Stimulation ovarienne à fortes doses de gonadotrophines en FIV : étude rétrospective cas-témoin au CHU de Nantes

Live Birth Rates in Women Under 38 Years Old with AMH Level < 1.2 ng/ml in the First In Vitro Fertilization + / - Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection: Retrospective Study and Arguments for Care

Many studies failed to show a predictive impact of AMH levels on the chances of pregnancy; however, acceptable pregnancy rates for young women with low AMH levels were observed in IVF + / - ICSI. The objectives of this retrospective study were to evaluate the clinical pregnancy and live birth rates in the first IVF + / - ICSI cycle in women under 38 years old with AMH level < 1.2 ng/ml and to determine the arguments for care. We classified the women into three groups: group A: AMH < 0.4 ng/ml (n: 86); group B: AMH: 0.4 to 0.8 ng/ml (n: 90); and group C: AMH > 0.8 to < 1.2 ng/ml (n: 92). We recorded data on the patients' characteristics, stimulation cycles, embryo cultures, and ongoing pregnancies. No difference was observed between the three groups for the number of embryos transferred, the clinical pregnancy, and the live birth rates (LBR) per embryo transfer (LBR/transfer: 24.1% in group A, 25.9% in group B, and 28.1% in group C). The young age of the women reassures about the oocyte quality, but a low level of AMH may raise concerns about a lower quantitative oocyte yield, leading to accelerated management of the couple in IVF + / - ICSI.

Low dosing of gonadotropins in in vitro fertilization cycles for women with poor ovarian reserve: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of low doses of gonadotropins and gonadotropins combined with oral compounds compared with high doses of gonadotropins in ovarian stimulation regimens in terms of ongoing pregnancy per fresh IVF attempt in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled studies that evaluate the effectiveness of low dosing of gonadotropins alone or combined with oral compounds compared with high doses of gonadotropins in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Subfertile women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment.

INTERVENTION(S)

We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and the Clinical Trials Registry using medical subject headings and free text terms up to June 2016, without language or year restrictions. We included randomized controlled studies (RCTs) enrolling subfertile women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment and comparing low doses of gonadotropins and gonadotropins combined with oral compounds versus high doses of gonadotropins. We assessed the risk of bias using the criteria recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration. We pooled the results by meta-analysis using the fixed and random effects model.

MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURE(S)

The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy rate (PR) per woman randomized.

RESULT(S)

We retrieved 787 records. Fourteen RCTs (N = 2,104 women) were included in the analysis. Five studies (N = 717 women) compared low doses of gonadotropins versus high doses of gonadotropins. There was no evidence of a difference in ongoing PR (2 RCTs: risk rate 0.98, 95% confidence interval 0.62-1.57, I² = 0). Nine studies (N = 1,387 women) compared ovarian stimulation using gonadotropins combined with the oral compounds letrozole (n = 6) or clomiphene citrate (CC) (n = 3) versus high doses of gonadotropins. There was no evidence of a difference in ongoing PR (3 RCTs: risk rate 0.90, 95% confidence interval 0.63-1.27, I² = 0).

CONCLUSION(S)

We found no evidence of a difference in pregnancy outcomes between low doses of gonadotropins and gonadotropins combined with oral compounds compared with high doses of gonadotropins in ovarian stimulation regimens. Whether low doses of gonadotropins or gonadotropins combined with oral compounds is to be preferred is unknown, as they have never been compared head to head. A health economic analysis to test the hypothesis that an ovarian stimulation with low dosing is more cost-effective than high doses of gonadotropins is needed.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016041301.

[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.