Article

A case-control pilot study of low-intensity IVF in good-prognosis patients.

Center for Human Reproduction-New York and the Foundation for Reproductive Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Reproductive biomedicine online (impact factor: 2.04). 01/2012; 24(4):396-402. DOI:10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.12.011
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Low-intensity IVF (LI-IVF) is rapidly gaining in popularity. Yet studies comparing LI-IVF to standard IVF are lacking. This is a case-control pilot study, reporting on 14 first LI-IVF and 14 standard IVF cycles in women with normal age-specific ovarian reserve under age 38, matched for age, laboratory environment, staff and time of cycle. LI-IVF cycles underwent mild ovarian stimulation, utilizing clomiphene citrate, augmented by low-dose gonadotrophin stimulation. Control patients underwent routine ovarian stimulation. LI-IVF and regular IVF patients were similar in age, body mass index, FSH and anti-Müllerian hormone. Standard IVF utilized more gonadotrophins (P<0.001), yielded more oocytes (P<0.001) and cryopreserved more embryos (P<0.001). With similar embryo numbers transferred, after ethnicity adjustments, standard IVF demonstrated better odds for pregnancy (OR 7.07; P=0.046) and higher cumulative pregnancy rates (63.3% versus 21.4%; OR 6.6; P=0.02). Adjustments for age, ethnicity and diagnosis maintained significance but oocyte adjustment did not. Cost assessments failed to reveal differences between LI-IVF and standard IVF. In this small study, LI-IVF reduced pregnancy chances without demonstrating cost advantages, raising questions about its utility. In the absence of established clinical and/or economic foundations, LI-IVF should be considered an experimental procedure. Low-intensity IVF (LI-IVF) is increasingly propagated as an alternative to standard IVF. LI-IVF has, however, never been properly assessed in comparison to standard IVF. Such a comparison is presented in the format of a small pilot study, matching LI-IVF cycles with regular IVF cycles and comparing outcomes as well as costs. The study suggests that LI-IVF, at least in this setting, is clinically inferior and economically at best similar to standard IVF. LI-IVF should, therefore, as of this point not be offered as routine IVF treatment but only as an experimental procedure.

0 0
 · 
0 Bookmarks
 · 
33 Views

Keywords

14 first LI-IVF
 
14 standard IVF cycles
 
body mass index
 
case-control pilot study
 
Control patients
 
cost advantages
 
laboratory environment
 
LI-IVF cycles
 
low-dose gonadotrophin stimulation
 
Low-intensity IVF
 
normal age-specific ovarian reserve
 
pregnancy chances
 
regular IVF cycles
 
regular IVF patients
 
routine IVF treatment
 
similar embryo numbers
 
small pilot study
 
small study
 
standard IVF
 
utilizing clomiphene citrate