Mild ovarian stimulation with letrozole/ antagonist protocol results in similar pregnancy outcomes with antagonist only protocol in patients with diminished ovarian reserve

2013 ◽  
Vol 100 (3) ◽  
pp. S104-S105
Author(s):  
A.P. Cil ◽  
G. Batmaz ◽  
F. Aybar ◽  
S. Kahraman
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sezin Erturk Aksakal ◽  
Oya Aldemir ◽  
İnci Kahyaoglu ◽  
İskender Kaplanoğlu ◽  
Serdar Dilbaz

Abstract ObjectiveThis study aimed to compare the IVF outcomes in patients with diminished ovarian reserve stimulated with luteal phase estradiol (E2) priming protocol versus the standard antagonist protocol.MethodsThe study included 603 patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles (ICSI) with the diagnosis of diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) who were stimulated with the luteal E2 priming protocol (n=181) and the standard antagonist protocol (n=422). Groups were compared in terms of demographic characteristics, ovarian stimulation results, ICSI cycle outcomes, clinical pregnancy, and live birth rates per embryo transfer. ResultsThe duration of ovarian stimulation was longer, and the total gonadotropin dose used was significantly higher (p=0.001) in the E2 priming protocol group than the antagonist protocol group. The number of embryos transferred was higher in the antagonist protocol group compared with the luteal E2 priming protocol group (0.87±0.75 vs. 0.64±0.49; p=001), but there was no statistically significant difference in terms of embryo quality (p>0.05). The cycle cancellation rate and the clinical pregnancy and live birth rates per embryo transfer were similar in both groups.ConclusionsThere was no significant difference between the ICSI outcomes of the patients diagnosed with diminished ovarian reserve stimulated with the antagonist protocol and the luteal E2 priming protocol. The antagonist protocol might be considered more advantageous because of the shorter treatment duration and lower doses of gonadotropin, and it allows more embryos to be transferred. Additional randomized controlled trials are needed to verify these findings.


2013 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 45-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mala Arora ◽  
Mandeep Kaur

ABSTRACT Diminished ovarian reserve predicts diminished ovarian response to stimulation but does not predict cycle fecundity. It has been recently defined by ESHRE, the Bologna's criteria, according to which at least two of the following three features should be present: (1) Age >40 years/any other risk factor for DOR, (2) abnormal ovarian reserve test, i.e. antral follicle count, AMH, (3) poor ovarian response in a previous stimulated cycle, i.e. less than three follicles after standard gonadotropin stimulation. Poor response to maximal stimulation on two previous occasions also defines DOR. The treatment options are limited. Avoiding the GnRH agonist long protocol and stimulation with microdose flare or antagonist protocol yields better results. Adjuvant therapy with LH, DHEAS and growth hormone shows some benefit in improving the oocyte yield. It is advisable to perform ICSI for all obtained oocytes and some advocate assisted hatching. Pregnancy rates are, however, poor and often these patients require ovum donation. Developing tests that will diagnose DOR in a low-risk population will allow women to plan their reproductive careers early. How to cite this article Kaur M, Arora M. Diminished Ovarian Reserve, Causes, Assessment and Management. Int J Infertility Fetal Med 2013;4(2):45-55.


2020 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hoang Le ◽  
Dong D. Nguyen ◽  
Anh T. Cao ◽  
Huong T. L. Nguyen ◽  
Dung C. Tham ◽  
...  

