Monitoring stimulated cycles during in vitro fertilization treatment with ultrasound only--preliminary results

Real-world practices of hormone monitoring during ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology: a global online survey

Objective

The aim of this study is to understand the global practice of routine hormonal monitoring (HM) during ovarian stimulation (OS) in the context of assisted reproductive technique (ART) treatment.

Methods

An open-access questionnaire was available to 3,845 members of IVF-Worldwide.com from September 8 to October 13, 2021. The survey comprised 25 multiple-choice questions on when and how ultrasound (US) and hormone tests were conducted during ovarian stimulation OS. For most questions, respondents were required to select a single option. Some questions allowed the selection of multiple options.

Results

In all, 528 (13.7%) members from 88 countries responded to the questionnaire. Most respondents (98.9%) reported using US to monitor OS cycles. HM was used by 79.5% of respondents during any of the cycle monitoring visits and was most commonly performed on the day of, or a day prior to final oocyte maturation. Overall, 87% of respondents claimed adjusting the dose of gonadotropin during OS, with 61.7% adjusting the dose based on hormonal levels. Oestradiol (E2) was the most frequently monitored hormone during all visits and was used by 74% of respondents for the prediction of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). On or a day prior to ovulation triggering (OT), the number of respondents who measured progesterone increased from 34.3% in the second/third visit to 67.7%. Approximately one-third of respondents measured luteinizing hormone during all visits.

Conclusion

Globally, most ART specialists (~80%) use HM, along with US, for monitoring OS, especially for the prevention of OHSS.

Dose adjustment of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) during ovarian stimulation as part of medically-assisted reproduction in clinical studies: a systematic review covering 10 years (2007-2017)

BACKGROUND

Individualization of the follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) starting dose is considered standard clinical practice during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment. Furthermore, the gonadotropin dose is regularly adjusted during COS to avoid hyper- or hypo-ovarian response, but limited data are currently available to characterize such adjustments. This review describes the frequency and direction (increase/decrease) of recombinant-human FSH (r-hFSH) dose adjustment reported in clinical trials.

METHODS

We evaluated the proportion of patients undergoing ART treatment who received ≥ 1 r-hFSH dose adjustments. The inclusion criteria included studies (published Sept 2007 to Sept 2017) in women receiving ART treatment that allowed dose adjustment within the study protocol and that reported ≥ 1 dose adjustments of r-hFSH; studies not allowing/reporting dose adjustment were excluded. Data on study design, dose adjustment and patient characteristics were extracted. Point-incidence estimates were calculated per study and overall based on pooled number of cycles with dose adjustment across studies. The Clopper-Pearson method was used to calculate 95% confidence intervals (CI) for incidence where adjustment occurred in < 10% of patients; otherwise, a normal approximation method was used.

RESULTS

Initially, 1409 publications were identified, of which 318 were excluded during initial screening and 1073 were excluded after full text review for not meeting the inclusion criteria. Eighteen studies (6630 cycles) reported dose adjustment: 5/18 studies (1359 cycles) reported data for an unspecified dose adjustment (direction not defined), in 10/18 studies (3952 cycles) dose increases were reported, and in 11/18 studies (5123 cycles) dose decreases were reported. The studies were performed in women with poor, normal and high response, with one study reporting in oocyte donors and one in obese women. The median day that dose adjustment was permitted was Day 6 after the start of treatment. The point estimates for incidence (95% CI) for unspecified dose adjustment, dose increases, and dose decreases were 45.3% (42.7, 48.0), 19.2% (18.0, 20.5), and 9.5% (8.7, 10.3), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review highlights that, in studies in which dose adjustment was allowed and reported, the estimated incidence of r-hFSH dose adjustments during ovarian stimulation was up to 45%.

