Luteinizing hormone supplementation increases pregnancy rates in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist donor cycles

High sperm DNA fragmentation: do we have robust evidence to support antioxidants and testicular sperm extraction to improve fertility outcomes? a narrative review

To date, infertility affects 10% to 15% of couples worldwide. A male factor is estimated to account for up to 50% of cases. Oral supplementation with antioxidants could be helpful to improve sperm quality by reducing oxidative damage. At the same time, there is a growing interest in the literature on the use of testicular sperm in patients with high DNA fragmentation index (DFI). This narrative review aims to evaluate the effectiveness of supplementation of oral antioxidants in infertile men with high DFI compared to testicular sperm retrieval. The current evidence is non-conclusive because of serious risk of bias due to small sample sizes and statistical methods. Further large well-designed randomised placebo-controlled trials are still required to clarify the exact role of these to different therapeutic approaches.

LH increases the response to FSH in granulosa-lutein cells from sub/poor-responder patients in vitro

STUDY QUESTION

Does LH addition to FSH in vitro recover the human primary granulosa lutein cell (hGLC) sub/poor-response?

SUMMARY ANSWER

A picomolar concentration of LH may recover the FSH-induced cAMP and progesterone production of hGLC from sub/poor-responder women.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Clinical studies suggested that FSH and LH co-treatment may be beneficial for the ovarian response of sub/poor-responders undergoing ovarian stimulation during ART.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

hGLC samples from 286 anonymous women undergoing oocyte retrieval for ART were collected from October 2017 to February 2021.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

hGLCs from women undergoing ovarian stimulation during ART were blindly purified, cultured, genotyped and treated in vitro by increasing concentrations of FSH (nM) ±0.5 nM LH. cAMP and progesterone levels produced after 3 and 24 h, respectively, were measured. In vitro data were stratified a posteriori, according to the donors' ovarian response, into normo-, sub- and poor-responder groups and statistically compared. The effects of LH addition to FSH were compared with those obtained by FSH alone in all the groups as well.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

hGLCs from normo-responders were shown to have higher sensitivity to FSH treatment than sub-/poor-responders in vitro. Equimolar FSH concentrations induced higher cAMP (about 2.5- to 4.2-fold), and progesterone plateau levels (1.2- to 2.1-fold), in cells from normo-responder women than those from sub-/poor-responders (ANOVA; P < 0.05). The addition of LH to the cell treatment significantly increased overall FSH efficacy, indicated by cAMP and progesterone levels, within all groups (P > 0.05). Interestingly, these in vitro endpoints, collected from the normo-responder group treated with FSH alone, were similar to those obtained in the sub-/poor-responder group under FSH + LH treatment. No different allele frequencies and FSH receptor (FSHR) gene expression levels between groups were found, excluding genetics of gonadotropin and their receptors as a factor linked to the normo-, sub- and poor-response. In conclusion, FSH elicits phenotype-specific ovarian lutein cell response. Most importantly, LH addition may fill the gap between cAMP and steroid production patterns between normo- and sub/poor-responders.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Although the number of experimental replicates is overall high for an in vitro study, clinical trials are required to demonstrate if the endpoints evaluated herein reflect parameters of successful ART. hGLC retrieved after ovarian stimulation may not fully reproduce the response to hormones of granulosa cells from the antral follicular stage.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This in vitro assay may describe the individual response to personalize ART stimulation protocol, according to the normo-, sub- and poor-responder status. Moreover, this in vitro study supports the need to conduct optimally designed, randomized clinical trials exploring the personalized use of LH in assisted reproduction.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This study was supported by Merck KGaA. M.L. and C.C. are employees of Merck KGaA or of the affiliate Merck Serono SpA. Other authors have no competing interests to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Recombinant LH supplementation improves cumulative live birth rates in the GnRH antagonist protocol: a multicenter retrospective study using a propensity score-matching analysis

BACKGROUND

Luteinizing hormone (LH) is critical in follicle growth and oocyte maturation. However, the value of recombinant LH (r-LH) supplementation to recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (r-FSH) during controlled ovarian stimulation in the gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist regimen is controversial.

METHODS

This multicenter retrospective cohort study recruited 899 GnRH antagonist cycles stimulated with r-LH and r-FSH in 3 reproductive centers and matched them to 2652 r-FSH stimulating cycles using propensity score matching (PSM) for potential confounders in a 1:3 ratio. The primary outcome was the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) per complete cycle.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics were comparable in the r-FSH/r-LH and r-FSH groups after PSM. The r-FSH/r-LH group achieved a higher CLBR than the r-FSH group (66.95% vs. 61.16%, p = 0.006). R-LH supplementation also resulted in a higher 2-pronuclear embryo rate, usable embryo rate, and live birth rate in both fresh embryo transfer cycles and frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles. No significant differences were found in the rate of moderate and severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), or cycle cancellation rate in the prevention of OHSS.

CONCLUSIONS

R-LH supplementation to r-FSH in the GnRH antagonist protocol was significantly associated with a higher CLBR and live birth rate in fresh and FET cycles, and improved embryo quality without increasing the OHSS rate and cycle cancellation rate.

Luteinizing hormone supplementation in women with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism seeking fertility care: Insights from a narrative review

The management of infertile women affected by hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (HH) or conditions mimicking it is particularly challenging. In the present narrative review, we aimed to synthesize the available evidence on the benefit (if any) of exogenous luteinizing hormone (LH) supplementation in this group of patients. Available data support LH supplementation in women with organic or functional HH. On the contrary, the benefit of exogenous LH on reproductive outcomes both in advanced maternal age patients and in cases of depletion of FSH and LH levels induced by GnRH analogues has not been demonstrated. unfortunately, the inhomogeneous study populations as well as the methodological heterogeneity between studies focused on women affected by conditions mimicking HH do not allow reliable conclusions to be drawn.

Recombinant luteinizing hormone supplementation in assisted reproductive technology: a review of literature

Background

Luteinizing hormone (LH) has the main role in ovarian function in both natural and artificial cycles. A normal LH concentration during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation is positively correlated to the number and quality of retrieved oocytes and resulting embryos.

Main body of the abstract

In this study, we reviewed whether rLH administration, adjunct to the ovarian stimulation regimen, could improve clinical outcomes. The literature review showed that rLH supplementation improves assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcomes among women with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism, and hyporesponsive women to follicle-stimulating hormone monotherapy. Besides, rLH supplementation has advantages for poor responder women 36–39 years of age. Even though the data suggested no priority regarding the LH source for improving ART outcome, women with different LH polymorphisms who did not respond similarly to ovarian stimulation may benefit from adjuvant rLH therapy.

Conclusion

rLH usage for improving ART outcome should be scrutinized via well-designed studies considering the subgroups of infertile women who benefit the most from rLH adjuvant therapy, the type of ovarian stimulation protocol to which rLH would be added, and also the exact dosage, as well as the proper timing (during or prior to a cycle).

A Randomized Controlled Trial on the Efficacy and Safety of Low-Dose hCG in a Short Protocol with GnRH Agonist and Ovarian Stimulation with Recombinant FSH (rFSH) During the Follicular Phase in Infertile Women Undergoing ART

Τhis study aims to investigate whether the addition of low-dose hCG throughout stimulation in infertile women undergoing IVF improves IVF outcome parameters. This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, Phase IIIb clinical study, conducted in three university IVF units. We studied whether the addition of 100 IU hCG/day to a short GnRH agonist IVF protocol from the onset of the follicular phase (group 1, n=40) or placebo (group 2, n=41) had any impact on the number of high-quality transferred embryos at day 2 and clinical pregnancy rates. The comparison encompassed descriptive statistics, and univariate and multivariate analyses. Concerning the primary outcomes, we found no differences in both the number of high-quality embryos (≥2) at day 3 [21/40 (52.5%) vs. 14/41 (34.2%), p=0.095] and clinical pregnancy rates [10/40 (25%) vs. 10/41 (24.4%), p=0.949], respectively. Similarly, there were no differences concerning the secondary outcomes preset for this trial. According to the results of the multivariate logistic regression analysis, no significant associations were noted for primary outcomes (clinical pregnancy: adjusted OR=0.89, 95% CI: 0.29–2.75; (≥2 excellent quality embryos at day 3: adjusted OR=0.54, 95% CI: 0.21–1.42, with group 1 set as reference category); similarly, no differences were noted with respect to secondary outcomes, except from the increased odds of ≥2 poor-quality embryos at day 3 occurring in group 2 (adjusted OR= 11.69, 95%CI: 1.29–106.19). The addition of low-dose hCG to a short GnRH agonist protocol for IVF does not improve the number of top-quality embryos and clinical pregnancy rates.

