Corrigendum. ICSI does not improve reproductive outcomes in autologous ovarian response cycles with non-male factor subfertility

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Does the method of fertilisation improve reproductive outcomes in poor ovarian response (POR) cycles when compared to all other ovarian response categories in the absence of male factor subfertility? SUMMARY ANSWER ICSI does not confer any benefit in improving the clinical pregnancy or live birth (LB) outcome in autologous ovarian response cycles in the absence of male factor subfertility when compared to IVF. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY ICSI is associated with an improved outcome when compared to IVF in patients with severe male factor subfertility. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION A retrospective study involving 1 376 454 ART cycles, of which 569 605 (41.4%) cycles fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria for all autologous ovarian response categories: 272 433 (47.8%) IVF cycles and 297 172 (52.2%) ICSI cycles. Of these, the POR cohort represented 62 641 stimulated fresh cycles (11.0%): 33 436 (53.4%) IVF cycles and 29 205 (46.6%) ICSI cycles. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHOD All cycles recorded on the anonymised Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) registry database between 1991 and 2016 were analysed. All fresh cycles with normal sperm parameters, performed after 1998 were included: frozen cycles, donor oocyte and sperm usage, intrauterine insemination cycles, preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) for aneuploidies (PGT-A), PGT for monogenic/single gene defects (PGT-M), PGT for chromosomal structural arrangements (PGT-SR) cycles, where the reason for stimulation was for storage and unstimulated cycles were excluded. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE ICSI did not confer any benefit in improving the LB outcome when compared to conventional IVF per treatment cycle (PTC), when adjusted for female age, number of previous ART treatment cycles, number of previous live births through ART, oocyte yield, stage of transfer, method of fertilisation and number of embryos transferred in the POR cohort (adjusted odds ratio [a OR] 1.03, 99.5% confidence interval [CI] 0.96–1.11, P = 0.261) and all autologous ovarian response categories (aOR 1.00, 99.5% CI 0.98–1.02, P = 0.900). The mean fertilisation rate was statistically lower for IVF treatment cycles (64.7%) when compared to ICSI treatment cycles (67.2%) in the POR cohort (mean difference −2.5%, 99.5% CI −3.3 to −1.6, P < 0.001). The failed fertilisation rate was marginally higher in IVF treatment cycles (17.3%, 95% binomial exact 16.9 to 17.7%) when compared to ICSI treatment cycles (17.0%, 95% binomial exact 16.6 to 17.4%); however, this did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.199). The results followed a similar trend when analysed for all autologous ovarian response categories with a higher rate of failed fertilisation in IVF treatment cycles (4.8%, 95% binomial exact 4.7 to 4.9%) when compared to ICSI treatment cycles (3.2%, 95% binomial exact 3.1 to 3.3%) (P < 0.001). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The quality of data is reliant on the reporting system. Furthermore, success rates through ART have improved since 1991, with an increased number of blastocyst-stage embryo transfers. The inability to link the treatment cycle to the individual patient meant that we were unable to calculate the cumulative LB outcome per patient. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This is the largest study to date which evaluates the impact of method of fertilisation in the POR patient and compares this to all autologous ovarian response categories. The results demonstrate that ICSI does not confer any benefit in improving reproductive outcomes in the absence of male factor subfertility, with no improvement seen in the clinical pregnancy or LB outcomes following a fresh treatment cycle. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The study received no funding. C.M.B. is a member of the independent data monitoring group for a clinical endometriosis trial by ObsEva. He is on the scientific advisory board for Myovant and medical advisory board for Flo Health. He has received research grants from Bayer AG, MDNA Life Sciences, Volition Rx and Roche Diagnostics as well as from Wellbeing of Women, Medical Research Council UK, the NIH, the UK National Institute for Health Research and the European Union. He is the current Chair of the Endometriosis Guideline Development Group for ESHRE and was a co-opted member of the Endometriosis Guideline Group by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). I.G. has received research grants from Bayer AG, Wellbeing of Women, the European Union and Finox. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Not applicable.

Download Full-text

P–707 Does the dose or type of gonadotropin affect the reproductive outcomes of poor responders undergoing modified natural cycle IVF (MNC-IVF)?

