Comparison of ovulation induction protocols after endometrioma resection

Reproductive outcome after in vitro fertilization in endometriosis - key factors and implications

Endometriosis is a benign chronic disease with a major impact on a woman's quality of life, mainly due to painful physical symptoms. Endometriosis is also a common cause of infertility caused by low ovarian reserve, distorted pelvic anatomy, and severe local inflammation with a direct negative impact on the quality of oocytes, embryos, and endometrium. We conducted a retrospective study between January 2019 and December 2023, including women with a history of surgery for endometriosis who underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF) to achieve pregnancy. Their reproductive outcome was compared with a group of patients with documented tubal obstruction. The aim of our study was to identify the factors associated with a positive impact on the pregnancy rate, specifically age, anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH), ovarian stimulation protocol, and types of gonadotropins used. We analyzed a group of 175 patients with endometriosis compared with 189 patients with tubal obstruction. The average age was similar between the two groups but with a difference in the average AMH value (1.63 ± 1.09 ng/mL vs. 2.55 ± 1.67 ng/mL). The most utilized ovarian stimulation protocol in both groups was the short gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist. The clinical pregnancy rate was 27.2% in the endometriosis group and 54.7% in the tubal obstruction group. Our study revealed that treatment with corifollitropin alfa in the endometriosis group was associated with a higher clinical pregnancy rate. AMH and age proved to be significant independent factors for the reproductive outcome.

Ovarian Stimulation for In Vitro Fertilization and Reproductive Outcome after Surgical Treatment of Endometriosis Compared with Tubal Factor Infertility

Endometriosis is a common cause of infertility among reproductive-age women. A low ovarian reserve is associated with the presence of endometriotic cysts, and this is accentuated even more after surgery. Patients with a history of endometrioma are a special category of poor ovarian reserve requiring in vitro fertilization (IVF). The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the characteristics and outcome of ovarian stimulation and embryo transfer in women with a history of ovarian surgery for endometrioma compared with a control group with tubal factor infertility. A total of 146 patients had previous laparoscopic cystectomy for endometrioma (group A) and their IVF results were compared with 136 patients with documented tubal obstruction (group B). In both groups, the most frequently used ovarian stimulation protocol was the short antagonist in 84.24% versus 80.88%. The number of stimulation days was between 6 and 15 days in the two groups with a mean value of 12.76 days in group A and 9.47 days in group B. The clinical pregnancy rate was 26.77% in the endometrioma group and 39.68% in the tubal obstruction group. Patients with a history of endometrioma are less likely to conceive than those with tubal obstruction despite having similar ovarian reserve and stimulation results.

Comparing ART outcomes in women with endometriosis after GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist ovarian stimulation: a systematic review

Background

Endometriosis is an oestrogen-dependent disease that can cause subfertility in women who may require assisted reproductive technology (ART) to achieve their pregnancy goals.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare ART outcomes in women with endometriosis following the long GnRH-agonist controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocol with those taking the GnRH-antagonist COS protocol.

Data Sources and Methods

MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science were systematically searched in June 2022. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the long GnRH-agonist COS protocol and the GnRH-antagonist COS protocol in women with all stages/subtypes of endometriosis were included. Data were synthesized into comprehensive tables for systematic review. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) checklists were used for the risk of bias assessment of non-randomized studies and randomized studies, and all the included studies were deemed to have acceptable quality.

Main Results

Eight studies (one RCT and seven observational) with 2695 patients (2761 cycles) were included. Most studies generally reported non-significant differences in clinical pregnancy or live birth rates regardless of the COS protocol used. However, the GnRH-agonist protocol may yield a higher total number of oocytes retrieved, especially mature oocytes. Conversely, the GnRH-antagonist protocol required a shorter COS duration and lower gonadotrophin dose. Adverse outcomes, such as rates of cycle cancellation and miscarriage, were similar between both COS protocols.

