Cessation of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue (GnRH-a) upon down-regulation versus conventional long GnRH-a protocol in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization.
ABSTRACT To determine whether a controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) regimen that involves GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) discontinuation before administration of gonadotropins would benefit poor responders.
A prospective, randomized controlled trial.
Hospital-based IVF Unit.
Sixty-three patients with previous poor response to COH and/or high basal FSH level (> or =9 mIU/mL) undergoing 78 IVF-ET cycles.
In both groups, administration of GnRH-a was started in the midluteal phase. Whereas in the study group (40 cycles), it ended before administration of gonadotropins, in controls (38 cycles) GnRH-a treatment was continued throughout the follicular phase.
Ovarian stimulation patterns and IVF outcome.
A significantly higher cancellation rate was noted in the study group than in the controls (22.5% versus 5%, respectively). The new and control regimens resulted in similar stimulation characteristics and clinical pregnancy rates (11% versus 10.3%, respectively). In 13 patients with a basal FSH level that was not persistently high, the new regimen resulted in a significantly higher number of retrieved oocytes compared with the standard protocol (7.6+/-1.03 versus 4.0+/-0.68, respectively).
Whereas for most low responders, the new COH regimen offers no further advantage, future prospective studies may demonstrate whether it can confer a benefit for a subset of patients with a basal FSH level that is not persistently high.
- SourceAvailable from: Peter Braude[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Many randomized trials have evaluated the use of various pituitary suppression regimens to improve outcome of poor responders undergoing IVF treatment. A systematic review was conducted of the trials of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist long regimen, GnRH agonist short regimen, GnRH antagonist regimen, as well as other pituitary suppression regimens in poor responders undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment. The search included MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, National Research Register and ISI proceedings, and all randomized controlled trials comparing the various pituitary suppression regimens in poor responders were included. Study selection, quality appraisal and data extraction were performed independently and in duplicate. The main outcome measures were number of oocytes retrieved, cycles cancelled before oocyte retrieval and pregnancy rates. A total of 680 women considered as poor responders undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment were included in nine randomized controlled trials. The quality of these studies was variable: for example, only three of the studies had clear evidence of allocation concealment. Meta-analyses of the results of the studies did not show a consistent benefit for any one pituitary suppression regimen over the other regimens in improving outcome measures. Currently available evidence does not favour any one pituitary suppression regimen for women with poor ovarian response undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment.Reproductive biomedicine online 12/2007; 15(5):539-46. DOI:10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60386-0 · 2.98 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Poor response is not a rare occurrence in ovarian stimulation. Although not fully accepted, the most dominant criteria for poor ovarian response are small numbers of follicles developed or oocytes retrieved, and low estradiol (E2) levels after the use of a standard stimulation protocol. There is no ideal predictive test as the poor responder is revealed only during ovulation induction; however, increased levels of day 3 FSH and E2 as well as decreased levels of inhibin B can be used to assess ovarian reserve. Several protocols have been proposed for clinical management of low ovarian response in IVF. Although high doses of gonadotrophins have been used by the vast majority of authors, results have been controversial and prospective randomized studies have shown little or no benefit. The few available relevant studies do not indicate that recombinant FSH improves outcome. Flare-up GnRH agonist protocols (including all dosage varieties) produce better results than standard long luteal protocols. Luteal initiation GnRH agonist 'stop' protocols were shown to improve ovarian response according to prospective studies with historical controls, but this was not confirmed by well-designed prospective, randomized, controlled studies. The few available data obtained with GnRH antagonists have not shown any benefits. Adjuvant therapy with growth hormone (GH) or GH-releasing factors results in no significant improvement. The use of corticosteroids reduces the incidence of poor ovarian response in women undergoing IVF treatment. The limited data obtained with nitric oxide donors are encouraging. Pretreatment with combined oral contraceptives prior to stimulation may help ovarian response. No benefit was observed with standard use of ICSI or assisted hatching of zona pellucida. Finally, natural cycle IVF has produced results which are comparable with those obtained with stimulated cycles in true poor responders. Well-designed, large-scale, randomized, controlled trials are needed to assess the efficacy of these different management strategies.Human Reproduction Update 01/2003; 9(1):61-76. · 8.66 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: There are still some patients who show poor response to ovarian stimulation prior to evidence of normal ovarian reserve in vitro fertilization. However, there are few studies about how to treat the unexpectedly ovarian poor responder in vitro fertilization. The main aim of this study evaluate the effect of prolonging administration follicle-stimulating hormone in woman with the unexpectedly ovarian poor responder in vitro fertilization on implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate. 922 patients subjected to IVF were divided into two groups according to the predicted criterion of ovarian poor response. 116 patients predicted poor response received the short protocol (group C). The others received the long protocol, among the latter, there were 149 patients undergoing unexpectedly ovarian poor response (group B) and 657 patients exhibited normal ovarian response (group A). The doses of gonadotropin, duration of administration, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate were recorded among three groups. The implantation rate of embryo, clinic pregnancy rate and delivery rate are similar between the group A and group B, while there are significant differences between the doses of gonadotropins (35.1 +/- 8.9 ampules vs.53.0 +/- 15.9 ampules) and the duration of administration (15.3 +/- 3.6D vs. 9.8 +/- 2.6D) of these two groups. There are no significant differences about clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate between group B and group C. Prolonging administration gonadotropin on the unexpectedly poor ovarian responders does not lower live birth rate in vitro fertilization.Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology 03/2010; 8:26. DOI:10.1186/1477-7827-8-26 · 2.41 Impact Factor