Supplementation with human menopausal gonadotropin in the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles of women with high AMH: Pregnancy outcomes and serial hormone levels

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the value of using both HMG and recombinant FSH (r-FSH) in the GnRH antagonist protocol for women with high AMH.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective, single-center cohort study was conducted from January 2013 to December 2018. Of 277 GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI cycles in women with anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) ≥5 μg/L, 170 cycles receiving the combination of r-FSH and HMG (77 with HMG added at the beginning of the GnRH antagonist cycle and 93 with HMG added after GnRH antagonist administration) and 107 cycles receiving r-FSH alone were analyzed. The dynamic hormone profiles and embryonic and clinical outcomes of the patients were evaluated.

RESULTS

We observed significantly lower serum LH levels in the r-FSH + HMG groups during ovarian stimulation. The serum estradiol and progesterone levels were lower in the r-FSH + HMG groups on the trigger day. Nevertheless, there were no significant differences with respect to the number of oocytes retrieved, maturation, fertilization, blastocyst formation rate or ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). The implantation and live birth rates were increased in the r-FSH + HMG groups compared with the r-FSH alone group, with no statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

HMG for LH supplementation in the GnRH antagonist protocol for patients with high AMH is not significantly superior to r-FSH alone in terms of ovarian response and pregnancy outcome. Nevertheless, HMG supplementation might be appropriate for women with an initially inadequate response to r-FSH or intracycle LH deficiency.

Ovarian stimulation for oocyte donation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Since its introduction in the 1980s, oocyte donation (OD) has been largely integrated into ART. Lately, both demand and the indications for OD have increased greatly. Oocyte donors are healthy and potentially fertile women undergoing voluntarily ovarian stimulation (OS). Selection of the optimal type of stimulation is of paramount importance in order to achieve the most favourable outcomes for the oocyte recipients, but most importantly for the safety of the oocyte donors.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

This is the first systematic review (SR) with the objective to summarize the current evidence on OS in oocyte donors. The scope of this SR was to evaluate the OD programme by assessing four different aspects: how to assess the ovarian response prior to stimulation; how to plan the OS (gonadotrophins; LH suppression; ovulation trigger; when to start OS); how to control for the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and other complications; and the differences between the use of fresh versus vitrified donated oocytes.

SEARCH METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in May 2020, according to PRISMA guidelines in the databases PubMed and Embase, using a string that combined synonyms for oocytes, donation, banking, freezing, complications and reproductive outcomes. Studies reporting on the safety and/or efficacy of OS in oocyte donors were identified. The quality of the included studies was assessed using ROBINS-I and ROB2. Meta-analysis was performed where appropriate. Data were combined to calculate mean differences (MD) for continuous variables and odd ratios (OR) for binary data with their corresponding 95% CIs. Heterogeneity between the included studies was assessed using I2 and tau statistics.

OUTCOMES

In total, 57 manuscripts were selected for the review, out of 191 citations identified. Antral follicle count and anti-Müllerian hormone levels correlate with ovarian response to OS in OD but have limited value to discriminate donors who are likely to show either impaired or excessive response. Five randomized controlled trials compared different type of gonadotrophins as part of OS in oocyte donors; owing to high heterogeneity, meta-analysis was precluded. When comparing different types of LH control, namely GnRH antagonist versus agonist, the studies showed no differences in ovarian response. Use of progesterone primed ovarian stimulation protocols has been evaluated in seven studies: the evidence has shown little or no difference, compared to GnRH antagonist protocols, in mean number of retrieved oocytes (MD 0.23, [95% CI 0.58-1.05], n = 2147; 6 studies; I2 = 13%, P = 0.33) and in clinical pregnancy rates among recipients (OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.60-1.26], n = 2260, I2 = 72%, P < 0.01). There is insufficient evidence on long-term safety for babies born. GnRH agonist triggering is the gold standard and should be used in all oocyte donors, given the excellent oocyte retrieval rates, the practical elimination of OHSS and no differences in pregnancy rates in recipients (four studies, OR 0.86, 95%CI 0.58-1.26; I2 = 0%). OS in OD is a safe procedure with a low rate of hospitalization after oocyte retrieval. The use of a levonorgestrel intrauterine device or a progestin contraceptive pill during OS does not impact the number of oocytes retrieved or the clinical pregnancy rate in recipients. Ultrasound monitoring seems enough for an adequate follow up of the stimulation cycle in OD. Use of fresh versus vitrified donated oocytes yielded similar pregnancy outcomes.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

This update will be helpful in the clinical management of OS in OD based on the most recent knowledge and recommendations, and possibly in the management of women under 35 years undergoing oocyte vitrification for social freezing, owing to the population similarities. More clinical research is needed on OS protocols that are specifically designed for OD, especially in term of the long-term safety for newborns, effective contraception during OS, and treatment satisfaction.

Ovarian stimulation for freeze-all IVF cycles: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Freeze-all IVF cycles are becoming increasingly prevalent for a variety of clinical indications. However, the actual treatment objectives and preferred treatment regimens for freeze-all cycles have not been clearly established.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

We aimed to conduct a systematic review of all aspects of ovarian stimulation for freeze-all cycles.

SEARCH METHODS

A comprehensive search in Medline, Embase and The Cochrane Library was performed. The search strategy included keywords related to freeze-all, cycle segmentation, cumulative live birth rate, preimplantation genetic diagnosis, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy, fertility preservation, oocyte donation and frozen-thawed embryo transfer. We included relevant studies published in English from 2000 to 2018.

OUTCOMES

Our search generated 3292 records. Overall, 69 articles were included in the final review. Good-quality evidence indicates that in freeze-all cycles the cumulative live birth rate increases as the number of oocytes retrieved increases. Although the risk of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is virtually eliminated in freeze-all cycles, there are certain risks associated with retrieval of large oocyte cohorts. Therefore, ovarian stimulation should be planned to yield between 15 and 20 oocytes. The early follicular phase is currently the preferred starting point for ovarian stimulation, although luteal phase stimulation can be used if necessary. The improved safety associated with the GnRH antagonist regimen makes it the regimen of choice for ovarian stimulation in freeze-all cycles. Ovulation triggering with a GnRH agonist almost completely eliminates the risk of OHSS without affecting oocyte and embryo quality and is therefore the trigger of choice. The addition of low-dose hCG in a dual trigger has been suggested to improve oocyte and embryo quality, but further research in freeze-all cycles is required. Moderate-quality evidence indicates that in freeze-all cycles, a moderate delay of 2–3 days in ovulation triggering may result in the retrieval of an increased number of mature oocytes without impairing the pregnancy rate. There are no high-quality studies evaluating the effects of sustained supraphysiological estradiol (E2) levels on the safety and efficacy of freeze-all cycles. However, no significant adverse effects have been described. There is conflicting evidence regarding the effect of late follicular progesterone elevation in freeze-all cycles.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Ovarian stimulation for freeze-all cycles is different in many aspects from conventional stimulation for fresh IVF cycles. Optimisation of ovarian stimulation for freeze-all cycles should result in enhanced treatment safety along with improved cumulative live birth rates and should become the focus of future studies.

