Microdose flare protocol with interrupted follicle stimulating hormone and added androgen for poor responders--an observational pilot study

The Role of Androgen Supplementation in Women With Diminished Ovarian Reserve: Time to Randomize, Not Meta-Analyze

The management of patients with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) remains one of the most challenging tasks in IVF clinical practice. Despite the promising results obtained from animal studies regarding the importance of androgens on folliculogenesis, the evidence obtained from clinical studies remains inconclusive. This is mainly due to the lack of an evidence-based methodology applied in the available trials and to the heterogeneity in the inclusion criteria and IVF treatment protocols. In this review, we analyze the available evidence obtained from animal studies and highlight the pitfalls from the clinical studies that prevent us from closing the chapter of this line of research.

Fixed Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Antagonist Protocol Versus Flexible Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol in Patients With Asynchronous Follicular Development During Controlled Ovulation Stimulation: A Retrospective Study

Protocols utilizing gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists have emerged as mainstream procedures for ovarian stimulation; however, GnRH increases the risk for periodic cancellation of embryos. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the pregnancy outcomes of a fixed GnRH antagonist protocol and a flexible progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (fPPOS) protocol in patients with asynchronous follicular development during controlled ovulation stimulation and to explore the feasibility of converting patients undergoing a fixed GnRH antagonist protocol to an fPPOS protocol. This was the first retrospective study exploring the fPPOS protocol in patients with asynchronous follicular development, and it was conducted in a public reproductive medicine center from January to December 2020. We included infertile women. All participants were scheduled to undergo administration of a GnRH antagonist on the fifth day of controlled ovulation stimulation. The study group included 129 women who were converted from the fixed GnRH antagonist protocol to the fPPOS protocol for their asynchronous follicular development, while the antagonist group consisted of 258 women (ratio 1:2) who proceeded with a fixed GnRH antagonist protocol. On the second or third day of the menstrual period, 100-300 IU/day gonadotropin injections were administered. For patients who were converted to the fPPOS protocol, medroxyprogesterone acetate tablets at 10 mg/day were started on the fifth day of stimulation or when only one leading follicle reached 14 mm and the other follicles were ≤10 mm in diameter, whichever came first. The rates of embryo implantation, clinical pregnancy, and early pregnancy loss were obtained. The number of oocytes retrieved and the number of high-quality embryos in the antagonist group were significantly higher than those in the fPPOS group (P = 0.039 and P = 0.025, respectively). No significant differences in the rates of embryo implantation, clinical pregnancy, and early pregnancy loss were observed between the two groups. Our study found that in patients who were scheduled for administration of GnRH antagonists but presented with asynchronous follicular development on the fifth stimulation day, it was feasible to switch to the fPPOS protocol.

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.

Testosterone therapy for women with poor ovarian response undergoing IVF: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

PURPOSE

The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize evidence on the effectiveness of testosterone supplementation for poor ovarian responders (POR) on IVF outcomes. The primary outcome was live birth rate (LBR); secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), miscarriage rate (MR), total and MII oocytes, and total embryos.

METHODS

This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluates the effects of testosterone administration before/during COS compared with a control group in patients defined as POR. The primary outcome was live birth rate (LBR); secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), miscarriage rate (MR), total and MII oocytes, and total embryos. Pooled results were expressed as risk ratio (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI). Sources of heterogeneity were investigated through sensitivity and subgroup analysis. All analyses were performed by using the random-effects model.

RESULTS

Women receiving testosterone showed higher LBR (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.31-4.01, p = 0.004), CPR (RR 2.32, 95% CI 1.47-3.64, p = 0.0003), total oocytes (MD = 1.28 [95% CI 0.83, 1.73], p < 0.00001), MII oocytes (MD = 0.96 [95% CI 0.28, 1.65], p = 0.006), and total embryos (MD = 1.17 [95% CI 0.67, 1.67], p < 0.00001) in comparison to controls, with no difference in MR (p = ns). Sensitivity and subgroup analysis did not provide statistical changes to the pooled results.