Conclusion

Both the long GnRH-agonist and GnRH-antagonist COS protocols generally yield similar pregnancy outcomes. However, the long GnRH-agonist protocol may be associated with a higher cumulative pregnancy rate due to the higher number of retrieved oocytes available for cryopreservation. The underlying mechanisms of the two COS protocols on the female reproductive tract remain unclear. Clinicians should consider treatment costs, stage/subtype of endometriosis and pregnancy goals of their patients when selecting a GnRH analogue for COS. A well-powered RCT is needed to minimize the risk of bias and compare the risk for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

Registration

This review was prospectively registered at PROSPERO under Registration No. CRD42022327604.

ESHRE guideline: endometriosis

STUDY QUESTION

How should endometriosis be diagnosed and managed based on the best available evidence from published literature?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The current guideline provides 109 recommendations on diagnosis, treatments for pain and infertility, management of disease recurrence, asymptomatic or extrapelvic disease, endometriosis in adolescents and postmenopausal women, prevention and the association with cancer.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Endometriosis is a chronic condition with a plethora of presentations in terms of not only the occurrence of lesions, but also the presence of signs and symptoms. The most important symptoms include pain and infertility.

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 1 December 2020 and written in English were included in the literature review.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed within specialist subgroups and then presented to the core guideline development group (GDG) until consensus was reached. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the GDG and the ESHRE Executive Committee.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

This guideline aims to help clinicians to apply best care for women with endometriosis. Although studies mostly focus on women of reproductive age, the guideline also addresses endometriosis in adolescents and postmenopausal women. The guideline outlines the diagnostic process for endometriosis, which challenges laparoscopy and histology as gold standard diagnostic tests. The options for treatment of endometriosis-associated pain symptoms include analgesics, medical treatments and surgery. Non-pharmacological treatments are also discussed. For management of endometriosis-associated infertility, surgical treatment and/or medically assisted reproduction are feasible. While most of the more recent studies confirm previous ESHRE recommendations, there are five topics in which significant changes to recommendations were required and changes in clinical practice are to be expected.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

The guideline describes different management options but, based on existing evidence, no firm recommendations could be formulated on the most appropriate treatments. Also, for specific clinical issues, such as asymptomatic endometriosis or extrapelvic endometriosis, the evidence is too scarce to make evidence-based recommendations.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

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

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 payments. C.M.B. reports grants from Bayer Healthcare and the European Commission; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board with ObsEva (Data Safety Monitoring Group) and Myovant (Scientific Advisory Group). A.B. reports grants from FEMaLE executive board member and European Commission Horizon 2020 grant; consulting fees from Ethicon Endo Surgery, Medtronic; honoraria for lectures from Ethicon; and support for meeting attendance from Gedeon Richter; A.H. reports grants from MRC, NIHR, CSO, Roche Diagnostics, Astra Zeneca, Ferring; Consulting fees from Roche Diagnostics, Nordic Pharma, Chugai and Benevolent Al Bio Limited all paid to the institution; a pending patent on Serum endometriosis biomarker; he is also Chair of TSC for STOP-OHSS and CERM trials. O.H. reports consulting fees and speaker's fees from Gedeon Richter and Bayer AG; support for attending meetings from Gedeon-Richter, and leadership roles at the Finnish Society for Obstetrics and Gynecology and the Nordic federation of the societies of obstetrics and gynecology. L.K. reports consulting fees from Gedeon Richter, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Dr KADE/Besins, Palleos Healthcare, Roche, Mithra; honoraria for lectures from Gedeon Richter, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Dr KADE/Besins, Palleos Healthcare, Roche, Mithra; support for attending meetings from Gedeon Richter, AstraZeneca, Novartis, Dr KADE/Besins, Palleos Healthcare, Roche, Mithra; he also has a leadership role in the German Society of Gynecological Endocrinology (DGGEF). M.K. reports grants from French Foundation for Medical Research (FRM), Australian Ministry of Health, Medical Research Future Fund and French National Cancer Institute; support for meeting attendance from European Society for Gynaecological Endoscopy (ESGE), European Congress on Endometriosis (EEC) and ESHRE; She is an advisory Board Member, FEMaLe Project (Finding Endometriosis Using Machine Learning), Scientific Committee Chair for the French Foundation for Research on Endometriosis and Scientific Committee Chair for the ComPaRe-Endometriosis cohort. A.N. reports grants from Merck SA and Ferring; speaker fees from Merck SA and Ferring; support for meeting attendance from Merck SA; Participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board with Nordic Pharma and Merck SA; she also is a board member of medical advisory board, Endometriosis Society, the Netherlands (patients advocacy group) and an executive board member of the World Endometriosis Society. E.S. reports grants from National Institute for Health Research UK, Rosetrees Trust, Barts and the London Charity; Royalties from De Gruyter (book editor); consulting fees from Hologic; speakers fees from Hologic, Johnson & Johnson, Medtronic, Intuitive, Olympus and Karl Storz; Participation in the Medicines for Women's Health Expert Advisory Group with Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA); he is also Ambassador for the World Endometriosis Society. C.T. reports grants from Merck SA; Consulting fees from Gedeon Richter, Nordic Pharma and Merck SA; speaker fees from Merck SA, all paid to the institution; and support for meeting attendance from Ferring, Gedeon Richter and Merck SA. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

