Letrozole supplementation during controlled ovarian stimulation in expected high responders: a pilot randomized controlled study

Effect of aromatase inhibitors for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in infertile patients undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To summarize the findings of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and conduct a meta-analysis to investigate the potential effect of aromatase inhibitors on preventing moderate to severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in infertile women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF).

METHODS

We searched for relevant RCTs in electronic databases, including MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and ClinicalTrials.gov (from inception to August 2023). In addition, we manually searched the related reviews and reference lists of included studies for further relevant studies. We included RCTs where aromatase inhibitors prescribed either during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) or in early luteal phase. The meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4.1 software. The primary outcome was the incidence of moderate to severe OHSS. A descriptive analysis was conducted in cases where a meta-analysis was not feasible due to heterogeneity or lack of comparable data.

RESULTS

2858 records were retrieved and 12 RCTs were finally included. Letrozole was administered in the treatment group during COS in seven RCTs, whereas in the early luteal phase in five RCTs. Compared with the control group, the risk of moderate to severe OHSS significantly reduced by 55% in the letrozole group (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.64, I2 = 0%, 5 RCTs, 494 patients). Moreover, serum estradiol (E2) levels on hCG trigger day significantly decreased with the administration of letrozole during COS (MD -847.23, 95% CI -1398.00 to -296.47, I2 = 93%, 5 RCTs, 374 patients). And serum E2 levels on the 4th, 5th and 7th to 10th day after hCG trigger were also significantly lower than those in the control group when letrozole was administered in the early luteal phase.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with high risk of OHSS probably benefit from letrozole, which has been revealed to reduce the incidence of moderate to severe OHSS by this systematic review. However, the very limited number of participants and the quality of the included studies does not allow to recommend letrozole for the prevention of severe OHSS.

The Efficacy of Letrozole Co-Treatment in an Antagonist Protocol for Women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Undergoing IVF: A Retrospective Study

Objective

Our objective was to investigate the efficacy of letrozole co-treatment in an antagonist protocol for infertile women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

Patients and Methods

This retrospective cohort study included infertile women with PCOS undergoing IVF/ICSI with and without letrozole co-treatment in an antagonist protocol from 2007-2021 at Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital (Shanghai, China). A total of 1559 participants were enrolled, with 1227 women in the antagonist group and 332 women in the letrozole co-treatment group. Propensity score-based patient-matching model was conducted to balance covariates between the groups. The primary outcome was the number of retrieved oocytes, with secondary outcomes including endocrine parameters, ovarian stimulation outcomes, pregnancy outcomes, and obstetrical and neonatal complications.

Results

Letrozole co-treatment induced significant changes in hormonal regulation, increased the percentage of large follicles, and resulted in fewer retrieved oocytes (P < 0.05). However, there was no negative impact on the number of usable embryos or good-quality embryos (P > 0.05). The live birth rates following fresh embryo transfer were comparable between the letrozole and control groups (single embryo transfer: 28.9% vs 29.7%, P > 0.05; double embryo transfer: 37.3% vs 45.6%, P > 0.05). Additionally, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the live birth rate per patient after frozen embryo transfer and the cumulative live birth rate (P > 0.05). No significant differences in obstetrical and neonatal complications were observed between the groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion

The addition of letrozole to the antagonist protocol for women with PCOS undergoing IVF induces a higher percentage of large follicles during oocyte retrieval, while reducing the overall number of retrieved oocytes. Moreover, the use of letrozole demonstrates comparable clinical outcomes following embryo transfers. These findings highlight the potential application of letrozole in an antagonist protocol for women with PCOS.

Impact of 2.5 mg versus 5 mg letrozole co-treatment in an antagonist protocol for IVF: a retrospective study

Objective

The present study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two different doses of letrozole (2.5 mg and 5 mg daily) in an antagonist protocol for infertile women with normal ovarian reserve.

Methods

This retrospective cohort study included infertile women who underwent in vitro fertilization treatment with letrozole co-treatment at doses of 2.5 mg and 5 mg from 2007 - 2021 at Shanghai Ninth People's Hospital (Shanghai, China). The control group comprised infertile women who received gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist alone. The primary outcome was the cumulative live birth rate, while secondary outcomes included follicular phase endocrine parameters, ovarian stimulation outcomes, pregnancy outcomes, and the incidences of maternal and neonatal complications. Baseline and follow-up data were compared between the groups using ANOVA for normally distributed variables, the Kruskal-Wallis test for non-normally distributed variables, and the Chi-square test for categorical variables.

