), implantation (25.3 vs. 26.2%; p = 0.829), early abortion (16.1 vs. 15.8%; p = 0.967), and live birth rates (20.6 vs. 20.8%; p=0.980) were comparable between the two groups in frozen-thawed cycles. Improvement in the clinical pregnancy (46.8 vs. 32.1%; p = 0.075), early miscarriage (10.3 vs. 20.0%; p = 0.449), and live birth rates (35.7 vs. 18.9%; p = 0.031) was found in the subgroup of poor ovarian responders (PORs) with good quality blastocyst transfer (≥4BB) following GH co-treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

GH administration would increase oocyte quantity and quality, in turn, improve live birth rate in PORs.

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 Concept of Growth Hormone Deficiency Affecting Clinical Prognosis in IVF

The current understanding of human growth hormone (hGH; here GH) action is that the molecule is a 191-amino acid, single-chain polypeptide that is synthesized, stored and secreted by the somatotroph cells within the lateral wings of the anterior pituitary gland. It can be classified as a protein (comprising more than 50 amino acids) but true proteins have tertiary and quaternary chains creating a more complex structure, hence GH is usually classified as a polypeptide. GH is normally secreted at night during sleep and promotes skeletal, visceral and general body growth through the action of somatomedins or IGFs, notably IGF-1. In some tissues, GH action is directed via specific receptors GHRs; these are most abundant in liver, adipose and muscle tissues but have also been shown in granulosa cells, testicular tissues and on the oocyte, as well as in glandular cells of the luteal phase endometrium and decidua; such findings being recent and minimally researched to now. Following engagement with its receptor, the transduction process activates multiple signaling proteins. These all lead to extensive metabolic and mitogenic (growth promoting) responses. Clinically, GH is known to have an important role in pubertal development and is a key hormone for the vigor associated with adolescence and early adult life stages but has a faded presence and role for later adulthood, beyond age 30 years, and is minimally detected in advanced age, beyond 40 years. In association with the rapidly increasing trend for delaying reproduction beyond age 35 years, GH is being widely researched now as a potential adjuvant for infertility treatment in this group who, studies consistently show, have a poorer prognosis than younger females when relying on autologous oocytes. The idea that the age-related reduction in fertility prognosis is a feature of growth hormone deficiency is supported by our studies showing an elevated binding protein IGFBP-3/IGF-1 ratio and this can be reduced to a normal range (matching younger, good prognosis women) by the administration of GH as an adjuvant.

Growth Hormone and Endometrial Receptivity

Administration of growth hormone (GH) during ovarian stimulation has shown beneficial effects on in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes. It is generally believed that this improvement is due to the stimulating effect of GH on oocyte quality. However, studies are emerging that show possible positive effect of GH administration on endometrial receptivity, thus suggesting an additional potential benefit at the level of the uterus, especially among women with recurrent implantation failure, thin endometrium, and older normal responders. This review summarizes recent data on GH co-treatment effects on endometrium and endometrial receptivity among infertile women undergoing IVF, and proposes possible mechanisms of GH actions in the endometrium.

Growth Hormone and Reproduction: Lessons Learned From Animal Models and Clinical Trials

Growth Hormone (GH) has been considered as a therapeutic option to increase the number of growing follicles during Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) for more than 30 years. In this review the biological rationale for therapeutic GH usage is explained through evidence in animal models, aiming to put this into a clinical context. First, we explain the GH-Insulin like Growth Factor (IGF)-1-gonadal axis and its role in reproduction. Evidence suggests that GH can stimulate the secretion of IGF1 not only in the liver but also in the peripheral target structures, including the ovary. Moreover, IGF-1 can be secreted locally under the influence of stimuli other than GH. In the case of the ovary, steroid hormones, gonadotropins or the combination of both seems to be involved. Even more interesting, the ovary itself can secret GH locally and exert a paracrine action modulating the intracellular signaling pathway of GH, i.e., not by the systemic pathway where GH binds to the extracellular domain of the GH receptor. Finally, these aspects from animal models are put into clinical perspective by discussing results and shortcomings of studies and meta-analyses in order to put forth the state-of-the-art rationale for therapeutic GH usage in modern ART.

Application of Growth Hormone in in vitro Fertilization

Growth hormone (GH) is a peptide hormone secreted mainly by the anterior part of the pituitary gland and plays a critical role in cell growth, development, and metabolism throughout the body. GH can not only directly influence human oocytes and cumulus cells but also indirectly improve oocyte quality through activating synthesis of insulin-like growth factor-I or promoting follicle-stimulating hormone-induced ovarian steroidogenesis. Since GH can regulate female and male infertility, it has been applied in the management of infertility for many years, especially in patients with poor ovarian response or poor prognosis. During ovarian stimulation, GH administration might improve the success rate of in vitro fertilization (IVF) probably through the beneficial effects of GH on oocyte quality as indicated by a higher number of mature oocytes and embryos arriving at the transfer stage and a higher fertility rate in GH-treated patients. However, there is still great controversy in the application of GH in IVF. While some researchers showed that pregnancy, implantation and live birth rates could be increased by ovarian pretreatment with GH, others did not support GH as an effective adjuvant for infertility treatment because the live birth rate was not increased. This study reviewed and summarized recent advancements and benefits in clinical application of GH, trying to reach a just unbiased conclusion regarding the effect of GH therapy in IVF.