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 judgement 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.).

Oocyte and embryo cryopreservation before gonadotoxic treatments: Principles of safe ovarian stimulation, a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Review the safety of fertility preservation through ovarian stimulation with oocyte or embryo cryopreservation, including cycle and medication options.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A systematic review of peer-reviewed sources revealed 2 applicable randomized control trials and 60 cohort studies as well as 20 additional expert opinions or reviews.

RESULTS

The capacity for future family building is important for the majority of reproductive age people, despite life-altering medical or oncologic diagnosis. Modern fertility preservation generates a high rate of oocyte yield while utilizing protocols that can be started at multiple points in the menstrual cycle and suppressing supra-physiologic levels of estrogen. Finally, more than one quarter of fertility preservation patients will return to later utilize fertility services.

CONCLUSION

For most patients, fertility preservation can safely be pursued and completed within 2 weeks without affecting disease severity or long-term survival.

Assisted reproductive technology for women with endometriosis, a clinically oriented review

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To discuss optimal management of an assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycle in women with endometriosis.

RECENT FINDINGS

New studies involving euploid embryo transfers provide more insight on the etiology of endometriosis-associated infertility. Oocyte competence to reach live birth seems unlikely to be affected by the disease. Routine medical or surgical treatment prior to an ART cycle does not appear beneficial. Short gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist or progestin primed ovarian stimulation protocols seem to be proper first choices, depending on the intention for a fresh embryo transfer. Low-quality evidence supports frozen thawed over fresh embryo transfer. Ovarian stimulation for ART does not seem to be associated with symptom progression or recurrence.

SUMMARY

How endometriosis affects fertility is still unclear, but ART is an effective pragmatic treatment. Each woman with endometriosis must be assessed with a holistic approach, and in the absence of an indication for otherwise, ART cycles can be kept simple with patient-friendly protocols. Whether a frozen embryo transfer is better than a fresh one should be investigated.

Efficacy and Safety of In Vitro Fertilization (IVF)/Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) Among Patients with Endometriosis After a Shortened Protocol of Long-Term Pituitary Downregulation

BACKGROUND Patients with endometriosis (EMs) are routinely advised to take GnRH-a for 3-6 months to improve the internal reproductive environment, but this may not be necessary. MATERIAL AND METHODS This retrospective study examined the effects of in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) with shortened (n=311) or conventional (n=213) long-term pituitary downregulation in EMs patients between January 2013 and July 2017. RESULTS The 2 groups showed no significant differences in gonadotropin (Gn) dose, number of oocytes retrieved, or miscarriage rate. Follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), and estradiol (E2) levels on the initiation day and the LH level on human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) day (1.22±1.39 vs. 0.74±0.55 P=0.0026) were higher in the study group than in the control group. The cumulative live birth rates in the second cycle were 69.13% in the study group (95% confidence interval (CI), 64-74.27%) vs. 68.54% in the control group (95% CI, 62.31-74.78%, P=0.88, respectively). CONCLUSIONS This study showed that the shortened regimen and the ultralong regimen did not produce different pregnancy outcomes after ART, and the single-application, long-term GnRH-a protocol may serve as a cost-effective and safe treatment protocol for EMs patients.