Monitoring of stimulated cycles in assisted reproduction (IVF and ICSI)

BACKGROUND

Monitoring of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is necessary to detect as well as reduce the incidence and severity of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) whilst achieving the optimal ovarian response needed for assisted reproduction treatment. Traditional monitoring of ovarian hyperstimulation during in vitro fertilisation IVF and ICSI treatment has included transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) plus serum estradiol levels. The need for combined monitoring (using TVUS and serum estradiol) during ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction is controversial. It has been suggested that combined monitoring is time consuming, expensive and inconvenient for women and that simplification of IVF and ICSI therapy by using TVUS only should be considered.  OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of monitoring controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in IVF and ICSI cycles in subfertile couples with TVUS only versus TVUS plus serum estradiol concentration, with respect to rates of live birth, pregnancy and OHSS.

SEARCH METHODS

In this update conducted in March 2020, two review authors searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the National Research Register, and web-based trial registers. There was no language restriction applied. All references in the identified trials and background papers were checked and authors were contacted to identify relevant published and unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials that compared monitoring with TVUS only versus TVUS plus serum estradiol concentrations in women undergoing COH for IVF and ICSI treatment were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors (IK, AW) independently selected the studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion. Outcomes data were pooled and summary statistics were presented when appropriate. The quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We did not identify any new eligible studies in this update in 2020. The evidence based on the six trials identified in 2014 remained unchanged. They included 781 women undergoing monitoring of COH with either TVUS alone or a combination of TVUS and serum estradiol concentration during IVF or ICSI treatment. None of the six studies reported our primary outcome of live birth rate. Two studies presented pregnancy rate per initiated cycle and per embryo transfer, respectively. Four studies reported pregnancy rate per woman with pooled data; we are uncertain of the effect of monitoring with TVUS only versus combined monitoring on clinical pregnancy rate per woman (odds ratio (OR) 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.54; four studies; N = 617; I² = 5%; low quality evidence). This suggests in women with a 36% chance of clinical pregnancy using monitoring with TVUS plus serum estradiol, the clinical pregnancy rate using TVUS only would be between 31% and 46%. We are uncertain of any effect in the mean number of oocytes retrieved per woman (mean difference (MD) 0.32; 95% CI -0.60 to 1.24; five studies; N = 596; I² = 17%; low quality evidence).  We are uncertain whether monitoring with TVUS only versus combined monitoring affected the incidence of OHSS (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.48 to 2.20; six studies; N = 781; I² = 0%; low quality evidence), suggesting that in women with a 4% chance of OHSS using monitoring with TVUS plus serum estradiol, the OHSS rate monitored by TVUS only would be between 2% and 8%. The cycle cancellation rate was similar in both arms of two studies (0/34 versus 1/31, 1/25 versus 1/25; OR 0.57; 95% CI 0.07 to 4.39; N = 115; I² = 0%; low quality evidence).  The evidence was low quality for all comparisons. Limitations included imprecision and potential bias due to unclear randomisation methods, allocation concealment and blinding, as well as differences in treatment protocols. Quality assessment was hampered by the lack of methodological descriptions in several studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review update found no new randomised trials. Evidence from the six studies previously identified did not suggest that combined monitoring by TVUS and serum estradiol is more efficacious than monitoring by TVUS alone with regard to clinical pregnancy rates and the incidence of OHSS. The number of oocytes retrieved appeared similar for both monitoring protocols. The data suggest that both these monitoring methods are safe and reliable. However, these results should be interpreted with caution because the overall quality of the evidence was low. Results were compromised by imprecision and poor reporting of study methodology. The choice of one or the other method may depend upon the convenience of its use, and the associated costs. An economic evaluation of the costs involved with the two methods and the views of the women undergoing cycle monitoring would be welcome.

Recombinant Human Follicle-Stimulating Hormone Alfa Dose Adjustment in US Clinical Practice: An Observational, Retrospective Analysis of a Real-World Electronic Medical Records Database

PURPOSE

To determine the pattern of dose adjustment of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone alfa (r-hFSH-alfa) during ovarian stimulation (OS) for assisted reproductive technology (ART) in a real-world setting.

METHODS

This was an observational, retrospective analysis of data from an electronic de-identified medical records database including 39 clinics in the USA. Women undergoing OS for ART (initiated 2009-2016) with r-hFSH-alfa (Gonal-f^® or Gonal-f RFF Redi-ject^®) were included. Assessed outcomes were patients' baseline characteristics and dosing characteristics/cycle.