Results

A total of 422 participants were enrolled in the study, with 211 women in the antagonist group, 109 women in the 2.5 mg letrozole co-treatment group, and 102 women in the 5 mg letrozole co-treatment group. Letrozole co-treatment significantly suppressed oestradiol and follicle-stimulating hormone concentrations from stimulation day 5 and onwards, while increasing luteinizing hormone levels on stimulation day 5 and trigger day. The effect was more pronounced with a 5 mg dose of letrozole compared to a 2.5 mg dose (P < 0.05). Administration of 5 mg letrozole reduced the gonadotropin dose (P < 0.05) without negatively affecting the number of oocytes retrieved and subsequent embryo parameters (P > 0.05). The analysis of cumulative live birth rates showed rates of 29.4% in the letrozole 5 mg group, 27.5% in the letrozole 2.5 mg group, and 33.6% in the control group, with no statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). There were no reported pregnancy complications in the two letrozole groups. Additionally, there were no significant differences among the three groups in terms of gestational age and birth weight for both singleton and twin births.

Conclusion

This study indicates that the administration of letrozole in an antagonist protocol, at both 2.5 mg and 5 mg dosages, results in comparable clinical outcomes.

Letrozole cotreatment improves the follicular output rate in high-body-mass-index women with polycystic ovary syndrome undergoing IVF treatment

BACKGROUND

Women who have polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) with high body mass index (BMI) typically have an attenuated ovarian response and decreased follicular size, which are linked to unfavourable clinical outcomes following in vitro fertilization (IVF) therapy. The follicular output rate (FORT), a qualitative indicator of follicular response, seems to be positively linked to the clinical outcomes of IVF. Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) has become an alternative to gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues to inhibit the premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge. As letrozole (LE) shows promise in enhancing ovarian response, we compared PPOS with and without LE for PCOS in high BMI women with a focus on the FORT and associated clinical and pregnancy outcomes.

METHODS

For the recruited 1508 women, ten variables including AFC; age; basal sex hormone level; BMI; infertility type; period of infertility and number of previous IVF attempts were chosen in the propensity score matching (PSM) model to match 1374 women who taken the MPA+ hMG protocol with 134 women who received the MPA+ hMG+ LE treatment at a 1:1 ratio. FORT was selected as the primary outcome measure. The number of oocytes retrieved, viable embryos, hMG dosage, duration, oocyte maturity rate, fertilization rate, and implantation rate were established as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

FORT was substantially elevated in the MPA+hMG+LE group compared with the MPA+hMG group (61% [35%, 86%] vs. 40% [25%, 60%], P <.001). Interestingly, the LE cotreatment group had a considerably lower mature oocyte rate despite having a similar number of mature oocytes and embryos recovered. The average hMG dosages and durations in the study group were similar to those in the control group. The implantation rate in the study group was numerically higher but without statistic significant than that in the control groups (43.15% (107/248) vs. 38.59% (115/298), OR 1.008, 95% CI 0.901-1.127; P >.05).

CONCLUSION

The effect of LE combined with PPOS on FORT is better than the effect of the standard PPOS treatment in women with PCOS and a high BMI, but there is no substantially beneficial impact on pregnancy outcomes or the cycle features of COS, including consumption of hMG.

The effectiveness of controlled ovarian stimulation with tamoxifen for patients with estrogen-sensitive breast cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

Tamoxifen is used for the suppression of estrogen-sensitive tumor recurrence in oocyte retrieval cycles. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the quality of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with co-administration of gonadotropins and tamoxifen (COS with tamoxifen).

Methods

PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for articles on October 30, 2022. The authors included studies comparing COS with tamoxifen and COS with gonadotropins and letrozole (COS with letrozole) or gonadotropin only (COS with gonadotropin only) for fertility preservation in patients with breast cancer. The main outcome measures were the COS quality, total number of retrieved oocytes (TOR), total number of mature oocytes (TMO), and peak estradiol levels (PEL).

