The combination of dehydroepiandrosterone, transdermal testosterone, and growth hormone as an adjuvant therapy in assisted reproductive technology cycles in patients aged below 40 years with diminished ovarian reserve

Preliminary report of intraovarian injections of autologous platelet-rich plasma (PRP) in extremely poor prognosis patients with only oocyte donation as alternative: a prospective cohort study

STUDY QUESTION

Does intraovarian injection of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) change ovarian function in patients with extremely low functional ovarian reserve (LFOR) who, otherwise, would likely only have a chance of pregnancy through third-party oocyte donation?

SUMMARY ANSWER

No clinically significant effects of PRP treatment on ovarian function were observed over 1 year of follow-up.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Several investigators have reported improved responses to ovulation induction after treatment with PRP. However, previous published reports have involved, at most, only small case series. Whether PRP actually improves ovarian performance is, therefore, still unknown. PRP is nevertheless widely offered as an ‘established’ fertility treatment, often under the term ‘ovarian rejuvenation’.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

We are reporting a prospective cohort study of 80 consecutive patients at ages 28–54 with LFOR, defined by anti-Müllerian hormone <1.1 ng/ml, FSH >12 mIU/ml or at least one prior IVF cycle with ≤3 oocytes within 1 year. The women were followed for 1 year after an intraovarian PRP procedure.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

PRP (1.5 ml) was injected into the cortex of ovaries with an average of 12 injections per ovary. Study participants were followed every 3 days for 2 weeks after PRP treatment with estradiol and FSH measurements and vaginal ultrasound to observe follicle growth and thereafter followed weekly. Beginning 1 month after their PRP treatment, participants underwent one or more cycles of ovarian stimulation for IVF. Outcome measures were endocrine response, and numbers of oocytes and embryos produced in response to a maximal gonadotropin stimulation before and after PRP treatment.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

In this study, women failed to demonstrate statistically significant outcome benefits from intraovarian PRP. However, two 40-year-old very poor-prognosis patients, with prior failed IVF cycles that never reached embryo transfer at other centers, achieved pregnancy, resulting in an ongoing pregnancy rate of 4.7% among patients who, following PRP, produced at least one oocyte (n = 42).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

As an observational study of patients who performed poorly in past ovarian stimulation cycles, the improvement may be accounted for by regression to the mean. Similar considerations may also explain the occurrence of the two pregnancies.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study demonstrates that, even in extremely poor prognosis patients due to LFOR, sporadic pregnancies are possible. The study, however, does not allow for the conclusion that those pregnancies were the consequence of PRP treatments. A case series, indeed, does not allow for such conclusions, even if results are more suggestive than here. This registered study, therefore, must be viewed as a preliminary report, with further data expected from this study but also from two other prospectively randomized ongoing registered studies with more controlled patient selection.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This work was supported by intramural funds from The Center for Human Reproduction and the not-for-profit research Foundation for Reproductive Medicine, both in New York, NY, USA. N.G. and D.H.B. are listed as co-inventors on several US patents. Some of these patents relate to pre-supplementation of hypo-androgenic infertile women with androgens, such as dehydroepiandrosterone and testosterone and, therefore, at least peripherally relate to the subject of this manuscript. They, as well as D.F.A., have also received research support, travel funds and speaker honoraria from several pharmaceutical and medical device companies, though none related to the here presented subject and manuscript. N.G. is a shareholder in Fertility Nutraceuticals and he and D.H.B. receive royalty payments from Fertility Nutraceuticals LLC. E.M. has no conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04275700

Long-term Hyperandrogenemia and/or Western-style Diet in Rhesus Macaque Females Impairs Preimplantation Embryogenesis

Hyperandrogenemia and obesity are common in women with polycystic ovary syndrome, but it is currently unclear how each alone or in combination contribute to reproductive dysfunction and female infertility. To distinguish the individual and combined effects of hyperandrogenemia and an obesogenic diet on ovarian function, prepubertal female rhesus macaques received a standard control (C) diet, testosterone (T) implants, an obesogenic Western-style diet (WSD), or both (T + WSD). After 5 to 6 years of treatment, the females underwent metabolic assessments and controlled ovarian stimulations. Follicular fluid (FF) was collected for steroid and cytokine analysis and the oocytes fertilized in vitro. Although the T + WSD females exhibited higher insulin resistance compared to the controls, there were no significant differences in metabolic parameters between treatments. Significantly higher concentrations of CXCL-10 were detected in the FF from the T group, but no significant differences in intrafollicular steroid levels were observed. Immunostaining of cleavage-stage embryos revealed multiple nuclear abnormalities in the T, WSD, and T + WSD groups. Single-cell DNA sequencing showed that while C embryos contained primarily euploid blastomeres, most cells in the other treatment groups were aneuploid. Despite yielding a higher number of mature oocytes, T + WSD treatment resulted in significantly reduced blastocyst formation rates compared to the T group. RNA sequencing analysis of individual blastocysts showed differential expression of genes involved in critical implantation processes between the C group and other treatments. Collectively, we show that long-term WSD consumption reduces the capacity of fertilized oocytes to develop into blastocysts and that the addition of T further impacts gene expression and embryogenesis.

DHEA Supplementation Confers No Additional Benefit to that of Growth Hormone on Pregnancy and Live Birth Rates in IVF Patients Categorized as Poor Prognosis

BACKGROUND

In vitro fertilization (IVF) patients receive various adjuvant therapies to enhance success rates, but the true benefit is actively debated. Growth hormone (GH) and dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) supplementation were assessed in women undergoing fresh IVF transfer cycles and categorized as poor prognosis from five criteria.

METHODS

Data were retrospectively analyzed from 626 women undergoing 626 IVF cycles, where they received no adjuvant, GH alone, or GH-DHEA in combination. A small group received DHEA alone. The utilization of adjuvants was decided between the attending clinician and the patient depending on various factors including cost.

RESULTS

Despite patients being significantly older with lower ovarian reserve, live birth rates were significantly greater with GH alone (18.6%) and with GH-DHEA (13.0%) in comparison to those with no adjuvant (p < 0.003). No significant difference was observed between the GH groups (p = 0.181). Overall, patient age, quality of the transferred embryo, and GH treatment were the only significant independent predictors of live birth chance. Following adjustment for patient age, antral follicle count, and quality of transferred embryo, GH alone and GH-DHEA led to a 7.1-fold and 5.6-fold increase in live birth chance, respectively (p < 0.000).

CONCLUSION

These data indicated that GH adjuvant may support more live births, particularly in younger women, and importantly, the positive effects of GH treatment were still observed even if DHEA was also used in combination. However, supplementation with DHEA did not indicate any potentiating benefit or modify the effects of GH treatment. Due to the retrospective design, and the risk of a selection bias, caution is advised in the interpretation of the data.