Recombinant luteinizing hormone supplementation in assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To assess the role of recombinant human LH (r-hLH) supplementation in ovarian stimulation for ART in specific subgroups of patients.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

Centers for reproductive care.

PATIENT(S)

Six populations were investigated: 1) women with a hyporesponse to recombinant human FSH (r-hFSH) monotherapy; 2) women at an advanced reproductive age; 3) women cotreated with the use of a GnRH antagonist; 4) women with profoundly suppressed LH levels after the administration of GnRH agonists; 5) normoresponder women to prevent ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome; and 6) women with a "poor response" to ovarian stimulation, including those who met the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology Bologna criteria.

INTERVENTION(S)

Systematic review.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Implantation rate, number of oocytes retrieved, live birth rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, fertilization rate, and number of metaphase II oocytes.

RESULT(S)

Recombinant hLH supplementation appears to be beneficial in two subgroups of patients: 1) women with adequate prestimulation ovarian reserve parameters and an unexpected hyporesponse to r-hFSH monotherapy; and 2) women 36-39 years of age. Indeed, there is no evidence that r-hLH is beneficial in young (<35 y) normoresponders cotreated with the use of a GnRH antagonist. The use of r-hLH supplementation in women with suppressed endogenous LH levels caused by GnRH analogues and in poor responders remains controversial, whereas the use of r-hLH supplementation to prevent the development of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome warrants further investigation.

CONCLUSION(S)

Recombinant hLH can be proposed for hyporesponders and women 36-39 years of age.

Recombinant luteinizing hormone (rLH) and recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) for ovarian stimulation in IVF/ICSI cycles

BACKGROUND

One of the various ovarian stimulation regimens used for in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles is the use of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) in combination with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue. GnRH analogues prevent premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges. Since they deprive the growing follicles of LH, the question arises as to whether supplementation with recombinant LH (rLH) would increase live birth rates. This is an updated Cochrane Review; the original version was published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and safety of recombinant luteinizing hormone (rLH) combined with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) for ovarian stimulation compared to rFSH alone in women undergoing in-vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI).

SEARCH METHODS

For this update we searched the following databases in June 2016: the Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and ongoing trials registers, and checked the references of retrieved articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing rLH combined with rFSH versus rFSH alone in IVF/ISCI cycles.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data. We combined data to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using GRADE methods. Our primary outcomes were live birth rate and incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Secondary outcomes included ongoing pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate and cancellation rates (for poor response or imminent OHSS).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 36 RCTs (8125 women). The quality of the evidence ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were risk of bias (associated with poor reporting of methods) and imprecision.Live birth rates: There was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between rLH combined with rFSH versus rFSH alone in live birth rates (OR 1.32, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.06; n = 499; studies = 4; I² = 63%, very low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the live birth rate following treatment with rFSH alone is 17% it will be between 15% and 30% using rLH combined with rFSH.OHSS: There may be little or no difference between rLH combined with rFSH versus rFSH alone in OHSS rates (OR 0.38, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.01; n = 2178; studies = 6; I² = 10%, low-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the rate of OHSS following treatment with rFSH alone is 1%, it will be between 0% and 1% using rLH combined with rFSH.Ongoing pregnancy rate: The use of rLH combined with rFSH probably improves ongoing pregnancy rates, compared to rFSH alone (OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.42; participants = 3129; studies = 19; I² = 2%, moderate-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the ongoing pregnancy rate following treatment with rFSH alone is 21%, it will be between 21% and 27% using rLH combined with rFSH.Miscarriage rate: The use of rLH combined with rFSH probably makes little or no difference to miscarriage rates, compared to rFSH alone (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.36; n = 1711; studies = 13; I² = 0%, moderate-quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the miscarriage rate following treatment with rFSH alone is 7%, the miscarriage rate following treatment with rLH combined with rFSH will be between 4% and 9%.Cancellation rates: There may be little or no difference between rLH combined with rFSH versus rFSH alone in rates of cancellation due to low response (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.10; n = 2251; studies = 11; I² = 16%, low quality evidence). The evidence suggests that if the risk of cancellation due to low response following treatment with rFSH alone is 7%, it will be between 4% and 7% using rLH combined with rFSH.We are uncertain whether use of rLH combined with rFSH improves rates of cancellation due to imminent OHSS compared to rFSH alone. Use of a fixed effect model suggested a benefit in the combination group (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.40 to 0.89; n = 2976; studies = 8; I² = 60%, very low quality evidence) but use of a random effects model did not support the conclusion that there was a difference between the groups (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.97).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no clear evidence of a difference between rLH combined with rFSH and rFSH alone in rates of live birth or OHSS. The evidence for these comparisons was of very low-quality for live birth and low quality for OHSS. We found moderate quality evidence that the use of rLH combined with rFSH may lead to more ongoing pregnancies than rFSH alone. There was also moderate-quality evidence suggesting little or no difference between the groups in rates of miscarriage. There was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of cancellation due to low response or imminent OHSS, but the evidence for these outcomes was of low or very low quality.We conclude that the evidence is insufficient to encourage or discourage stimulation regimens that include rLH combined with rFSH in IVF/ICSI cycles.

The effect of LH supplementation to the GnRH antagonist protocol in advanced reproductive ageing women: a prospective randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVE

Although the fundamental significance of both LH and FSH for adequate ovarian folliculogenesis and steroidogenesis has been extensively discussed, the clinical implication of recombinant (r) LH to rFSH for ovarian stimulation employing the GnRH antagonist protocol remains to be elucidated. The aim of this prospective randomized controlled study was to explore whether rLH supplementation to rFSH following GnRH antagonist has an added value to the late follicular ovarian steroidogenesis in the advanced reproductive aged women.

DESIGN AND SUBJECTS

Sixty-three consecutive infertile women above 35 years of age and/or with a previous low ovarian response admitted for IVF/ICSI treatment were prospectively randomized. Women in the study and control groups were similarly treated employing the rFSH 300 IU/day and the flexible GnRH antagonist 0·25 mg/day protocol. On the day of antagonist initiation, rLH 150 IU/day was added only to the study group and continued till the hCG day.

RESULTS

Serum E2 level on hCG day did not significantly differ between the study and control groups, corresponding to 1268 ± 1006 and 1113 ± 669 pg/mL, respectively (P = 0·9). In the study group, the duration of GnRH antagonist administration was significantly lower than the control group corresponding to 5·0 ± 1·5 to 4·0 ± 1·5 days, respectively (P < 0·05). The total dosage of rFSH administration did not differ between the two groups.

CONCLUSIONS

rLH supplementation to rFSH following GnRH antagonist administration employing the flexible protocol does not seem to significantly augment serum E2 level on the day of hCG administration in the advanced reproductive ageing women. This suggests that endogenous serum LH levels following GnRH antagonist initiation are sufficient for adequate late follicular ovarian steroidogenesis in this setting.

A review of luteinising hormone and human chorionic gonadotropin when used in assisted reproductive technology

Gonadotropins extracted from the urine of post-menopausal women have traditionally been used to stimulate folliculogenesis in the treatment of infertility and in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Products, such as human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG), consist not only of a mixture of the hormones, follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinising hormone (LH) and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), but also other biologically active contaminants, such as growth factors, binding proteins and prion proteins. The actual amount of molecular LH in hMG preparations varies considerably due to the purification process, thus hCG, mimicking LH action, is added to standardise the product. However, unlike LH, hCG plays a different role during the natural human menstrual cycle. It is secreted by the embryo and placenta, and its main role is to support implantation and pregnancy. More recently, recombinant gonadotropins (r-hFSH and r-hLH) have become available for ART therapies. Recombinant LH contains only LH molecules. In the field of reproduction there has been controversy in recent years over whether r-hLH or hCG should be used for ART. This review examines the existing evidence for molecular and functional differences between LH and hCG and assesses the clinical implications of hCG-supplemented urinary therapy compared with recombinant therapies used for ART.

