Effect of midfollicular luteinizing hormone levels on ovarian response and pregnancy outcome in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization in a short-term protocol

Gonadotropins as pharmacological agents in assisted reproductive technology and polycystic ovary syndrome

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a complex endocrinopathy associated with subfertility/infertility and pregnancy complications. Most PCOS women opt for assisted reproductive technologies (ART) for successful conception; however, optimization of the relative doses of the gonadotropins [follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH)/human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG)] for appropriate steroidogenesis, without causing ovarian hyperstimulatory syndrome (OHSS), is challenging. Embryonic factors probably do not contribute to pregnancy loss in PCOS women, albeit hormonal imbalance impairs the metabolic microenvironment critical for oocyte maturation and endometrial receptivity. Certain clinical studies have confirmed the role of metabolic corrections in increasing the rate of pregnancy in PCOS women. This review focuses on the impact of untimely high LHCGR and/or LH levels on oocyte/embryo quality, pregnancy outcomes in ART, and exploring LHCGR as a potential drug target in PCOS women.

Serum luteinizing hormone level on the third day after ovarian stimulation in GnRH agonist short protocol is predictive of outcome in poor responders but not in normal responders

OBJECTIVES

To identify whether prognostic value of LH measurement in normal responders (NR) is different from poor responders (POR).

METHODS

A retrospective, single-center study was conducted among patients who underwent ovarian stimulation with short protocol, with 300 NR and 101 POR, according to Bologna Consensus criteria. LH was measured on 3rd and 5th day after stimulation and HCG administration day.

RESULTS

There was significant difference in the clinical pregnancy rate per cycle initiated among those with LH level on the third day after stimulation (a) below the 25 centile (b) between the 25 and 75 centile and (c) above the 75 centile in women with POR (7.7%, 15.1% vs. 36.4%, p = 0.02) but not in NR. There was significant correlation between LH ranks and clinical pregnancy rate in POR (p = 0.02) but not in NR. Factors associated with clinical pregnancy rate in POR were age and LH on the third of stimulation, while factors in NR were age, AFC and FSH.

CONCLUSION

LH level on the 3rd day of stimulation was predictive of clinical pregnancy in POR but not in NR.

Comparison of embryological and clinical outcome in GnRH antagonist vs. GnRH agonist protocols for in vitro fertilization in PCOS non-obese patients. A prospective randomized study

PURPOSE

Embryological and clinical efficacy of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist and agonist stimulation protocols in non-obese women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) were compared.

METHODS

A prospective randomized study.

SETTING

Medical University Hospital.

PATIENTS

70 infertile PCOS patients; 33 in GnRH antagonist and 37 in GnRH agonist group.

RESULTS

Similar mature metaphase II oocyte rate (76% vs. 76%) was observed in both protocols. Optimal pronuclear morphology zygotes dominated in both groups (64% vs. 66%). Transferred embryo quality did not differ in both protocols. No significant differences between both protocols were found in delivery rate (p = 0.481), pregnancy rate (p = 0.810), multiple pregnancy rate (p = 0.501), miscarriage rate (p = 0.154), fertilization rate (p = 0.388) and implantation rate (p = 1.000). Duration of stimulation and total follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) dose were significantly lower in GnRH antagonist protocol (p = 0.0005).

CONCLUSIONS

GnRH antagonist and agonist protocols in non-obese PCOS patients yield similar embryological and clinical outcomes. Shorter duration of treatment and lower FSH requirement in GnRH antagonist group may be financially beneficial and therefore attractive for patients.

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.

Is there a need for recombinant human luteinizing hormone (lutropin alfa) supplementation in ovarian stimulation for assisted reproduction?

Luteinizing hormone is now available as the recombinant product, lutropin alfa for the treatment of female infertility. It is necessary in the natural process of follicular growth and maturation. It is not yet clear which patients really benefit from the addition of this medication to conventional gonadotropin stimulation procedures in infertility treatment. Certainly, it has a proven benefit in patients suffering from hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (WHO I). Others may be older patients, patients with a profound gonadotropin suppression stimulated in long gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist protocols, or patients with poor ovarian response to conventional stimulation strategies. The available data are reviewed herein.