Background and Aims: A panel of experts (the Poseidon Group) introduced a new and more detailed stratification for poor ovarian responders in order to predict the prognosis of IVF outcome according to the sensitivity to FSH. However, various arguments about the management strategy of these patients still remain, including the convenience and the cost. Therefore, this study was conducted to compare the efficacy of mild and conventional GnRH antagonist ovarian stimulation prescribed in patients classified in Poseidon Group 4.Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 359 poor responder patients (Poseidon Group 4) treated with mild or conventional GnRH antagonist stimulation regimens from 8/2017 to 7/2019 at Tam Anh Hospital ART Center. The main outcomes were the index of Follicular Output Rate (FORT) or Follicle to Oocyte Index (FOI), the number of day-2 embryos and top-quality embryos obtained. The t-test and Mann–Whitney U test in SPSS v25.0 was used to analyze the continuous data and Chi-squared/Exact test was used for binary variables. Multiple linear regression analysis was done by using Stata versions 15.0 to measure association between primary endpoints with stimulation regimen controlled for covariates and possible confounding factors.Results: In the overall group of poor responders, the conventional GnRH antagonist protocol performed better than the mild protocol. Subsequently, data were analyzed according to the AFC. In women with AFC < 3, no significant differences were observed between the 2 regimens regarding FORT (p = 0.71), FOI (p = 0.12), the number of day-2-embryos (p = 0.052) and the number of top-quality embryos (p = 0.26). In contrast, in women with AFC ≥ 3, mild stimulation regimen resulted in significantly poorer outcome compared to the conventional GnRH antagonist regimen, regarding FORT (p < 0.01), FOI (p < 0.01), the number of day-2-embryos (p < 0.01) and top-quality embryos (p = 0.01).Conclusions: Considering poor responders classified in Poseidon Group 4, both ovarian stimulation regimens resulted in similar outcome for patients with a very low ovarian reserve (AFC < 3). In contrast, the GnRH conventional antagonist protocol with maximum initial FSH dose (300–375 IU/day) and supplementary LH (75–150 IU/day) was more effective than the mild one for patients whose ovarian reserve was less reduced. The Clinical Trial was approved by the Ethnical Biomedical Research Committee Tam Anh General Hospital.


2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (7) ◽  
pp. 1630-1636 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phillip A Romanski ◽  
Pietro Bortoletto ◽  
Zev Rosenwaks ◽  
Glenn L Schattman

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Will a delay in initiating IVF treatment affect pregnancy outcomes in infertile women with diminished ovarian reserve? SUMMARY ANSWER A delay in IVF treatment up to 180 days does not affect the live birth rate for women with diminished ovarian reserve when compared to women who initiate IVF treatment within 90 days of presentation. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY In clinical practice, treatment delays can occur due to medical, logistical or financial reasons. Over a period of years, a gradual decline in ovarian reserve occurs which can result in declining outcomes in response to IVF treatment over time. There is disagreement among reproductive endocrinologists about whether delaying IVF treatment for a few months can negatively affect patient outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A retrospective cohort study of infertile patients in an academic hospital setting with diminished ovarian reserve who started an IVF cycle within 180 days of their initial consultation and underwent an oocyte retrieval with planned fresh embryo transfer between 1 January 2012 and 31 December 2018. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Diminished ovarian reserve was defined as an anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) <1.1 ng/ml. In total, 1790 patients met inclusion criteria (1115 immediate and 675 delayed treatment). Each patient had one included cycle and no subsequent data from additional frozen embryo transfer cycles were included. Since all cycle outcomes evaluated were from fresh embryo transfers, no genetically tested embryos were included. Patients were grouped by whether their cycle started 1–90 days after presentation (immediate) or 91–180 days (delayed). The primary outcome was live birth (≥24 weeks of gestation). A subgroup analysis of more severe forms of diminished ovarian reserve was performed to evaluate outcomes for patients with an AMH <0.5 and for patients >40 years old with an AMH <1.1 ng/ml (Bologna criteria for diminished ovarian reserve). Logistic regression analysis, adjusted a priori for patient age, was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) with a 95% CI. All pregnancy outcomes were additionally adjusted for the number of embryos transferred. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The mean ± SD number of days from presentation to IVF start was 50.5 ± 21.9 (immediate) and 128.8 ± 25.9 (delayed). After embryo transfer, the live birth rate was similar between groups (immediate: 23.9%; delayed: 25.6%; OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.85–1.38). Additionally, a similar live birth rate was observed in a subgroup analysis of patients with an AMH <0.5 ng/ml (immediate: 18.8%; delayed: 19.1%; OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.65–1.51) and in patients >40 years old with an AMH <1.1 ng/ml (immediate: 12.3%; delayed: 14.7%; OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.77–1.91). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION There is the potential for selection bias with regard to the patients who started their IVF cycle within 90 days compared to 91–180 days after initial consultation. In addition, we did not include patients who were seen for initial evaluation but did not progress to IVF treatment with oocyte retrieval; therefore, our results should only be applied to patients with diminished ovarian reserve who complete an IVF cycle. Finally, since we excluded patients who started their IVF cycle greater than 180 days from their first visit, it is not known how such a delay in treatment affects pregnancy outcomes in IVF cycles. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS A delay in initiating IVF treatment in patients with diminished ovarian reserve up to 180 days from the initial visit does not affect pregnancy outcomes. This observation remains true for patients who are in the high-risk categories for poor response to ovarian stimulation. Providers and patients should be reassured that when a short-term treatment delay is deemed necessary for medical, logistic or financial reasons, treatment outcomes will not be affected. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) No financial support, funding or services were obtained for this study. The authors do not report any potential conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Not applicable.