Does the degree of hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian recovery after oral contraceptive pills affect outcomes of IVF/ICSI cycles receiving GnRH-antagonist adjuvant therapy in women over 35 years of age?

PURPOSE

To evaluate if the degree of recovery of serum gonadotropins after oral contraceptive pills (OCP) pretreatment has an impact on ovarian response in GnRH-antagonist IVF cycles in women of advanced maternal age.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we included 98 women 35-42 years undergoing their first IVF cycle receiving gonadotropins and a fixed GnRH-antagonist adjuvant protocol. Data analysis was carried out according to changes in serum FSH, LH and estradiol (E(2)) levels (basal and post-OCP) divided in quartiles, and also according to absolute levels. The main outcomes were peak serum E(2), number of mature oocytes retrieved, length of stimulation, and amount of gonadotropins used.

RESULTS

By quartile analysis, patients with the highest levels of serum gonadotropins suppression and also patients with gonadotropin rebound needed larger amounts of LH during the treatment. On the other hand, women with absolute suppression of FSH/LH had increased length of stimulation.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study provide data that assist in clinical management. Gonadotropin serum levels after OCP treatment provide information for optimization of supplementation with LH in GnRH-antagonist cycles in women over age 35.

GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in assisted reproduction cycles: oocyte morphology

BACKGROUND

The selection of developmentally competent human gametes may increase the efficiency of assisted reproduction. Spermatozoa and oocytes are usually assessed according to morphological criteria. Oocyte morphology can be affected by the age, genetic characteristics, and factors related to controlled ovarian stimulation. However, there is a lack of evidence in the literature concerning the effect of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues, either agonists or antagonists, on oocyte morphology. The aim of this randomized study was to investigate whether the prevalence of oocyte dysmorphism is influenced by the type of pituitary suppression used in ovarian stimulation.

METHODS

A total of 64 patients in the first intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycle were prospectively randomized to receive treatment with either a GnRH agonist with a long-term protocol (n: 32) or a GnRH antagonist with a multi-dose protocol (n: 32). Before being subjected to ICSI, the oocytes at metaphase II from both groups were morphologically analyzed under an inverted light microscope at 400x magnification. The oocytes were classified as follows: normal or with cytoplasmic dysmorphism, extracytoplasmic dysmorphism, or both. The number of dysmorphic oocytes per total number of oocytes was analyzed.

RESULTS

Out of a total of 681 oocytes, 189 (27.8%) were morphologically normal, 220 (32.3%) showed cytoplasmic dysmorphism, 124 (18.2%) showed extracytoplasmic alterations, and 148 (21.7%) exhibited both types of dysmorphism. No significant difference in oocyte dysmorphism was observed between the agonist- and antagonist-treated groups (P>0.05). Analysis for each dysmorphism revealed that the most common conditions were alterations in polar body shape (31.3%) and the presence of diffuse cytoplasmic granulations (22.8%), refractile bodies (18.5%) and central cytoplasmic granulations (13.6%). There was no significant difference among individual oocyte dysmorphisms in the agonist- and antagonist-treated groups (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Our randomized data indicate that in terms of the quality of oocyte morphology, there is no difference between the antagonist multi-dose protocol and the long-term agonist protocol. If a GnRH analogue used for pituitary suppression in IVF cycles influences the prevalence of oocyte dysmorphisms, there does not appear to be a difference between the use of an agonist as opposed to an antagonist.

The effect of recombinant LH on embryo quality: a randomized controlled trial in women with poor ovarian reserve

BACKGROUND

Poor ovarian response is a common clinical problem, affecting up to 26% of IVF cycles. For these women, addition of recombinant luteinizing hormone (rLH) to ovarian hyperstimulation with recombinant FSH has a beneficial effect on ongoing pregnancy rates, but its effect on the yield of top-quality embryos is unknown.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized controlled trial in women expected to respond poorly under ovarian hyperstimulation during their first IVF cycle [all women aged 35-41 and women with FSH > 12 IU/ml and antral follicle count (AFC) ≤ 5]. Women were randomly allocated to rFSH and rLH (2:1 ratio) or rFSH alone (control group) after down-regulation with a GnRH agonist. The primary outcome was the proportion of top-quality embryos per woman on the day of transfer. Secondary outcomes were the number of stimulation days, the number of follicles ≥17 mm, the number of oocytes, the fertilization rate, the number of embryos, the number of women with ≥1 top-quality embryo, the biochemical, clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates and the miscarriage rate.

RESULTS

There were 116 women allocated to the rLH group and 128 allocated to the control group. The proportion of top-quality embryos per woman was 17% in the rLH group and 11% in the control group [mean difference 0.06; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.01-0.14]. In the rLH and control groups respectively, 47 (41%) and 41 (32%) women had at least one top-quality embryo on the day of transfer (relative risk: 1.3, 95% CI 0.91-1.77). The ongoing pregnancy rate was 13 versus 12% (relative risk: 1.1; 95% CI 0.57-2.16) for the rLH group compared with the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

This study found no significant difference in embryo quality after the addition of rLH to rFSH for ovarian stimulation in women with poor ovarian reserve.

CLINICAL TRIALS IDENTIFIER

NTR1457.

Low-dose human chorionic gonadotropin may improve in vitro fertilization cycle outcomes in patients with low luteinizing hormone levels after gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist administration

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of low levels of endogenous luteinizing hormone (LH) and low-dose human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) supplementation on in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle outcomes in a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Military medical center.

PATIENT(S)

General in vitro fertilization/embryo transfer (IVF-ET) population.

INTERVENTION(S)

Addition of low-dose urinary hCG to IVF stimulations using a recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and GnRH antagonist protocol.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Implantation and live-birth rates.

RESULT(S)

As part of a larger cohort of 239 patients, 42 patients with LH levels ≤ 0.5 mIU/mL were evaluated. In the larger cohort, there were no differences in implantation and pregnancy rates between the recombinant FSH only (n = 113) and the recombinant FSH with low-dose hCG supplementation (n = 126) groups. In the FSH-only group, patients with LH levels ≤ 0.5 mIU/mL had decreased implantation rates (19% vs. 42%) and live-birth rates (25% vs. 54%) as compared with patients with LH levels >0.5 mIU/mL. Low LH patients in the recombinant FSH with low-dose urinary hCG group had statistically significantly higher implantation rates (54% vs. 19%) and live-birth rates (64% vs. 25%) as compared with patients with similar low LH levels in the recombinant FSH-only group.

CONCLUSION(S)

Endogenous LH levels ≤ 0.5 mIU/mL after GnRH antagonist treatment are associated with statistically significantly lower implantation and pregnancy rates in recombinant FSH-only cycles. The addition of low-dose urinary hCG results in improved implantation and live-birth rates in patients with low LH levels.

Exogenous hCG activity, but not endogenous LH activity, is positively associated with live birth rates in anovulatory infertility

Objective

To evaluate, retrospectively, the roles of endogenous and exogenous luteinising hormone (LH) activity on live birth rate in ovulation induction cycles.

Methods

Associations between LH activity at baseline, end of stimulation and live birth rate were analysed in relation to patient characteristics, baseline and end of stimulation variables in WHO group II anovulatory women (n=155) stimulated with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) or highly purified human menopausal gonadotrophin (HP-hMG). HP-hMG provides FSH and exogenous LH activity mainly in the form of human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG).

Results

Serum LH concentrations at baseline or end of stimulation were not predictive of live birth rate in the rFSH group (n=79) or HP-hMG group (n=76). Serum hCG concentration at end of stimulation was a significant positive predictor in HP-hMG-treated women. Other variables were not independently predictive of live birth in either of the groups, except for a negative association between serum FSH concentrations at the start of stimulation and live birth in the rFSH-treated group.

Conclusions

Endogenous LH concentrations are not predictive of live birth in anovulatory WHO group II patients undergoing ovulation induction with rFSH or HP-hMG. On the other hand, exogenous hCG activity during HP-hMG stimulation is positively associated with treatment outcome.