RESULTS

Of 33,962 ART cycles, 13,823 (40.7%) underwent dose adjustments: 23.4% with ≥1 dose increase, 25.4% with ≥1 dose decrease, and 8.1% with ≥1 increase and ≥1 decrease. Patients who received dose adjustments were younger (mean [SD] age 34.8 [4.58] years versus 35.9 [4.60] years, p<0.0001) and had lower BMI (25.1 [5.45] kg/m² versus 25.5 [5.45] kg/m², p<0.0001) than those who received a constant dose. The proportion of patients with non-normal ovarian reserve was 38.4% for those receiving dose adjustment versus 51.9% for those with a constant dose. The mean (SD) number of dose changes/cycle was 1.61 (0.92) for cycles with any dose adjustment, 1.72 (1.03) for cycles with ≥1 dose increase, 2.77 (1.00) for cycles with ≥1 dose increase and ≥1 decrease (n=2,755), and 1.88 (1.03) for cycles with ≥1 dose decrease.

CONCLUSIONS

Dose adjustment during OS is common in clinical practice in the USA and occurred more often in younger versus older patients, those with a high versus non-normal ovarian reserve or those with ovulation disorders/polycystic ovary syndrome versus other primary diagnoses of infertility.

ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI†

STUDY QUESTION

What is the recommended management of ovarian stimulation, based on the best available evidence in the literature?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The guideline development group formulated 84 recommendations answering 18 key questions on ovarian stimulation.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI has been discussed briefly in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline on fertility problems, and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist has published a statement on ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. There are, to our knowledge, no evidence-based guidelines dedicated to the process of ovarian stimulation.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. After formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 8 November 2018 and written in English were included. The critical outcomes for this guideline were efficacy in terms of cumulative live birth rate per started cycle or live birth rate per started cycle, as well as safety in terms of the rate of occurrence of moderate and/or severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline group. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the guideline group and the ESHRE Executive Committee.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The guideline provides 84 recommendations: 7 recommendations on pre-stimulation management, 40 recommendations on LH suppression and gonadotrophin stimulation, 11 recommendations on monitoring during ovarian stimulation, 18 recommendations on triggering of final oocyte maturation and luteal support and 8 recommendations on the prevention of OHSS. These include 61 evidence-based recommendations-of which only 21 were formulated as strong recommendations-and 19 good practice points and 4 research-only recommendations. The guideline includes a strong recommendation for the use of either antral follicle count or anti-Müllerian hormone (instead of other ovarian reserve tests) to predict high and poor response to ovarian stimulation. The guideline also includes a strong recommendation for the use of the GnRH antagonist protocol over the GnRH agonist protocols in the general IVF/ICSI population, based on the comparable efficacy and higher safety. For predicted poor responders, GnRH antagonists and GnRH agonists are equally recommended. With regards to hormone pre-treatment and other adjuvant treatments (metformin, growth hormone (GH), testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone, aspirin and sildenafil), the guideline group concluded that none are recommended for increasing efficacy or safety.