2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Y Li ◽  
W Zhao ◽  
X Liang

Abstract Study question To investigate the pregnancy outcomes of progestin primed ovarian stimulation protocol, GnRH antagonist protocol and GnRH agonist protocol for young patients undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic gene diseases. Summary answer PPOS protocol could reduce the normal chromosome formation and further development potential of embryos, suggesting that the PPOS protocol should be used cautiously. What is known already GnRH antagonist protocol (GnRHant) and GnRH agonist protocol (GnRHa) have been used in clinic for many years as routine regimens, and their ovarian stimulation effects and pregnancy outcomes have been confirmed by a large number of literatures. As a new protocol in recent years, the reports of pregnancy outcomes of progestin primed ovarian stimulation protocol (PPOS) are inconsistent. Study design, size, duration This retrospective cohort study was performed in a reproduction center from a tertiary hospital between September 2018 and November 2020 which included 147 young patients (<35 year old) undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic gene diseases (PGT-M) after stimulated by progestin primed ovarian stimulation protocol (n = 44), GnRH antagonist protocol (n = 60) or GnRH agonist protocol (n = 43). Participants/materials, setting, methods This study included 147 young patients (<35 year old) undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for monogenic gene diseases (PGT-M) after stimulated by progestin primed ovarian stimulation protocol (PPOS, n = 44), GnRH antagonist protocol (GnRHant, n = 60) or GnRH agonist protocol (GnRHa, n = 43). The primary outcomes were normal karyotype embryo rate and live birth rate. The embryological and clinical outcomes were measured. Main results and the role of chance Basic characteristics such as infertility duration, age, and body mass index (BMI) were comparable in study groups. No significant difference was found in the number oocytes retrieved or viable embryos between the groups. Normal karyotype embryo rate of PPOS protocol was significantly lower than GnRHant and GnRHa protocol (57.6% for PPOS vs 76.0% for GnRHant vs 67.3% for GnRHa). No significant difference were found in chemical pregnancy rate (77.3% for PPOS vs 73.3% for GnRHant vs 74.4% for GnRHa) or clinical pregnancy rate (69.8% for PPOS vs 71.7% for GnRHant vs 72.5% for GnRHa). While live birth rate of PPOS protocol was significantly lower than GnRHant and GnRHa protocol ( 45.5% for PPOS vs 58.3% for GnRHant vs 72.2% for GnRHa). Limitations, reasons for caution This is a preliminary study which needs to be further confirmed by large-scale clinical studies. Wider implications of the findings: Although this is a preliminary study which needs to be further confirmed by large-scale clinical studies, the current results suggest that the application of PPOS should be cautious. Trial registration number -


2015 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 985-990 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Pereira ◽  
Anne P. Hutchinson ◽  
Jennifer L. Bender ◽  
Jovana P. Lekovich ◽  
Rony T. Elias ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document