Tri-pronucleated zygotes may occur less frequently in luteinizing hormone activity-added cycles

OBJECTIVE

This study was performed to evaluate the association between adding luteinizing hormone (LH) activity and the incidence of tripronuclear (3PN) zygotes occurrence.

METHODS

The incidence of 3PN and cycle outcomes was compared between recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH)-only and rFSH with exogenous LH activity groups. These comparisons were performed in gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRHa, n = 196) and gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist (GnRHant, n = 182) subgroups, and in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) (n = 243) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) (n = 135) cycles, respectively.

RESULTS

The percentage of 3PN was significantly lower in LH activity-added group compared to rFSH-only group (3.6% vs. 5.6%, p = 0.029). Both in GnRHa and GnRHant subgroups, this incidence tended to be lower in LH-supplemented group, although these differences did not reach statistical significance. In IVF cycles, LH activity-added group showed a lower 3PN rate versus rFSH-only group (4.0% vs. 6.7%, p = 0.018). No difference of 3PN rate was found in ICSI cycles.

CONCLUSIONS

Supplementation of exogenous LH activity to ovarian stimulation may be associated with lower prevalence of 3PN zygotes in IVF cycles, but not in ICSI cycles.

Current opinion on use of luteinizing hormone supplementation in assisted reproduction therapy: an Asian perspective

LH and FSH have complementary functions in ensuring optimal oocyte maturation and ovulation. In women undergoing assisted reproduction technology protocols with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues, LH and FSH concentrations are reduced. While FSH use in assisted reproduction technology is well established, there is no published consensus on the need for exogenous LH in Asian patients. Having reviewed the concept of the LH therapeutic window and differences between recombinant human LH (r-HLH) and human menopausal gonadotrophin, a consensus was reached on which patient subgroups may benefit from LH supplementation. Adjuvant r-HLH gives clinicians precise control over the dose of LH bioactivity administered to target the therapeutic window. The use of r-HLH is recommended in women with poor response in a previous cycle or suboptimal follicular progression in a current cycle by day 6-8 of stimulation. r-HLH should also be considered in women at risk of suboptimal response, specifically age > 35 years. Other risk markers that suggest the need for LH supplementation, which include baseline/day-6 serum LH and anti-Müllerian hormone concentrations, antral follicle count and LH polymorphisms require further research and verification. For measurement of LH response adequacy, the monitoring of follicular progression, oestradiol concentrations and endometrial thickness is recommended.

Oral contraceptive pretreatment and half dose of ganirelix does not excessively suppress LH and may be an excellent choice for scheduling IUI cycles

PURPOSE

To assess the effects of using a reduced dose of ganirelix with oral contraceptive pretreatment in a pilot study of COH using pure FSH for intrauterine insemination (IUI) METHODS: Patients received oral contraceptive (OC; 30 microg ethinyl estradiol/150 microg desogestrel) for 14-21 days and rFSH (50-225 IU/day SC) was started on day 4 after OC discontinuation. Ganirelix acetate (125 microg/day) was started with a lead follicle diameter of 14 mm.

RESULTS

Of the 25 subjects who started oral contraceptives, one was cancelled due to an excessive response, and one subject was not included in the analysis because she did not receive ganirelix until the lead follicle was 18 mm. Median (range) starting FSH dose was 100 (50-225), cumulative rFSH dose was 1000 (675-2175) IU over 10 (9-17) days. Duration of ganirelix acetate treatment was 4.0 (2-5) days. Seven subjects (30.4%) delivered ten babies (three pregnancies were twins). There were no biochemical pregnancies or miscarriages. Of the 16 subjects with measurement of LH on the day of HCG administration, only one was under 0.5 mIU/ml (0.4), and only one was over 10 mIU/ml (17.7), and that subject delivered twins.

CONCLUSION

OC pretreatment afforded flexibility in scheduling while a reduced dose of ganirelix avoided excessive suppression of LH. The excellent results in this pilot study for IUI suggest this regimen could be further evaluated for scheduling IUI and IVF cycles.

Timing and duration of use of GnRH antagonist down-regulation for IVF/ICSI cycles have no impact on oocyte quality or pregnancy outcomes

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether oocyte quality, implantation and pregnancy outcomes in in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) are related to the duration of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH)-antagonist use or the timing of its initiation.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study of 178 conventional IVF/ICSI cycles. All patients underwent ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins and GnRH-antagonist for pituitary down-regulation. Spearman correlations and logistic regression were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

There was no correlation between the duration of use or the timing of initiation of GnRH-antagonist with oocyte quality or implantation and pregnancy outcomes. Oocyte quality was influenced by the peak estradiol. Implantation was influenced by the patient's age. Early pregnancy loss, by the endometrial thickness on human chorionic gonadotropin-day. Ongoing pregnancy was independent from the variables evaluated.

CONCLUSIONS

GnRH-antagonist duration of use or starting day did not influence oocyte quality, implantation rates, and pregnancy rates. We hypothesize that a follicle stimulating hormone/luteinizing hormone dose increase when antagonist was started, may have had an impact on our findings.

Different ovarian stimulation protocols for women with diminished ovarian reserve

PURPOSE

To review the available treatments for women with significantly diminished ovarian reserve and assess the efficacy of different ovarian stimulation protocols.

METHODS

Literature research performed among studies that have been published in the Pubmed, in the Scopus Search Machine and in Cohrane database of systematic reviews.

RESULTS

A lack of clear, uniform definition of the poor responders and a lack of large-scale randomized studies make data interpretation very difficult for precise conclusions. Optimistic data have been presented by the use of high doses of gonadotropins, flare up Gn RH-a protocol (standard or microdose), stop protocols, luteal onset of Gn RH-a and the short protocol. Natural cycle or a modified natural cycle seems to be an appropriate strategy. Low dose hCG in the first days of ovarian stimulation has promising results. Molecular biology tools (mutations, single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs)) have been also considered to assist the management of this group of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

The ideal stimulation for these patients with diminished ovarian reserve remains a great challenge for the clinician, within the limits of our pharmaceutical quiver.

Clinical outcomes using a flexible regimen of GnRH-antagonists and a 'step-up' of additional gonadotropins in donor oocyte cycles

OBJECTIVE

To assess the impact of serum estradiol upon oocyte donor cycle stimulation characteristics and clinical outcomes using flexible GnRH-antagonist (GnRH-ant) with additional FSH supplementation.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

A retrospective chart review of 99 oocyte donor cycles using ovarian hyperstimulation with recombinant FSH (rFSH) and GnRH-ant was analyzed. Following discontinuation of oral contraceptives, controlled ovarian hyperstimulation was begun using rFSH (150-300 IU daily). GnRH-ant (ganirelix, Organon) and an additional 75 IU of FSH/day were begun when lead follicles were 13-14 mm in greatest diameter. Cycles were analyzed based on serum estradiol response following administration of GnRH-ant (Group 1: progressive rise and Group 2: no rise or a decline). Primary endpoints were cycle stimulation characteristics based on serum estradiol following GnRH-ant, clinical pregnancy and implantation rates.

RESULTS

A decline in serum estradiol was seen after GnRH-ant administration in 45% of cycles. Clinical pregnancy rates per transfer (70 vs. 72%) and implantation rates (43 vs. 56%) were similar for each group.

CONCLUSION

Flexible regimens of GnRH-ant even with additional rFSH in a 'step-up' fashion frequently result in a decline in serum estradiol during ovulation induction. While our study is non-randomized, it does not appear to result in any adverse affect in clinical outcomes in donor oocyte cycles.

The impact of luteinizing hormone in assisted reproduction: a review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although the key role of luteinizing hormone in ovarian function, the promotion of follicular growth and maturation, is widely acknowledged, its usefulness as a predictor of ovarian status, and as a supplement during fertility treatment, remains controversial.

