Prediction of over-response to ovarian stimulation in an intrauterine insemination programme

GnRH agonist early follicular challenge test as a predictor of ovarian response in antagonist cycles for fertility preservation

The aim of our study was to evaluate if the response to follicular GnRH agonist (GnRHa) trigger be used to predict intracycle ovarian response in GnRH antagonist cycles among women undergoing fertility preservation IVF. We conducted a prospective study of 146 GnRH antagonist oocyte pickup (OPU) cycles to evaluate GnRHa stimulation test (GAST). On day 2 of the cycle, basal E2 were measured, followed by injection of 0.2 mg GnRHa as part of the initial ovarian stimulation. 12 h later blood sampling was repeated (GAST E3). E2 response was used as test parameter. The major outcome was the number of mature cryopreserved oocytes. We found a linear correlation between both GAST E3 level and GAST E3/E2 ratio and number of M2 oocytes. ROC curve analysis of GAST E3, GAST E3/E2 ratio, AFC and day 3 FSH for > 15 M2 and < 5 M2 oocytes was calculated. For GAST E3 levels obtaining < 5 M2 oocytes, an AUC value of 0.79 was found. For GAST E3 levels obtaining > 15 M2 oocytes, AUC value of 0.8. Patients with GAST E3 ≤ 384 pmol/l has 58.6% risk to obtain < 5 oocytes. Patients younger than 35 with GAST E3 > 708 pmol/l have 66% chance for freezing > 15 oocytes. The response to single GnRHa administration during GnRH antagonist cycle can be used as biomarker of ovarian reserve. This simple, widely available marker, which reflect the estradiol response of small follicles, might predict the response of the specific cycle, and can potentially be used to adjust the treatment dose.Trial registration number: 0304-20-ASF.

Quality of reporting of test accuracy studies in reproductive medicine: impact of the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) initiative

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the extent to which test accuracy studies published in two leading reproductive medicine journals in the years 1999 and 2004 adhered to the Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) initiative parameters, and to explore whether the introduction of the STARD statement has led to an improved quality of reporting.

DESIGN

Structured literature search. Articles that reported on the diagnostic performance of a test in comparison with a reference standard were eligible for inclusion. For each article we scored how well the 25 items of the STARD checklist were reported. These items deal with the study question, study participants, study design, test methods, reference standard, statistical methods, reporting of results, and conclusions. We calculated the total number of reported STARD items per article, summary scores for each STARD item, and the average number of reported STARD items per publication year.

SETTING

Not applicable.

PATIENT(S)

Not applicable.

INTERVENTION(S)

Not applicable.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Quality of reporting.

RESULT(S)

We found 24 studies reporting on test accuracy in reproductive medicine in 1999 and 27 studies in 2004. The mean number of reported STARD items for articles published in 1999 was 12.1 +/- 3.3 (range 6.5-20) and 12.4 +/- 3.2 (range 7-17.5) in 2004, after publication of the STARD statement. Overall, less than half of the studies reported adequately on 50% or more of the STARD items. The reporting of individual items showed a wide variation. There was no significant improvement in mean number of reported items for the articles published after the introduction of the STARD statement.

CONCLUSION(S)

Authors of test accuracy studies in the two leading fertility journals poorly report the design, conduct, methodology, and statistical analysis of their study. Strict adherence to the STARD guidelines should be encouraged.

[Benefits and risks of ovarian stimulation before intrauterine insemination]

Performance of intra-uterine insemination (IIU) is generally advocated as a first line therapy for infertility related to cercical hostility, male factor, unexplained infertility or mild endometriosis. IIU are usually performed following stimulation of ovulation, even in absence of anovulation. However the rationale for such a systematic ovulation induction is still questionable. Indeed, while an overall assessment of ovarian stimulation tends to conclude to a beneficial effect of these treatments in unexplained or some male infertility, it is clear that no definitive conclusion can be drawn. Indeed, the methodology in many published series is mostly inadequate, data are usually not analysed according to the type of infertility or to the female hormonal features. Finally, adverse effects are imperfectly descripted. A more accurate analysis of these data in relation to the number of recruited follicles definitively shows that, if a bifollicular development is associated with a significant increase in the pregnancy rates, there is no advantage to stimulate further the ovary. Indeed, surpassing the recruitment of two follicles would lead to dramatically increase the risk of OHSS and multiple pregnancies. Thus, further investigations including prospective, randomized studies are needed to better define what should be the most adequate regimen of ovulation induction. Specifically, tailoring the rate of multifollicular development according to the duration, the type of infertility (etiology; primary or secondary; female age) would prove to be a safer approach for getting pregnancy as well as avoiding adverse effects. Such a policy remains to be determined in the light of further clinical studies conducted in the more appropriate manner.