Should mild stimulation be the order of the day?

IVF and other ART in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic landscape analysis

BACKGROUND

Infertility affects 48.5 million couples worldwide with a prevalence estimated at 3.5-16.7% in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), and as high as 30-40% in Sub-Saharan Africa. ART services are not accessible to the majority of these infertile couples due to the high cost of treatments in addition to cultural, religious and legal barriers. Infertility and childlessness, particularly in LMIC, have devastating consequences, which has resulted in considerable interest in developing affordable IVF procedures. However, there is a paucity of evidence on the safety, efficiency and ability to replicate techniques under different field conditions, and how to integrate more affordable ART options into existing infrastructures.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

This review was performed to investigate the current availability of IVF in LMIC and which other ART options are under development. This work will unfold the landscape of available and potential ART services in LMIC and is a key element in positioning infertility more broadly in the Global Public Health Agenda.

SEARCH METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed of articles and gray literature on IVF and other ART options in LMIC published between January 2010 and January 2020. We selected studies on IVF and other ART treatments for infertile couples of reproductive age (18-44 years) from LMIC. The review was limited to articles published after 2010, based on the recent evolution in the field of ART practices in LMIC over the last decade. Citations from high-income countries, including data prior to 2010 and focusing on specialized ART procedures, were excluded. The literature search included PubMed, Popline, CINHAL, EMBASE and Global Index Medicus. No restrictions were applied with regard to study design or language. Two reviewers independently screened the titles and abstracts, and extracted data. A search for gray literature was performed using the 'Google' search engine and specific databases (worldcat.org, greylit.org). In addition, the reference lists of included studies were assessed.

OUTCOMES

The search of the electronic databases yielded 3769 citations. After review of the titles and abstracts, 283 studies were included. The full texts were reviewed and a further 199 articles were excluded. The gray literature search yielded 586 citations, most of which were excluded after screening the title, and the remaining documents were excluded after full-text assessment due to duplicate entries, not from LMIC, not relevant or no access to the full document. Eighty-four citations were included as part of the review and separated into regions. The majority of the studies were observational and qualitative studies. In general, ART services are available and described in several LMIC, ranging from advanced techniques in China to basic introduction of IVF in some African countries. Efforts to provide affordable ART treatments are described in feasibility studies and efficacy studies; however, most citations were of low to very low quality. We found no studies from LMIC reporting the implementation of low-cost ART that is effective, accessible and affordable to most of those in need of the services.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

The World Health Organization is in a unique position to provide much needed guidance for infertility management in LMIC. This review provides insight into the landscape of ART in LMIC in various regions worldwide, which will guide efforts to improve the availability, quality, accessibility and acceptability of biomedical infertility care, including ART in these countries.

Ovarian stimulation protocols for IVF: is more better than less?

Conventional ovarian stimulation protocols for IVF are designed to achieve maximum oocyte yields. Conventional protocols, however, are associated with patient discomfort, increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and higher costs. In recent years, mild stimulation protocols have risen in popularity. These protocols typically use lower doses (≤150 IU/day), shorter duration of exogenous gonadotrophins, or both, compared with conventional protocols, with the goal of limiting the number of retrieved oocytes to less than eight. The pregnancy rate per cycle (fresh embryo transfer only) is lower with mild stimulation compared with conventional stimulation; however, the cumulative pregnancy rate seems to be comparable between the approaches. Reports are conflicting on the effects of mild versus conventional stimulation on embryo quality. This article expands on a live debate held at the American Society for Reproductive Medicine 2015 Annual Meeting to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the 'more is better' (conventional protocol) versus 'less is best' (mild protocol) approaches to ovarian stimulation. Both protocols are associated with benefits and challenges, and physicians must consider the needs of the individual patient when determining the best treatment options. Further prospective studies comparing a variety of outcomes with conventional and mild stimulation are needed.

Mild ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate launch is a realistic option for in vitro fertilization

OBJECTIVE

To validate the use of clomiphene citrate in IVF when mild stimulation approaches are chosen to reduce patient discomfort, risk, and cost.

DESIGN

Prospective cohort study.

SETTING

Private IVF clinic.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 163 patients undergoing IVF and with a good prognosis (defined as ≤38 years old with normal ovarian reserve and normovulatory cycles, body mass index <29 kg/m(2), no previous assisted reproductive technology cycles, no severe endometriosis, no history of recurrent miscarriage, no endocrine/autoimmune diseases, and no surgical semen extraction).

INTERVENTION(S)

Mild stimulation using a fixed protocol of clomiphene citrate (100 mg/d from cycle days 3 to 7) in combination with low doses of gonadotropins (150 IU of recombinant FSH on cycle days 5, 7, and 9) and GnRH antagonist.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The cumulative delivery rate per patient after three fresh and/or frozen embryo transfers and time to pregnancy.

RESULT(S)

No dropouts were observed. The cumulative delivery rate was 70%, and the mean time to pregnancy was 2.4 months.

CONCLUSION(S)

Mild stimulation using clomiphene citrate in combination with low doses of gonadotropins can be considered a realistic option for good-prognosis patients undergoing IVF.

Prevention of Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome: A Review

The following review aims to examine the available evidence to guide best practice in preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). As it stands, there is no single method to completely prevent OHSS. There seems to be a benefit, however, in categorizing women based on their risk of OHSS and individualizing treatments to curtail their chances of developing the syndrome. At present, both Anti-Müllerian Hormone and the antral follicle count seem to be promising in this regard. Both available and upcoming therapies are also reviewed to give a broad perspective to clinicians with regard to management options. At present, we recommend the use of a "step-up" regimen for ovulation induction, adjunct metformin utilization, utilizing a GnRH agonist as an ovulation trigger, and cabergoline usage. A summary of recommendations is also made available for ease of clinical application. In addition, areas for potential research are also identified where relevant.

Comparison of GnRH agonist, GnRH antagonist, and GnRH antagonist mild protocol of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in good prognosis patients

The reports on how to stimulate the ovaries for oocyte retrieval in good prognosis patients are contradictory and often favor one type of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). For this reason, we retrospectively analyzed data from IVF/ICSI cycles carried out at our IVF Unit in good prognosis patients (aged <38 years, first and second attempts of IVF/ICSI, more than 3 oocytes retrieved) to elucidate which type of COH is optimal at our condition. The included patients were undergoing COH using GnRH agonist, GnRH antagonist or GnRH antagonist mild protocol in combination with gonadotrophins. We found significant differences in the average number of retrieved oocytes, immature oocytes, fertilized oocytes, embryos, transferred embryos, embryos frozen per cycle, and cycles with embryo freezing between studied COH protocols. Although there were no differences in live birth rate (LBR), miscarriages, and ectopic pregnancies between compared protocols, pregnancy rate was significantly higher in GnRH antagonist mild protocol in comparison with both GnRH antagonist and GnRH agonist protocols and cumulative LBR per cycle was significantly higher in GnRH antagonist mild protocol in comparison to GnRH agonist protocol. Our data show that GnRH antagonist mild protocol of COH could be the best method of choice in good prognosis patients.