RECENT FINDINGS

Luteinizing hormone alone is not an effective predictor of ovarian function. In combination with follicle-stimulating hormone, as the so-called follicle-stimulating hormone: luteinizing hormone ratio, it serves as a useful marker of ovarian status. Although published data on luteinizing hormone supplementation during ovarian hyperstimulation are somewhat limited, recent well-designed studies suggest a beneficial effect of: (1) luteinizing hormone supplementation for women with inadequate responses to follicle-stimulating hormone-only stimulation; (2) in primarily young patients with low baseline luteinizing hormone levels and, consequently, insufficient remaining endogenous luteinizing hormone concentration during pituitary suppression; and (3) in older women with higher baseline luteinizing hormone levels and age-appropriate ovarian function, who require higher luteinizing hormone thresholds, even during pituitary suppression.

SUMMARY

Luteinizing hormone levels, as a component of the follicle-stimulating hormone: luteinizing hormone ratio, contribute to the assessment of ovarian function, whereas the supplementation of luteinizing hormone on an individualized basis, in carefully selected patients, improves outcomes of ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins.

Recombinant Luteinizing Hormone (rLH) for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in assisted reproductive cycles

BACKGROUND

During in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment cycles, controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) is performed with recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) in combination with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue for the prevention of premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges. The use of GnRH analogues however deprives the growing follicles of LH. The effectiveness of co-administrating rLH to rFSH for COH is at present unclear.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effectiveness and safety of a combination of recombinant LH and recombinant FSH with recombinant FSH alone in COH protocols in (IVF or ICSI followed by embryo transfer (ET).

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the MDSG Group Specialised Register (searched up to Nov 2006) and CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE (1980 to November 2006) and reference lists of articles.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials comparing COH with rFSH alone or in combination with rLH in IVF/ICSI were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We sought additional information if necessary.

MAIN RESULTS

Fourteen trials involving 2612 women were included. Eleven trials involving 2396 women used a GnRH agonist . There was no evidence of a statistical difference in live birth rate reported in two trials (OR 1.51, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.87). There was no evidence of a statistical difference in clinical pregnancy rates reported in seven trials OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.45. There was no evidence of a statistical difference or in ongoing pregnancy rates seven trials OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.56. Three trials used a GnRH antagonist. No data on live birth rates was available. There was no evidence of a statistical difference in clinical pregnancy rates (one trial: OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.43) or in ongoing pregnancy rates (two trials: OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.39 to 1.80) comparing both groups. The pooled pregnancy estimates of trials including only poor responders showed significant increase in pregnancy rate, in favour of co-administrating rLH (three trials: OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.10 to 3.11)

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was no evidence of a statistical difference in pregnancy outcomes when rLH was used. Nevertheless, further large RCTs should be undertaken in long GnRH agonist down regulation protocols, since all pooled pregnancy estimates, although not statistically different probably due to the small numbers, point towards a beneficial effect of co-treatment with rLH, in particular with respect to pregnancy-loss and poor-responders.

Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) supplemented with low-dose human chorionic gonadotropin compared with rFSH alone for ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization

Low-dose hCG supplementation was administered at the start of ovarian stimulation, concomitantly with recombinant FSH (rFSH) in GnRH antagonist cycles, and these were compared with GnRH-a cycles that used rFSH alone. The low-dose hCG group had similar implantation and pregnancy rates but had significantly reduced rFSH requirements, allowing for an average cost savings of $600 per cycle.

A retrospective comparison of clinical outcomes and satisfaction using reconstituted recombinant gonadotropins (rFSH) or cartridge rFSH with a pen device in donor oocyte cycles

BACKGROUND

Use of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) in a cartridge pen device offers obvious benefits for donor oocyte cycles including the administration of fewer and more patient-friendly injectable medications.

METHODS

In a University-based IVF program, a total of 98 oocyte donor cycles using rFSH either reconstituted or as a pen device given to 118 recipients (eight split cycles) were retrospectively reviewed. Following discontinuation of oral contraceptive, controlled ovarian hyperstimulation was begun using either reconstituted rFSH (n = 19) or rFSH with a cartridge pen device (n = 79) (150-300 IU qd). GnRH-antagonists (Ganirelix, Organon) and an additional 75 IU of rFSH/day were begun when lead follicles were 13-14 mm in greatest diameter. The primary endpoints analyzed included cycle stimulation characteristics for each donor group and donor medication tolerance assessment with respect to each rFSH formulation, while secondary outcome measures included clinical pregnancy and implantation rates.

RESULTS

Oocyte donors using the pen required significantly less rFSH (2734 IU vs. 3276 IU, p < 0.05) and scored significantly higher medication tolerance scores (3.9 +/- 0.4 vs. 3.1 +/- 0.6, p < 0.05). No other differences in cycle stimulation for oocyte donors and clinical outcomes for recipients were seen including pregnancy rates (pen, 77% vs. reconstituted, 55%, p - NS) and clinical pregnancy rates (61% vs. 45%, p - NS). However, significantly greater implantation rates (57% vs. 31%, p < 0.01) occurred in the pen group.

CONCLUSION

Compared to reconstituted formulations, the pen device results in lower gonadotropin requirements and provides a simplified dosing method with better tolerance.

Recombinant LH supplementation to recombinant FSH during induced ovarian stimulation in the GnRH-antagonist protocol: a meta-analysis

This study aims to compare the efficacy of recombinant LH (rLH) supplementation for ovarian stimulation in gonadotrophin-releasing hormone-antagonist protocol for IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Search strategies included online surveys of databases. The fixed effects model was used for odds ratio (OR) and effect size (weighted mean difference, WMD). Five trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. When the meta-analysis was carried out, advantages were observed for the LH supplementation protocol with respect to higher serum oestradiol concentrations on the day of human chorionic gonadotrophin administration P < 0.0001; WMD: 514, 95% CI 368, 660) and higher number of mature oocytes (P = 0.0098; WMD: 0.88, 95% CI 0.21, 1.54). However, these differences were not observed in the total amount of recombinant FSH (rFSH) administered, days of stimulation, number of oocyets retrieved, the clinical pregnancy rate per oocyte retrieval, the implantation rate and miscarriage rate. This result demonstrates that the association of rLH with rFSH may prevent any decrease in oestradiol after antagonist administration and that a significantly higher number of mature oocytes was available for laboratory work. Nevertheless, it failed to show any statistically significant difference in clinically significant end-points in IVF (implantation and pregnancy rates). Additional randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm these results further.

Role of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists in poor responders

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role of GnRH antagonists in poor-responder protocols.

DESIGN

Literature review.

CONCLUSION(S)

The optimum stimulation protocol for poor responders is unknown. Although many IVF programs currently use GnRH antagonists for poor responders, there have been only four prospective, randomized trials comparing GnRH antagonists to alternate protocols. None of these studies had sufficient power to evaluate a difference in pregnancy rates (PRs), and in all four cases, IVF outcomes were comparable. Nevertheless, interest in the use of GnRH antagonists in poor responders has continued. GnRH antagonists may be associated with simpler stimulation protocols, lower gonadotropin requirements, reduced patient costs, and shorter downtimes between consecutive cycles. However, the greatest advantage of GnRH antagonists may lie in the ability to assess ovarian reserves immediately prior to deciding whether or not to initiate gonadotropin stimulation. The ability to respond to cycle-to-cycle variation in antral follicle counts may allow the optimization of oocyte yield and reduce cycle cancellation rates. It remains to be seen if this approach (initiating gonadotropins only in cycles where an adequate antral follicle count is present) also translates into higher clinical PRs for poor responders.

Adding human menopausal gonadotrophin to antagonist protocols – is there a benefit?