Results

Four studies (348 patients, two randomized controlled trials, and two cohort studies) were included in our meta-analysis. There was no significant difference in TOR (95% CI, [-3.84, 2.90]) and TMO (95% CI, [-2.20, 2.64]) between COS with tamoxifen and COS with letrozole. There was also no difference in TOR (95% CI, [-6.14, 1.86]) between COS with tamoxifen and COS with gonadotropin only. Statistically significant decrease was observed in PEL during COS with letrozole compared with tamoxifen (95% CI, [1414.4, 4953.7]).

Conclusions

The quality did not differ between COS with tamoxifen and COS with letrozole or gonadotropin only.

The impact of letrozole on oocyte quality in assisted reproductive technology (ART); a randomized double-blind clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To examine the effect of letrozole on oocyte quality and pregnancy outcome in assisted reproductive technology (ART).

METHODS

This double blind placebo controlled clinical trial was conducted in Vali-Asr Infertility Center. Infertile women candidate for IVF that underwent antagonist protocol were selected. Eligible women randomly allocated into treatment (letrozole/Let group) and control (placebo) group. Participants received letrozole 5 mg/day or placebo at the time of gonadotropin start until trigger day in the same manner. Number of oocyte retrieved, metaphase II oocyte number, high grade oocyte number (G1), high quality embryo, Chemical and clinical pregnancy rate and OHSS (ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome) rate was recorded. 216 infertile women (104 in letrozole and 112 in the control group) were evaluated.

RESULTS

In the Let group estradiol level was significantly lower (p_value < .001) and testosterone significantly higher than in the control group (p_value = .02). The number of retrieved oocytes, MII oocytes, G1 oocytes, and 2PN was significantly lower in the Let group (p < .05). No significant difference was found in the day of stimulation, total gonadotropin dose, OHSS rate, and clinical pregnancy rate between the two groups (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

According to the results, letrozole may reduce oocyte quality and cause poor IVF outcomes as well.

Letrozole cotreatment with progestin-primed ovarian stimulation in women with polycystic ovary syndrome undergoing IVF treatment

Background: Progestin is an alternative to gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues in the follicular phase to suppress the premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). However, progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is always accompanied by increased pituitary suppression and gonadotropin consumption. Previous studies suggested that letrozole appeared to have the potential to reduce the total gonadotropin dose required for ovarian stimulation. A retrospective cohort study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of PPOS with or without letrozole in infertile women with PCOS.

Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 448 women with PCOS who underwent controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) and medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) (n = 224) or hMG and MPA cotreatment with LE (n = 224) from January 2018 to March 2021 after propensity-score matching. The primary outcome measure was the hMG dose. The secondary outcomes were the durations of ovarian stimulation, the implantation rate, the number of oocytes retrieved and viable embryos, oocyte maturity and fertilization rates, the percentage of women with profound pituitary suppression (luteinizing hormone [LH] <1.0 IU/L on the trigger day).

Results: The hMG doses (1949.89 ± 725.03 IU vs 2017.41 ± 653.32 IU,p > 0.05) and durations of ovarian stimulation (9.03 ± 1.79 days vs 9.21 ± 2.18 days,p > 0.05) were similar between the two groups. The implantation rate was significantly higher in the study group (MPA + hMG + LE) than in the control group (MPA + hMG) (42.22 vs 34.69%, p < 0.05). The numbers of oocytes and embryos retrieved were similar between the two groups. Interestingly, letrozole cotreatment was associated with decreased oocyte maturity and fertilization rates in comparison with standard PPOS protocols even though mature and fertilized oocyte yields were comparable. Compared with those in the control group, the LH values on the trigger day were significantly higher in the study group, together with significantly reduced pituitary suppression.

Conclusion: Letrozole combined with PPOS cannot reduce hMG consumption in PCOS patients undergoing IVF treatment and shows no beneficial effect on cycle characteristics of COS. However, letrozole supplementation manifests as a superior implantation rate to that of the standard PPOS protocol in women with PCOS.

Effect of letrozole on follicular fluid steroids concentrations in cancer patients undergoing oocytes cryopreservation

PURPOSE

To investigate the impact of letrozole administration on follicular steroid hormones during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for fertility preservation.

METHODS

One hundred and nineteen women with cancer undergoing oocytes retrieval for fertility preservation were recruited. All women underwent ovarian hyperstimulation according to a random start protocol. Those with hormone-sensitive tumors also received letrozole, an aromatase inhibitor aimed at keeping peripheral estrogen levels low. At the time of oocytes retrieval, a sample of follicular fluid was collected and frozen. All samples were assayed concomitantly after thawing, by liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry. The concentration of 15 steroid hormones was determined and results were compared between women who did and did not receive letrozole.