[Controlled ovarian stimulation protocols in endometriosis patients: with antagonist or agonist?]

OBJECTIVE

To compare laboratory and clinical outcomes of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) in patients with endometriosis using antagonist protocol, long agonist protocol or prolonged agonist protocol.

METHODS

Totally 313 patients with endometriosis were recruited in Reproductive Centers of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine,Jiaxing Women and Children's Hospital,and Ningbo Women and Children's Hospital from April 2017 to October 2018, including 81 patients treated with antagonist protocol (antagonist group), 148 treated with long agonist protocol (long agonist group) and 84 treated with prolonged agonist protocol (prolonged agonist group). The clinical and laboratory data of the patients were retrospectively analyzed to investigate the effect of ovarian stimulation protocols on the IVF-ET outcomes of patients with endometriosis.

RESULTS

The average age in the antagonist group patients was significantly higher than those in the other two groups (all P<0.05),and anti-mullerian hormone (AMH) level and antral follicle numbers were significantly lower than those in the other two groups (all P<0.01). The numbers of average retrieved oocyte, fertilized oocyte and available embryo in the antagonist group were significantly lower than those in the long agonist group (all P<0.05), but were similar with those in the prolonged agonist group (all P>0.05). Fertilization rate and available embryo rate were comparable among the three groups (all P>0.05). Considering analysis per cycle with embryo transfer, the human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) positive rate, clinical pregnancy rate and total implantation rate showed no significant difference among the three groups (all P>0.05). The implantation rate after fresh embryo transfer in the antagonist group was lower than that in the long agonist group (P<0.05), but was similar with that in the prolonged agonist group (P>0.05). While the implantation rate of freeze-thaw embryo transfer showed a higher trend in the antagonist group, but there was no significant difference (P>0.05). The patients were further divided into diminished and normal ovarian reserve subgroups, the per cycle with embryo transfer, the HCG positive rate, clinical pregnancy rate and total implantation rate still showed no significant difference between two subgroups (all P>0.05), no matter in which ovarian stimulation protocol groups. Besides, in women with diminished ovarian reserve, the available embryo rate in antagonist group was significantly higher than that in the long agonist group (P<0.05). The amount and duration of Gn application in antagonist group were significantly lower than those in long and prolonged agonist groups (all P<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with endometriosis who used the antagonist protocol in IVF procedure could reduce the cost and time of Gn treatment, when combined with frozen-embryo transfer strategy the antagonist protocol has comparable clinical pregnancy outcome with long or prolonged agonist protocol, especially in those with diminished ovarian reserve, the higher available embryo rate can be achieved.

Does the type of GnRH analogue used, affect live birth rates in women with endometriosis undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment, according to the rAFS stage?

Since the introduction of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists, an extensive amount of literature investigating the role of the downregulation protocols on pregnancy outcomes has been published. However, these studies were mainly performed in the general infertile population where patients with endometriosis were often excluded or underrepresented. This study is a large retrospective cohort study including 386 endometriosis patients undergoing IVF/ICSI, who had been previously classified according to the rAFS system. Patients were stimulated either a long GnRH agonist or GnRH antagonist protocol. Depending on endometriosis stage, patients were divided into two groups: endometriosis stage I-II and endometriosis stage III-IV. Each group was subdivided, based on the type GnRH analog used. When comparing the GnRH agonist and antagonist groups, patients with endometriosis stage I-II, had a tendency toward higher β-hCG positive, clinical pregnancy, and live birth rates (42.8% vs. 26.7%; p = .07) in favor of GnRH agonist use. In endometriosis stage III-IV, no differences were observed between agonist and antagonist cycle in any of the pregnancy outcomes. Multivariate regression analysis did not reveal any significant predictor of live birth after adjusting for relevant confounders. Based on our findings, the chance to have a liveborn in endometriosis population seems not to be affected by the type of GnRH analog used, at least in advanced stages. Findings from stage I-II endometriosis cases merit consideration and further evaluation in a larger sample size is warranted.