The objective of this retrospective analysis was to compare the clinical outcomes of recombinant FSH (r-FSH) with combination r-FSH plus human menopausal gonadotrophin (HMG) protocols in a large private practice using a single IVF laboratory, from 2001 to 2003. Patients underwent ovarian stimulation by standard gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol using r-FSH or combination r-FSH plus HMG. When two or more follicles had attained a minimum mean diameter of 20 mm, follicular triggering was achieved with either recombinant HCG (r-HCG; Ovidrel, 250 microg s.c.) or urinary HCG (u-HCG; 10,000 IU i.m.). The main outcome measures were number of oocytes retrieved and clinical pregnancy rate. There was a lower percentage of cancelled cycles and an increased number of oocytes retrieved, mature oocytes, oocytes that fertilized, embryo that cleaved and a tendency towards higher clinical pregnancy rates in patients treated with r-FSH alone compared with those treated with r-FSH plus HMG. Patients treated with r-FSH plus HMG had lower miscarriage rates and the live birth rate was similar in both treatment groups. In conclusion, irrespective of age, using a treatment regimen consisting of a combination of HMG plus r-FSH was not beneficial compared with r-FSH alone in patients using a GnRH antagonist protocol.

Triggering ovulation with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists does not compromise embryo implantation rates

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the implant capacity of embryos derived from oocytes matured with a bolus of GnRH agonist.

DESIGN

Donors were randomly assigned to a protocol using either GnRH agonist or recombinant (r) hCG to trigger ovulation. Analysis of variance, Student t test, and Fisher exact test were used where appropriate.

SETTING

Private clinical setting.

PATIENT(S)

Young voluntary donors receiving GnRH agonist (n = 30) or rhCG (n = 30). Eighty-nine patients received oocytes.

INTERVENTION(S)

Controlled ovarian stimulation was carried out with GnRH antagonist and FSH/LH in a step-down protocol. Donors received a single bolus of GnRH agonist (0.2 mg) or rhCG (250 microg). The endometrial tissue of recipient patients was prepared with oral E(2) and P.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Pregnancy and implantation rates and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in an IVF donor program.

RESULT(S)

No significant differences in the number of retrieved oocytes (327 vs. 288), MII oocytes (70% vs. 76%), fertilization (80% vs. 65%,), pregnancy/transfer (55% vs. 59%), and implantation rates (29% vs. 32%) were found between recipients whose embryos originated from donors in whom final oocyte maturation was triggered with GnRH agonist and those whose donors received hCG. Significant differences in luteal phase length (4.16 + 0.70 days vs. 13.63 + 2.12 days) and in OHSS (0/30 vs. 5/30) were seen between donors ovulated with the agonist and the donors in whom ovulation was triggered with hCG.

CONCLUSION(S)

In controlled ovarian stimulation IVF donor cycles, GnRH agonists trigger ovulation and induce luteolysis but do not compromise embryo implantation capacity.

Optimal stimulation protocols for in vitro fertilization

OBJECTIVE

To update clinicians on different gonadotropin regimens for ovarian stimulation for IVF including the use of urinary and recombinant gonadotropins, the value of added LH to FSH in the stimulation regimen, the use of GnRH agonists and antagonists, and the role of minimal stimulation protocols.

DESIGN

Literature review and critical analysis of major articles during the last five years on ovarian stimulation for IVF.

CONCLUSION(S)

Urinary and recombinant gonadotropins, for ovarian stimulation for IVF, are probably equally safe and effective. The higher cost for recombinant products limits their worldwide use in IVF. Conflicting data exist regarding the benefit of adding LH to FSH in the stimulation regimens. The use of different GnRH-agonists, of varying potency, may account for different levels of LH suppression. Adding LH should be considered in severe situations of LH suppression such as with the use of potent GnRH-agonists or when GnRH-antagonists are introduced during the course of stimulation. GnRH-antagonists provide advantages to patients in terms of fewer injections, shorter stimulation days, and avoidance of adverse effects of agonists. The incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is probably less with antagonists compared to agonists, with the option to use an agonist as a surrogate LH surge. Fixed and early start of the antagonist is probably more effective than an individualized and late start. The earlier reported lower pregnancy rates with antagonists compared to agonists is not fully understood and needs to be continually monitored. Minimal stimulation protocols using a combination of clomiphene citrate and gonadotropins are attractive and should be considered in some patients owing to lower costs and acceptable success rates. The optimal stimulation protocol for IVF should be an individualized regimen based on the patient's ovarian physiology and prior IVF experience, if any.

A randomized controlled trial of increasing recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone after initiating a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist for in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer

OBJECTIVE

Pituitary suppression with a GnRH antagonist before IVF may result in a plateau or decrease in estradiol levels. We sought to investigate the effect of increasing recombinant FSH (rFSH) after starting a GnRH antagonist on estradiol levels, implantation rates, and pregnancy rates.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized multicenter study.

SETTING

Military medical center and private practice.

PATIENT(S)

Sixty infertile women undergoing IVF who met the appropriate inclusion criteria.

INTERVENTION(S)

Participants were pretreated with combined oral contraceptives (COCs) and received a dose 150-300 IU of rFSH 5 days after taking their last COC. They were randomly assigned to receive their current dose of rFSH (control group) or an additional 75 IU of rFSH (step-up group) after starting a GnRH antagonist. Daily GnRH antagonist injections were started when the lead follicles were 13-14 mm in diameter and continued until hCG was given when two follicles were >or=18 mm. One to three embryos were transferred 3 or 5 days following oocyte retrieval. Women with PCOS, a body mass index >33, a day 3 FSH >14.1 mIU/mL, or prior poor stimulation were excluded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The primary endpoints of this pilot study were embryo implantation, pregnancy, and livebirth rates. Secondary endpoints included the amount and days of rFSH; number of days of GnRH antagonist use; estradiol levels on the day of GnRH antagonist initiation, day 1 and day 2 after initiation, and on the day of hCG; endometrial stripe thickness; number of follicles; and number of oocytes.

RESULT(S)

No differences were reported within the groups with respect to age, BMI, baseline FSH, use of intracytoplasmic sperm injection, vials of rFSH, number of GnRH antagonist injections, changes in estradiol patterns, or peak estradiol level. The control and step-up groups had similar pregnancies (73.3% vs. 63.3%, P=.41), clinical pregnancies (70.0% vs. 60.0%, P=.42), live births (56.7% vs. 60.0%, P=.8), and implantation rates (50.0% and 39.1%, P=.22).

CONCLUSION(S)

The use of rFSH and a GnRH antagonist in good candidates for IVF resulted in outstanding implantation and pregnancy rates. Increasing the dose of rFSH after starting a GnRH antagonist does not alter the estradiol response or improve the implantation and pregnancy rates.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists increase follicular fluid insulin-like growth factor-I and vascular endothelial growth factor during ovarian stimulation cycles

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists (GnRH-ant) on follicular fluid (FF) insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) and FF vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) levels. Sixty women undergoing assisted reproduction were randomized and assigned to two different GnRH analog regimens: GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) and GnRH-ant. FF VEGF and FF IGF-I concentrations were significantly increased in the patients treated with GnRH-ant (p < 0.001). In the same patients we observed a statistically significant reduction in serum luteinizing hormone (LH) and estradiol (E2) levels (p < 0.001 and p < 0.05, respectively), FF E2 and FF androstenedione levels (p < 0.05 and p < 0.001, respectively), as well as a reduction in the number of pregnancies although this was not statistically significant. In the GnRH-ant group, FF VEGF levels were positively correlated with FF IGF-I levels, and both were negatively correlated with serum LH levels. The increase in FF IGF-I and FF VEGF levels in women treated with GnRH-ant could be explained by a deleterious follicular environment in response to profound suppression of LH and E2 levels.

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist plus recombinant luteinizing hormone vs. a standard GnRH agonist short protocol in patients at risk for poor ovarian response

Various studies have compared the efficacy of GnRH agonists (GnRH-a) and antagonists (GnRH-ant) for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in women undergoing IVF. Nevertheless, few data are available about the use of GnRH-ant in poor responders. Here, a flexible protocol providing a gradual increase in the dose of GnRH-ant in association with recombinant LH (rec-LH) administration is compared with the standard GnRH-a flare-up protocol in 133 women at risk for poor ovarian response. The mean number of metaphase 2 oocytes (primary end point) was significantly higher in the antagonist group (5.73 +/- 3.57 vs. 4.64 +/- 2.23, respectively; P<.05).