RESULTS

Fifty-two women were treated with letrozole, while 67 were not. Statistically significant differences emerged for 12 of the 15 tested steroids. They were the following: cortisol, 11-deoxycortisol, 21-deoxycortisol, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS), dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), estradiol, androstenedione, testosterone, dihydrotestosterone (DHT), 17-hydroxyprogesterone, progesterone and corticosterone. The most striking differences were observed for testosterone that showed a more than 200-time increase in women receiving letrozole. Estradiol was conversely reduced to a third.

CONCLUSIONS

The endocrine microenvironment surrounding oocytes is markedly perturbed by the concomitant assumption of letrozole. Robust clinical evaluation is pressingly needed to rule out any detrimental effect on the chance of live birth with the use of these oocytes.

Letrozole Supplementation and the Increased Risk of Elevated Progesterone Levels on Trigger Day

Although using letrozole (LE) during in vitro fertilisation and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) has many advantages, it remains unclear whether LE induces an increase in progestogen during the late follicular phase. The objective of this study was to investigate whether progesterone levels increased under antagonist protocols supplemented with LE on the trigger day using a retrospective cohort study. The study included 1,133 women who underwent IVF/ICSI cycles from January 2018 to June 2020. After propensity score matching (PSM) for baseline characteristics, 266 patients with gonadotropin-releasing hormone-antagonist (GnRH-ant) were matched to 266 patients with letrozole + GnRH-ant (LE GnRH-ant) (PSM 1 cohort), and 283 patients with gonadotropin-releasing hormone-agonist (GnRH-a) were matched to 283 patients with LE GnRH-ant (PSM 2 cohort). In the PSM 1 cohort, patients in the LE GnRH-a group presented higher progesterone levels (1.22 ± 0.95 ng/mL vs 0.86 ± 0.60 ng/mL, P < 0.001), with a higher proportion of patients with progesterone level > 1.5 ng/mL (24.81% vs 7.52%, P < 0.001). In PSM 2 cohort, patients in the LE GnRH-a group presented higher progesterone levels on trigger day (1.23 ± 0.91 ng/mL vs 0.98 ± 0.61 ng/mL, P < 0.001), with a higher proportion of patients with progesterone level > 1.5 ng/mL (25.45% vs 12.70%, P < 0.001). In the PSM 1 cohort, progesterone levels on the trigger day increased by 0.05 ng/mL, with an increase in every retrieved oocyte in the LE GnRH-ant group (β 0.05 ng/mL [95% CI 0.04, 0.06], P < 0.001), whereas an increase of 0.02 ng/mL was observed in the GnRH-ant group (β 0.02 ng/mL [95% CI 0.01, 0.03], P < 0.001), with P for interaction being 0.0018. In the PSM 2 cohort, progesterone levels on the trigger day increased by 0.05 ng/mL with an increase in every retrieved oocyte in the LE GnRH-ant group (β 0.05 ng/mL [95% CI 0.04, 0.06], P < 0.001), whereas an increase of 0.02 ng/mL was observed in the GnRH-a group (β 0.02 ng/mL [95% CI 0.01, 0.03], P < 0.001), with P for interaction being 0.0002. LE supplementation on the antagonist protocols may increase progesterone levels in the late follicular stage.

Impact of letrozole co-treatment during ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophins for IVF: a multicentre, randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION

Does letrozole co-treatment during ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophins for IVF reduce the proportion of women with premature progesterone levels above 1.5 ng/ml at the time of triggering final oocyte maturation?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The proportion of women with premature progesterone above 1.5 ng/ml was not significantly affected by letrozole co-treatment.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

IVF creates multiple follicles with supraphysiological levels of sex steroids interrupting the endocrine milieu and affects the window of implantation. Letrozole is an effective aromatase inhibitor, normalizing serum oestradiol, thereby ameliorating some of the detrimental effects of IVF treatment.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled trial investigated letrozole intervention during stimulation for IVF with FSH. The trial was conducted at four fertility clinics at University Hospitals in Denmark from August 2016 to November 2018.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