LIMITATIONS REASON FOR CAUTION

Several newer interventions are not well studied yet. For most of these interventions, a recommendation against the intervention or a research-only recommendation was formulated based on insufficient evidence. Future studies may require these recommendations to be revised.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in ovarian stimulation, based on the best evidence available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to promote further studies in ovarian stimulation.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. F.B. reports research grant from Ferring and consulting fees from Merck, Ferring, Gedeon Richter and speaker's fees from Merck. N.P. reports research grants from Ferring, MSD, Roche Diagnositics, Theramex and Besins Healthcare; consulting fees from MSD, Ferring and IBSA; and speaker's fees from Ferring, MSD, Merck Serono, IBSA, Theramex, Besins Healthcare, Gedeon Richter and Roche Diagnostics. A.L.M reports research grants from Ferring, MSD, IBSA, Merck Serono, Gedeon Richter and TEVA and consulting fees from Roche, Beckman-Coulter. G.G. reports consulting fees from MSD, Ferring, Merck Serono, IBSA, Finox, Theramex, Gedeon-Richter, Glycotope, Abbott, Vitrolife, Biosilu, ReprodWissen, Obseva and PregLem and speaker's fees from MSD, Ferring, Merck Serono, IBSA, Finox, TEVA, Gedeon Richter, Glycotope, Abbott, Vitrolife and Biosilu. E.B. reports research grants from Gedeon Richter; consulting and speaker's fees from MSD, Ferring, Abbot, Gedeon Richter, Merck Serono, Roche Diagnostics and IBSA; and ownership interest from IVI-RMS Valencia. P.H. reports research grants from Gedeon Richter, Merck, IBSA and Ferring and speaker's fees from MSD, IBSA, Merck and Gedeon Richter. J.U. reports speaker's fees from IBSA and Ferring. N.M. reports research grants from MSD, Merck and IBSA; consulting fees from MSD, Merck, IBSA and Ferring and speaker's fees from MSD, Merck, IBSA, Gedeon Richter and Theramex. M.G. reports speaker's fees from Merck Serono, Ferring, Gedeon Richter and MSD. S.K.S. reports speaker's fees from Merck, MSD, Ferring and Pharmasure. E.K. reports speaker's fees from Merck Serono, Angellini Pharma and MSD. M.K. reports speaker's fees from Ferring. T.T. reports speaker's fees from Merck, MSD and MLD. The other authors report no conflicts of interest.

DISCLAIMER

This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.) †ESHRE Pages content is not externally peer reviewed. The manuscript has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

Adding serum estradiol measurements to ultrasound monitoring does not change the yield of mature oocytes in IVF/ICSI

In a non-randomized, comparative prospective study (416 patients) we compared the outcome of IVF/ICSI in two parallel control groups: one in which patients were followed up using combined monitoring (ultrasound plus serum estradiol monitoring, the UHM group) and one in which only ultrasound monitoring was used (the UM group). This study has taken the number of mature oocytes at the moment of egg retrieval as its primary end variable. After adjustment for age, gravidity, antagonist protocol, AMH and infertility diagnosis, the average difference in number of mature oocytes between the UHM group and the UM group was -0.4 (95% CI: -1.7 to 1.0), which met our definition of clinical equivalence (95% CI for the adjusted mean difference between -2 and 2). Larger studies are still needed to evaluate the differences in the live birth rates per cycle and to further confirm that blood sampling definitively has no added value in monitoring ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI.

Monitoring of stimulated cycles in assisted reproduction (IVF and ICSI)

BACKGROUND

Traditional monitoring of ovarian hyperstimulation during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment has included transvaginal ultrasonography (TVUS) plus serum estradiol levels to ensure safe practice by reducing the incidence and severity of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) whilst achieving the good ovarian response needed for assisted reproduction treatment. The need for combined monitoring (using TVUS and serum estradiol) during ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction is controversial. It has been suggested that combined monitoring is time consuming, expensive and inconvenient for women and that simplification of IVF and ICSI therapy by using TVUS only should be considered.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of monitoring controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in IVF and ICSI cycles in subfertile couples with TVUS only versus TVUS plus serum estradiol concentration, with respect to rates of live birth, pregnancy and OHSS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register of controlled trials, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, the National Research Register, and web-based trial registers such as Current Controlled Trials. The last search was conducted in May 2014. There was no language restriction applied. All references in the identified trials and background papers were checked and authors were contacted to identify relevant published and unpublished data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials that compared monitoring with TVUS only versus TVUS plus serum estradiol concentrations in women undergoing COH for IVF and ICSI treatment were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently selected the studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. They resolved disagreements by discussion with the rest of the authors. Outcomes data were pooled and summary statistics were presented when appropriate. The quality of the evidence was rated using the GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