Follicular fluid vascular endothelial growth factor concentrations are increased during GnRH antagonist/FSH ovarian stimulation cycles

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of GnRH antagonists (GnRH-ant) on follicular fluid vascular endothelial growth factor (FF VEGF).

METHODS

Sixty women undergoing assisted reproduction were randomised (computer-generated randomisation list) and assigned to two different GnRH analogue regimens: GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) (Group A; n = 30) and GnRH-ant (Group B; n = 30).

RESULTS

Mean (+/-S.D.) FF VEGF concentrations were 1598+/-612 pg/mL and 2906+/-1558 pg/mL for Groups A and B, respectively (p < 0.001). In the women treated with GnRH-ant, we found a statistically significant reduction in serum LH levels (1.72+/-0.74 IU/L in Group A versus 0.93+/-0.43 IU/L in Group B, p < 0.001), in serum oestradiol (E2) levels (1562.1+/-410.7 pg/mL in Group A versus 1214.67+/-779.9 pg/mL in Group B, p < 0.05), in FF E2 levels (1146+/-593 ng/mL in Group A versus 621+/-435 ng/mL in Group B, p < 0.05), and in FF androstenedione levels (136+/-55 ng/mL in Group A versus 78+/-31 ng/mL in Group B, p < 0.001), as well as a reduction in the number of pregnancies, though not statistically significant (23.3% in Group A versus 16.6% in Group B).

CONCLUSION

The increase in FF VEGF levels in women treated with GnRH-ant might be explained by a suppression of LH and E2 levels.

GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in oocyte donation cycles: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND

The specific role of LH in folliculogenesis and oocyte maturation is unclear. GnRH antagonists, when administered in the late follicular phase, induce a sharp decrease in serum LH which may be detrimental for IVF outcome. This study was performed to evaluate whether the replacement of GnRH agonist (triptorelin) by a GnRH antagonist (ganirelix; NV Organon) in oocyte donation cycles has any impact on pregnancy and implantation rates.

METHODS

A total of 148 donor IVF cycles was randomly assigned to use either a GnRH antagonist daily administered from the 8th day of stimulation (group I) or a GnRH agonist long protocol (group II) for the ovarian stimulation of their donors. The primary endpoints were the pregnancy and the implantation rates.

RESULTS

The clinical pregnancy rate per transfer (39.72%, 29/73 versus 41.33%, 31/75) based on transvaginal scan findings at 7 weeks of gestation, the implantation rate (23.9 versus 25.4%) and the first trimester abortion rate (10.34 versus 12.90%) were similar in the two groups.

CONCLUSION

In oocyte donation cycles the replacement of GnRH agonist by a GnRH antagonist appears to have no impact on the pregnancy and implantation rates when its administration starts on day 8 of stimulation.

Timing ovulation for intrauterine insemination with a GnRH antagonist

BACKGROUND

We aimed to assess the efficacy of a GnRH antagonist in intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles to increase number of mature ovulatory follicles and pregnancy rates.

METHODS

Prospective randomized study. Women (18-38 years old) with primary/secondary infertility were included. Eighty-two patients were randomly assigned to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) consisting of rFSH + GnRH antagonist or rFSH alone.

RESULTS

A non-significant increase in the total amount of rFSH was seen in the GnRH antagonist group (707+/-240 IU) with respect to the control group (657+/-194 IU). The number of mature follicles (> or =16 mm) was significantly higher in the GnRH antagonist group than in the control group (2.4+/-1.4 versus 1.7+/-1.2, P<0.05). Pregnancy rates were significantly increased in the group of patients receiving the GnRH antagonist (38%) compared to the control group (14%). The only non-single pregnancy (triplets) occurred in the antagonist group.

CONCLUSIONS

In this preliminary study, adding the GnRH antagonist to the COS protocol for IUI cycles significantly increased pregnancy rates. Nevertheless, these results may not be associated directly with the antagonist itself but with the fact that more mature ovulatory follicles are present by the day of the hCG. Finally, the risk for multiple gestations needs to be carefully evaluated.

Recombinant gonadotrophin-based, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome-free stimulation of the high responder: suggested protocol for further research

Ovarian stimulation of the high responder remains controversial. The narrow margin between a too low gonadotrophin dose (and abnormal oestradiol rise) and excessive stimulation (risk of OHSS) is a challenging situation. This study describes an OHSS-free protocol, based on the use of recombinant gonadotrophins for stimulation and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist to prevent premature LH surge. In six patients with a previous history of excessive response, stimulation was started on day 3 of cycle with recombinant FSH. When follicular diameter reached 13-14 mm, a daily injection of GnRH antagonist was added, together with a daily dose of 75 IU of recombinant LH. When the leading follicles reached 17 mm in diameter, ovulation was triggered with a single dose of 0.2 mg triptorelin. Luteal support with vaginal oestradiol and progesterone was started on the day of oocyte retrieval. None of the patients developed clinically significant OHSS. Mean maximal oestradiol concentration was 23,209 pmol/l, and mean number of embryos obtained per patient was 20.5. Fresh embryo transfer resulted in one ongoing pregnancy and two chemical pregnancies. Thaw cycles have resulted so far in two additional ongoing pregnancies. This protocol removes the risk of OHSS and has a good clinical outcome, and therefore merits further research.

To add or not to add LH: consideration of LH concentration changes in individual patients

The availability of recombinant FSH and LH opens an opportunity to individualize ovarian stimulation. While the need for FSH is universal, a question remains whether exogenous LH is beneficial. Previous research on adding LH to an unselected group of patients failed to demonstrate any advantage. Indeed, it may seem presumptuous to expect that all patients will respond in the same manner. Recent studies hint that LH supplementation should be individualized. These studies indirectly suggest that the changes in LH concentration may be more important than the concentration per se. The growing follicle, and particularly oestradiol biosynthesis, may be sensitive to decreases in LH concentrations. The challenge is to identify the patient whose LH will drop during stimulation. This individualized approach will assure that supplemented LH will only be given to those who need it.

LH improves early follicular recruitment in women over 38 years old

Although the capacity of recombinant FSH alone to induce folliculogenesis is undisputed, many believe that follicular recruitment in women over 38 years old could be improved by supplementing rFSH with human menopausal gonadotrophin (HMG). The present study sought to determine whether recombinant LH could reproduce the effect of HMG in women over 38 years during ovulation induction. Fifty-eight patients received rFSH (225 IU/day) supplemented with one ampoule of HMG (75 IU of FSH/75 IU of LH/HCG per day) for 5 days. Another 36 patients received rFSH (300 IU/day) supplemented with one ampoule of rLH (75 IU/day), also for 5 days. Both groups of patients received similar amounts of rFSH (1500 IU), LH/HCG (375 IU) and rLH (375 IU) and recruited a similar number of follicles as counted on day 6 (4.07 +/- 3.1 in the HMG group versus 3.7 +/- 3.2 in the LH group respectively) or on the day that human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) was indicated (6.5 +/- 2.7 versus 5.8 +/- 2.5 respectively). Ovarian stimulation was shorter, but not significantly so, in the group of patients receiving rFSH + HMG (10.5 +/- 1.7 days) than in the group of patients treated with rFSH +/- rLH (12 +/- 1.8 days). Significantly more MII oocytes were seen in the group treated with rFSH + rLH than in the group treated with rFSH + HMG (93.1 versus 75.3%, P < 0.05). With respect to pregnancy rates, 14/54 (26%) patients receiving rFSH + HMG and 16/34 (47%) patients receiving rFSH + rLH had a positive serum HCG. No significant difference in the number of miscarriages was observed between the two groups. In conclusion, the present results seem to indicate that rLH could be the HMG component that aids early follicular recruitment.