CONTROLLED OVARIAN STIMULATION IN ENDOMETRIOSIS PATIENTS CAN BE INDIVIDUALIZED BY ANTI-MÜLLERIAN HORMONE LEVELS

CONTEXT

Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) assay is becoming the best indicator of successful IVF treatment response to fertility drugs and could be a useful marker of embryo implantation potential. Various protocols are being used for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS), but there is an uncertainty regarding the implementation of the best protocol for endometriosis patients and also little evidence is available concerning the clinical value of AMH levels in endometriosis.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of serum AMH levels for pregnancy in COS using GnRH-agonist(GnRH-a) and GnRH-antagonist(GnRH-ant) protocols in endometriosis patients.

DESIGN

This is a cross-sectional study between March 2012 and November 2015.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Data were collected from 249 COS cycles of endometriosis patients, including 129 cycles with GnRH-a and 120 cycles with GnRH-ant. Patients in each group were classified into three subgroups based on their serum AMH levels. The outcomes of ICSI program were evaluated.

RESULTS

The ROC curve analysis showed that embryo and oocyte counts and AMH were equally predictive for pregnancy, as demonstrated by a similar area under the curve (AUC) of 0.69, 0.66 and 0.64, respectively. The sensitivity and specificity for prediction of positive pregnancy were 70.91% and 67.01% for embryo counts, 70.91% and 67.53% for oocyte counts at the cutoff values of 5 and 7, respectively, and 83.64% and 52.58% for AMH levels at the cutoff values of 1.3ng/mL.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that AMH as a single test has substantial accuracy in the prediction of pregnancy using the GnRH antagonist protocol for patients with endometriosis. In other words, AMH assay prior to ovarian stimulation initiation guides the clinicians to choose the antagonist stimulation protocol for the patients with two extreme AMH levels. AMH levels can be used to individualize control ovarian stimulation in endometriosis patients.

The Presence of Endometrioma Does Not Impair Time-Lapse Morphokinetic Parameters and Quality of Embryos: A Study On Sibling Oocytes

OBJECTIVE

To see whether the oocytes retrieved from an ovary with an endometrioma would develop into embryos with aberrant timings of cleavage as assessed using time-lapse monitoring (TLM) and poorer morphologic quality compared with sibling oocytes from the contralateral ovary with no endometrioma in the same patient after intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

METHODS

This was an observational prospective study at an in vitro fertilization (IVF) center of a private hospital. It included analysis and comparison of 128 embryos (69 embryos developed from the ovary with endometrioma and 59 embryos from the contralateral ovary without endometrioma serving as controls from a total of 20 women with infertility). Morphology of the embryo was assessed twice (days 3 and 5), again by capturing images with the TLM system. Morphokinetic parameters of embryos and clinical pregnancy rates were recorded separately from ovaries with and without endometrioma and were the primary outcomes of the study. Secondary outcomes included number of retrieved oocytes, number of metaphase II (MII) oocytes, fertilization rates, and conventional morphological classification of embryos.

RESULTS

There were no differences in terms of the following time-lapse morphokinetic parameters of embryos. The mean numbers of oocytes and MII oocytes collected from the ovary with the endometrioma were similar to those collected from the contralateral ovary without endometrioma. Fertilization rates and the percentage of embryos with top morphologic quality were also similar.

CONCLUSIONS

According to the morphokinetic parameters, this study further strengthens the notion that removal of endometriomas before IVF is not a necessity in terms of better oocyte quality and development.