Low Dose Growth Hormone Adjuvant Treatment With Ultra-Long Ovarian Stimulation Protocol in Poor Responders Showed Non-inferior Pregnancy Outcome Compared With Normal Responders

Background: Growth hormone (GH) has long been used as adjuvant treatment in ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization (IVF), especially in poor responder (PR) patients. However, its clinical efficacy remains unclear, and most studies are underpowered owing to their small sample size with different regimens. Methods: Our study was divided into two parts. The first part was a parallel randomized, observational study in which 184 patients who fulfilled the criteria of poor ovarian response (POR) were enrolled and received ultra-long ovarian stimulation protocol with or without GH adjuvant therapy. For the second part, clinical data were retrospectively extracted from 163 patients classified as PRs who received 10 IU GH adjuvant therapy and 157 patients classified as normal responders (NRs) who received the same IVF protocol treatment without GH adjuvant therapy. Results: For the first part of the study, the ovarian response, the number of oocytes retrieved, and the number of available embryos transferred were all significantly higher in the GH (+) group than in the GH (-) group. The clinical pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the GH (+) group (31.9 vs. 16.7%, p = 0.0168). The miscarriage rate did not differ significantly between the groups. The ongoing pregnancy rate was also significantly higher in the GH (+) group than in the GH (-) group (26.6 vs. 14.4%, p = 0.0418). Logistic regression revealed that the chance of clinical pregnancy in the GH (+) group significant increased 2.34-fold in comparison with the GH (-) group (p = 0.018). Subgroup analysis showed that the chance of clinical pregnancy in the GH (+) group significantly increased 2.38-fold (p = 0.034). The second part of the study showed no statistical difference between the PR with GH and the NR without GH groups regarding the implantation rate (15.6 vs. 19.8%, p = 0.3254) and the clinical pregnancy rate (31.9 vs. 39.5%, p = 0.1565). The NR without GH group showed insignificantly higher chance of clinical pregnancy (OR = 1.39, p = 0.157) compared with the PR with GH group. Conclusion: Our results suggested that low-dose GH supplementation may improve ovarian response and pregnancy outcome in POR patients, particularly in patients younger than 40 years old. Moreover, the low-dose GH effect in POR patients resulted in non-inferior clinical pregnancy outcome compared with NRs.

The Evolving Concept of Poor-Prognosis for Women Undertaking IVF and the Notion of Growth Hormone as an Adjuvant; A Single-Center Viewpoint

IVF is currently regarded as a successful new technology with the number of IVF children currently well over 8 million worldwide. This has been achieved by an explosive plethora of facilities. However, from its earliest history, IVF has been beset by poor-prognosis on a treatment cycle basis, an aspect which has been a constant feature for the majority of treatments to this stage. The 2019 Australian and New Zealand Assisted Reproduction Database (ANZARD) report shows that IVF clinics have live birth productivity rates (from combined initiated fresh and frozen cycles) ranging from 9.3 to 33.2%. Over the past 40 years there have been a number of innovations which have steadily moved the success rates forward, but progress is held back by an intransigent group of women who can be classified as being poor-prognosis from one or more adverse factors, namely advanced age (>40 years), poor ovarian response (POR) to ovarian stimulation, inability to generate high quality blastocyst-stage embryos, recurrent implantation failure, or recurrent early pregnancy losses. A number of strategies are variously applied including the use of recombinant growth hormone (GH) adjuvant therapy. Our retrospective studies at PIVET over the past decade show a 6.2-fold chance of live birth for fresh cycle embryo transfers following GH injections of 1-1.5 IU daily given for 3-6 weeks in the lead-up to the trigger for ovum pick-up. We have also recently reported the live birth rates from frozen embryo transfers utilizing those blastocyst embryos generated under GH influence and showed the live birth rate was 2.7-fold higher in a carefully matched poor-prognosis group. This experience has been compared to the total 42 GH studies reported since the year 2000, the majority matching those of PIVET with significant increases in both oocyte and embryo utilization rates but only ~50% are followed by elevated live birth rates. We argue that this discrepancy relates to failure in addressing other causes of poor-prognosis along with the wastage of transferring more than a single embryo in the fresh cycle, when ANZARD data indicates a significantly higher chance of live birth from frozen embryo transfers.

Use of Growth Hormone in the IVF Treatment of Women With Poor Ovarian Reserve

Growth hormone (GH) has been used as an adjunct in the field of female infertility treatment for more than 25 years, although, apart from treating women with GH deficiency its role has not yet been clarified. Contributing to this lack of clarity is that several underpowered studies have been performed on women undergoing IVF treatment, with a previous "poor response" to ovarian stimulation, which have suggested a favorable outcome. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials has demonstrated a benefit for the use of the adjunct growth hormone, in comparison to placebo; with reductions in the duration of ovarian stimulation required prior to oocyte retrieval, with a greater number of oocytes collected, and improvements in many of the early clinical parameters with the use of GH. However, no benefit of an increased chance of a live birth with the use of growth hormone for the "poor responding" patient has been determined. Consequently the role of GH to treat a woman with a poor response to ovarian stimulation cannot be supported on the basis of the available evidence. However, the place for GH in the treatment of women undergoing IVF may yet still be determined, as it is also used, without firm evidence of benefit; for women with poor embryonic development, poor endometrial development and for women who do not conceive despite multiple embryo transfers (recurrent implantation failure).