With this update, four new studies were identified resulting in a total of six trials including 781 women undergoing monitoring of COH with either TVUS alone or a combination of TVUS and serum estradiol concentration during IVF or ICSI treatment.None of the six studies reported our primary outcome of live birth rate. Pooled data showed no evidence of a difference in clinical pregnancy rate per woman between monitoring with TVUS only and combined monitoring (odds ratio (OR) 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.54; four studies; N = 617; I² = 5%; low quality evidence). This suggests that compared with women with a 34% chance of clinical pregnancy using monitoring with TVUS plus serum estradiol, the clinical pregnancy rate in women using TVUS only was between 29% and 44%.There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the reported cases of OHSS (OR 1.03; 95% CI 0.48 to 2.20; six studies; N = 781; I² = 0%; low quality evidence), suggesting that compared with women with a 4% chance of OHSS using monitoring with TVUS plus serum estradiol, the OHSS rate in women monitored by TVUSS only was between 2% and 8%.There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in the mean number of oocytes retrieved pre woman (mean difference (MD) 0.32; 95% CI -0.60 to 1.24; five studies; N = 596; I² = 17%; low quality evidence).The evidence was low quality for all comparisons. Limitations included imprecision and potential bias due to unclear randomisation methods, allocation concealment and blinding, as well as differences in treatment protocols. Quality assessment was hampered by the lack of methodological descriptions in several studies.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This review update found no evidence from randomised trials to suggest that combined monitoring by TVUS and serum estradiol is more efficacious than monitoring by TVUS alone with regard to clinical pregnancy rates and the incidence of OHSS. The number of oocytes retrieved appeared similar for both monitoring protocols. The data suggest that both these monitoring methods are safe and reliable. However, these results should be interpreted with caution because the overall quality of the evidence was low. Results were compromised by imprecision and poor reporting of study methodology. A combined monitoring protocol including both TVUS and serum estradiol may need to be retained as precautionary good clinical practice and as a confirmatory test in a subset of women to identify those at high risk of OHSS. An economic evaluation of the costs involved with the two methods and the views of the women undergoing cycle monitoring would be welcome.

Ultrasound for monitoring controlled ovarian stimulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of monitoring controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) using ultrasonography.

METHODS

We performed a search in April 2013 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Studies that compared different methods for monitoring COS, including ultrasound assessment of follicles (alone or combined with hormonal assessment), in at least one group were considered eligible.

RESULTS

The search retrieved 1515 records, six of which were eligible. Five studies were included that compared ultrasonography alone with ultrasonography and hormonal assessment (estradiol and/or progesterone) and one study compared 2D and 3D ultrasound monitoring. None of the included studies reported on live birth. Four of the five studies reported on clinical pregnancy (RR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.78–1.16; n = 611); the confidence interval (CI) was somewhat wide, but allowed us to conclude that ultrasonography alone differs little from ultrasonography combined with hormonal assessment. Three studies reported on the number of oocytes retrieved (mean difference (MD), 0.8 oocytes; 95% CI, –0.4 to 2.0; n = 474); the CI was somewhat wide and did not permit us to conclude whether ultrasonography alone is better than or similar to ultrasonography and hormonal assessment for this outcome. All five studies reported on ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OR, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.47–2.25; n = 725) and only one study reported on miscarriage (RR, 0.37; 95% CI, 0.07–1.79; n = 45); for these two outcomes, the CI was very wide and did not permit us to conclude whether ultrasonography alone is better, similar or less effective than ultrasonography combined with hormonal assessment. For the study comparing 2D and 3D ultrasound, the reported outcomes were clinical pregnancy (RR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.58–1.73, n = 72) and the number of oocytes retrieved (MD, –0.4 oocytes; 95% CI, –3.6 to 2.9; n = 72); for both, the CI was very wide and did not permit us to conclude whether use of 3D ultrasound is better, similar or less effective than use of 2D ultrasound.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence suggests that monitoring COS only with ultrasonography is unlikely to substantially alter the chances of achieving a clinical pregnancy and the number of oocytes retrieved is similar to that when monitoring with ultrasonography and hormonal assessment. For the other outcomes and comparisons, the available data are inconclusive. We believe that more studies evaluating the optimal procedure for monitoring COS are needed.