A cohort of 129 women with expected normal ovarian reserve (anti-Müllerian hormone 8-32 nmol/l) completed an IVF cycle with fresh embryo transfer and received co-treatment with either 5 mg/day letrozole (n = 67) or placebo (n = 62), along with the FSH. Progesterone, oestradiol, FSH, LH and androgens were analysed in repeated serum samples collected from the start of the stimulation to the mid-luteal phase. In addition, the effect of letrozole on reproductive outcomes, total FSH consumption and adverse events were assessed.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The proportion of women with premature progesterone >1.5 ng/ml was similar (6% vs 0% (OR 0.0, 95% CI [0.0; 1.6], P = 0.12) in the letrozole versus placebo groups, respectively), whereas the proportion of women with mid-luteal progesterone >30 ng/ml was significantly increased in the letrozole group: (59% vs 31% (OR 3.3, 95% CI [1.4; 7.1], P = 0.005)). Letrozole versus placebo decreased oestradiol levels on the ovulation trigger day by 68% (95% CI [60%; 75%], P < 0.0001). Other hormonal profiles, measured as AUC, showed the following results. The increase in LH in the letrozole group versus placebo group was 38% (95% CI [21%; 58%], P < 0.0001) and 34% (95% CI [11%; 61%], P = 0.006) in the follicular and luteal phases, respectively. In the letrozole group versus placebo group, testosterone increased by 79% (95% CI [55%; 105%], P < 0.0001) and 49% (95% CI [30%; 72%], P < 0.0001) in the follicular and luteal phases, respectively. In the letrozole group versus placebo group, the increase in androstenedione was by 85% (95% CI [59%; 114%], P < 0.0001) and 69% (95% CI [48%; 94%], P < 0.0001) in the follicular and luteal phases, respectively. The ongoing pregnancy rate was similar between the letrozole and placebo groups (31% vs 39% (risk-difference of 8%, 95% CI [-25%; 11%], P = 0.55)). No serious adverse reactions were recorded in either group. The total duration of exogenous FSH stimulation was 1 day shorter in the intervention group, significantly reducing total FSH consumption (mean difference -100 IU, 95% CI [-192; -21], P = 0.03).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Late follicular progesterone samples were collected on the day before and day of ovulation triggering for patient logistic considerations, and the recently emerged knowledge about diurnal variation of progesterone was not taken into account. The study was powered to detect hormonal variations but not differences in pregnancy outcomes.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Although the use of letrozole has no effect on the primary outcome, the number of women with a premature increase in progesterone on the day of ovulation triggering, the increased progesterone in the mid-luteal phase due to letrozole may contribute to optimizing the luteal phase endocrinology. The effect of letrozole on increasing androgens and reducing FSH consumption may be used in poor responders. However, the effect of letrozole on implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates should be evaluated in a meta-analysis or larger randomized controlled trial (RCT).

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Funding was received from EU Interreg for ReproUnion and Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics contributed with assays. N.S.M. and A.P. have received grants from Ferring, Merck Serono, Anecova and Gedeon Richter, and/or personal fees from IBSA, Vivoplex, ArtPred and SPD, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have no competing interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

NCT02939898 and NCT02946684.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

15 August 2016.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

22 August 2016.

Does the additional use of clomiphene citrate or letrozole for in vitro fertilization deserve more attention?

BACKGROUND

Adding clomiphene citrate (CC) and/or letrozole (LE) to in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles for mild ovarian stimulation is a general approach. Although lots of researches have demonstrated partial benefits of the strategy, all-around effects of oral medications remained deficient. This paper aims to assess whether an addition of oral medication will result in considerable outcomes on T-Gn (total dose of gonadotropin), Gn days, total retrieved ova, high quality embryos, blastocyst number, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate, clinical pregnancy rate and cumulative pregnancy rate, even if it was not conventional mild/minimal stimulations.