Human Reproduction ◽

10.1093/humrep/deab130.706 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽

Author(s):

P Drakopoulos ◽

L Boudry ◽

S Mackens ◽

M. D Vos ◽

G Verheyen ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Live Birth ◽

Ovarian Response ◽

Multivariate Regression Analysis ◽

University Hospital ◽

P Value ◽

Poor Responders ◽

Reproductive Outcomes ◽

Birth Rates ◽

Gnrh Antagonists ◽

Live Birth Rates

Abstract Study question Does the dose or type of gonadotropin affect the reproductive outcomes of poor responders undergoing MNC-IVF? Summary answer Neither the type nor the dose of gonadotropins affects the reproductive outcomes of poor responders undergoing MNC-IVF. What is known already Poor ovarian response (POR) to ovarian stimulation remains a major therapeutic challenge in routine IVF practice, because of the association with low live birth rates and high cancellation rates. Although high doses of gonadotropins are traditionally used to stimulate the ovaries in women with predicted POR, MNC-IVF has been proposed as a mild-approach alternative in this population. Typically, the MNC protocol includes GnRH-antagonists to avoid premature ovulation and gonadotropin add-back stimulation at the late follicular phase. However, evidence is sparse, and there is no consensus regarding a specific dose or type of gonadotropins in this mild stimulation protocol. Study design, size, duration This is a retrospective cohort study including patients attending a tertiary referral University Hospital from 1st January 2017 until 1st March 2020. Participants/materials, setting, methods All women who underwent MNC-IVF in our center were included. Gonadotropins [recombinant FSH (rFSH), urinary FSH (uFSH) or highly purified human menopausal gonadotrophin (hp-hMG)] were started when a follicle with a mean diameter of 12–14 mm was observed on ultrasound scan, followed by GnRH antagonists (0.25mg/day) from the next day onwards. Mature oocytes were inseminated using ICSI. Main results and the role of chance In total, 484 patients undergoing 1398 cycles were included. Mean (SD) age and serum AMH were 38.2 (3.7) years and 0.46 (0.78) ng/ml, respectively. The daily dose of gonadotropins was either <75 IU/d [11/1398 (0.8%)] or 75 to < 100 IU/d [1303/1398 (93.2%)] or ≥ 100 IU/d [84/1398 (6%)]. Patients were stimulated with: rFSH [251/1398 (18%)], uFSH [45/1398 (3.2%)] or hp-hMG [1102/1398 (78.8%)]. Biochemical and clinical pregnancy rates were 142/1398 (10.1%) and 119/1398 (8.5%). Live birth was achieved in 80/1398 (5.7%) of cycles. Live birth rates (LBR) were similar between the different type and doses of gonadotropins (p-value 0.3 and 0.51, respectively). The GEE multivariate regression analysis adjusting for relevant confounders (age, BMI, number of MII oocytes) showed that the type of treatment strategy (rFSH/uFSH/hp-hMG) and the dose of gonadotropins were not significantly associated with LBR (coefficient 0.01 and –0.02, p value 0.09 and 0.3, respectively). Limitations, reasons for caution The main limitation is the retrospective design of our study, with an inherent risk of bias. Wider implications of the findings: This is the first and largest study evaluating MNC-IVF protocol modalities. Our data demonstrate that any type of gonadotropin can be used and there is no benefit from daily doses beyond 75IU. Trial registration number N/A

Download Full-text

Comparison of ovulation induction with letrozole plus dexamethasone and letrozole alone in infertile women with polycystic ovarian disease: An RCT

International Journal of Reproductive BioMedicine ◽

10.18502/ijrm.v13i4.6893 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Farahnaz Farzaneh ◽

Fatemeh Afshar

Keyword(s):

Pregnancy Rate ◽

Endometrial Thickness ◽

Ovarian Response ◽

Male Factor ◽

Polycystic Ovarian Disease ◽

Ovarian Disease ◽

Infertile Women ◽

Follicle Diameter ◽

Group I ◽

The Mean

Background: Infertility is characterized by the inability to obtain a successful pregnancy after 6 months or more with unprotected and regular intercourse. In developing countries, the incidence of infertility is 2%. The causes of infertility could be male factor or female factor, or mixed factor. Objective: This study was conducted with the aim of comparison the ovarian response to letrozole alone and letrozole plus dexamethasone in infertile women with poly cystic ovarian disease (PCOS). Materials and Methods: This randomized clinical trial was conducted on 120 infertile women with PCOS referred to Ali-Ebne-Abitaleb hospital, Zahedan, Iran from February to August 2017 into two groups: group I received letrozole alone and group II recived letrozole plus dexamethasone. The endometrial thickness, follicle diameter, and ovulation were evaluated and compared by ultrasound on days 12 to 14. Results: The mean thickness of endometrium was not different between two groups. Pregnancy rate was 8% in letrozole group and 23% in Letrozole plus Dexamethasone (p = 0.024). Also, the mean diameter of follicles in two groups were not statistically significant. Conclusion: Overall, this study showed that dexamethasone may increase pregnancy rate. Key words: Letrozole, Dexamethasone, PCOS, Induction ovulation.

Download Full-text