CONCLUSIONS

Testosterone therapy seems promising to improve the success at IVF in POR patients. Further RCTs with rigorous methodology and inclusion criteria are still mandatory.

The effect of testosterone gel on fertility outcomes in women with a poor response in in vitro fertilization cycles: A pilot randomized clinical trial

Background

In this study, the effect of testosterone gel administration during ovulation induction on the fertility rate was examined in women with a poor ovarian response in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles.

Materials and Methods

The current study is a single-blinded, randomized clinical trial. Patients who met inclusion (Bologna) criteria were placed in the antagonist cycle group. The patients were randomly divided into two groups each included 25 participants treated with a placebo (lubricant gel, the controls) and testosterone gel (intervention). Fertility outcomes were compared between two study groups.

Results

The mean ± standard deviation (SD) age of intervention (41.04 ± 3.77) versus control group (39.69 ± 3.29) was not statistically different. The two studied groups were not statistically different in terms of follicle-stimulating hormone; antral follicle count, IVF, anti-Mullerian hormone, and the duration of infertility. The mean ± SD of oocyte 2.48 ± 1.64 versus 1.17 ± 1.27 and embryo 1.60 ± 1.58 versus 0.39 ± 0.58 in intervention group was significantly higher than control group (P < 0.01). The rate of pregnancy 16% versus 0% and embryo of quality A-B was significantly higher in intervention group than control (60% versus 17.4%, P < 0.05).

Conclusion

The results of the current study showed that the testosterone gel has a significant impact on the fertility rate in women with a poor response in the IVF cycles. Further, randomized clinical trials with larger sample sized are recommended.

Utilization of the Bologna criteria: a promise unfulfilled? A review of published and unpublished/ongoing trials

OBJECTIVE

To study the use of the Bologna criteria (BC) for the definition of poor ovarian responders (POR) in clinical practice and research.

DESIGN

Systematic review of published and unpublished/ongoing trials between January 2012 and August 2017 on POR.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Not applicable.

INTERVENTION(S)

The databases were searched using the relevant medical subject headings including all subheadings. The search was limited to humans and English language. The references of the included studies were cross-searched for possibly missed articles. Only clinical trials providing an evidence level ≥ III were included. Case reports, review, letters, and hypothetical articles were excluded.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Extracted studies were divided into two groups: studies in which the BC were used or not.

RESULT(S)

One hundred nine published clinical studies analyzing a total of 30,540 women and 112 unpublished/ongoing trials were identified. The BC were used to define POR in 56 (51%) of the published and 44 (39%) of the unpublished trials. The use of the BC gradually increased from 29% to 53% from 2012 to 2017. Asian researchers were more likely to use the BC compared with European and North American researchers (65%, 49%, and 23%, respectively). Neither the design of the study nor the impact factor of the publishing journal was correlated with the use of the BC.

CONCLUSION(S)

There is still reluctance to use the BC for the definition of POR, which makes it difficult to combine data from small studies and reach a meaningful conclusion.

[Poor responders: How could we improve our results?]

OBJECTIVES

Finding an efficient treatment for poor responders still poses a tremendous challenge for assisted reproductive technology. In 2011, an international consensus has been reached in Bologna on how to standardize the definition of poor ovarian response (POR) in a simple and reproducible manner. This article provides an objective assessment of the different treatment options currently available.

METHODS

A search of the database PUBMED was carried out for studies published in English between October 2000 and April 2016.

RESULTS

There is no ideal protocol to manage poor responders even though the antagonist protocol seems to have an advantage of clinicians. This is thanks to better patient tolerance and reduced total dose of gonadotrophin as well as shorter time of stimulation. It seems that there is no benefit in increasing the gonadotrophin daily doses over 300IU nor using any specific type of gonadotrophin. Today, there is insufficient evidence to recommend any additional treatment for poor responders. Only dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) seems to increase embryonic quality and pregnancy rate, however further exploration and complementary prospective studies are necessary.

CONCLUSION

New treatment strategies such as "oocyte banking" or double stimulation during the same cycle, could provide new prospects in poor responders management.