RESULTS

Participants were categorized to three diverse populations as high responders, normal responders and poor responders according to basal antral follicle count. T-Gn in patients treated with CC/LE distinctly decreased from 2496.96 IU/d to 1827.68 IU/d, from 2860.28 IU/d to 2119.99 IU/d, and from 3182.15 IU/d to 1802.84 IU/d, respectively. For high ovary responders and normal responders, the OHSS incidence rate also declined from 29.2 to 4.3% (P < 0.001) and from 1.1 to 0.0% (P = 0.090). Other, there was no statistical difference with respect to the T-retrieved ova (total retrieved ova), high quality embryos, cultured blastocyst and blastocyst number in high responders. For normal responders and poor ovary responders, T-Gn, Gn days, T-retrieved ova, high quality embryos, cultured blastocyst and blastocysts number in oral medications group all apparently decreased. Clinical pregnancy rate per fresh cycle of poor responders with prior oral medications was significantly decreased (25.7% vs. 50.8%, P = 0.005), and no significant differences in high responders and normal responders were expressed (52.5% vs. 44.2%, P = 0.310; 51.9% vs. 42.4%, P = 0.163) between two groups of participants. The numbers of cumulative pregnancy rates were lower in the conventional group compared to the add group for high (75.90% versus 81.03%, P = 0.279), normal (62.69% versus 71.36%, P = 0.016) and poor (39.74% versus 68.21%, P < 0.001) responders.

CONCLUSIONS

The addition of CC/LE to the ovulation induction during IVF has certain efficacy in terms of low cost, low OHSS incidence. CC/LE deserves more recommendations as a responsible strategy in high responders due to advantageous pregnancy outcomes. For normal responders, the strategy needs to be considered with more comprehensive factors.

Effect of Metformin on Premature Luteinization and Pregnancy Outcomes in Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection-Fresh Embryo Transfer Cycles: A Randomized Double-Blind Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Premature luteinization (PL) is not unusual in in vitro fertilization (IVF) and could not be wholly avoided by using either gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists or GnRH antagonist regimens. The study aims to evaluate metformin's efficacy in preventing PL in fresh GnRH antagonist intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles with cleavage-stage embryo transfer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial was conducted in a tertiary university IVF center. We recruited infertile women who were scheduled to perform their first or second ICSI trial. Eligible women were recruited and randomized in a 1:1 ratio into two groups. Metformin was administered in a dose of 1500 mg per day since the start of contraceptive pills in the cycle antecedent to stimulation cycle until the day of ovulation triggering, while women in the placebo group received a placebo for the same regimen and duration. The primary outcome was the incidence of PL, defined as serum progesterone (P) on the triggering day ≥1.5 ng/mL. Secondary outcomes comprised the live birth, ongoing pregnancy, implantation, and good-quality embryos rates.

RESULTS

The trial involved 320 eligible participants (n=160 in each group). Both groups had comparable stimulation days, endometrial thickness, peak estradiol levels, number of oocytes retrieved, and number of mature oocytes. Metformin group experienced lower level of serum P (P<0.001) and incidence of PL (10 vs. 23.6%, P=0.001). Moreover, lower progesterone/estradiol (P/E) ratio and progesterone to mature oocyte index (PMOI) (P=0.002 and P=0.002, respectively) were demonstrated in women receiving metformin. Metformin group generated a better rate of goodquality embryos (P=0.005) and ongoing pregnancy (43.8 vs. 31.8%, P=0.026). A similar trend, though of borderline significance, was observed in the live birth rate in favor of metformin administration (38.15 vs. 27.5%, P=0.04).

CONCLUSION

Metformin could be used in patients with potential PL to improve fresh cycle outcomes by preventing PL (Registration number: NCT03088631).

The Conundrum of Poor Ovarian Response: From Diagnosis to Treatment

Despite recent striking advances in assisted reproductive technology (ART), poor ovarian response (POR) diagnosis and treatment is still considered challenging. Poor responders constitute a heterogeneous cohort with the common denominator of under-responding to controlled ovarian stimulation. Inevitably, respective success rates are significantly compromised. As POR pathophysiology entails the elusive factor of compromised ovarian function, both diagnosis and management fuel an ongoing heated debate depicted in the literature. From the criteria employed for diagnosis to the plethora of strategies and adjuvant therapies proposed, the conundrum of POR still puzzles the practitioner. What is more, novel treatment approaches from stem cell therapy and platelet-rich plasma intra-ovarian infusion to mitochondrial replacement therapy have emerged, albeit not claiming clinical routine status yet. The complex and time sensitive nature of this subgroup of infertile patients indicates the demand for a consensus on a horizontally accepted definition, diagnosis and subsequent effective treating strategy. This critical review analyzes the standing criteria employed in order to diagnose and aptly categorize POR patients, while it proceeds to critically evaluate current and novel strategies regarding their management. Discrepancies in diagnosis and respective implications are discussed, while the existing diversity in management options highlights the need for individualized management.