Poor ovarian response and the possible role of natural and modified natural cycles

About 20% of women undergoing in vitro fertilization struggle with poor ovarian response, indicating a poor prognosis related to low response following ovarian stimulation. Indeed, poor ovarian response, that is associated with both high cancelation rates and low live birth rates, still represents one of the most important therapeutic challenges in in vitro fertilization. In this context, natural cycle/modified natural cycle– in vitro fertilization, as a ‘milder’ approach, could be a reasonable alternative to high-dose/conventional ovarian stimulation in poor ovarian responders, with the aim to retrieve a single oocyte with better characteristics that may result in a single top-quality embryo, transferred to a more receptive endometrium. Moreover, modified natural cycle– in vitro fertilization may be cost-effective because of the reduced gonadotropin consumption. Several studies have been published during the last 20 years reporting conflicting results regarding the use of natural cycle/modified natural cycle– in vitro fertilization in women with poor ovarian response; however, while most of the studies concluded that mild stimulation regimens, including natural cycle/modified natural cycle– in vitro fertilization, have low, but acceptable success rates in this difficult group of patients, others did not replicate these findings. The aim of this narrative review is to appraise the current evidence regarding the use of natural cycle/modified natural cycle– in vitro fertilization in poor ovarian responders.

Growth Hormone Cotreatment for Low-Prognosis Patients According to the POSEIDON Criteria

BackgroundPoor ovarian response (POR) remains one of the most challenging conditions in assisted reproduction technology. Previous studies seemed to indicate that growth hormone (GH) was a potential solution for the dilemma of POR; however, the role GH played on the low-prognosis patients diagnosed and stratified by the POSEIDON criteria remains indistinct.MethodsThis retrospective study was performed among women with POR according to the POSEIDON criteria who failed a previous in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycle, and the subsequent cycle was under GH cotreatment and conducted within 12 months. These participants were stratified into four groups according to the POSEIDON criteria. The comparison was implemented between the failed cycle and the cycle treated with GH. Generalized estimating equation (GEE) multivariate regression was applied for data analysis.ResultsA total of 428 low-prognosis women were included in this study. GH supplementation improved the live birth rates (47.66%, 28.33%, 45.45%, and 24.07%; in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively) and the clinical pregnancy rates (OR 19.16, 95% CI 7.87–46.63, p < 0.001; OR 7.44, 95% CI 1.65–33.55, p = 0.009; OR 10.19, 95% CI 2.39–43.52, p = 0.002; OR 27.63, 95% CI 4.46–171.11, p < 0.001; in groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively) in all four POSEIDON groups. The number of oocytes retrieved was significantly elevated in the subgroups with normal ovarian reserve (IRR 1.47, 95% CI 1.36–1.59, p < 0.001; IRR 1.31, 95% CI 1.15–1.49, p < 0.001; in groups 1 and 2, respectively). The number of day-3 good-quality embryos was significantly elevated in the subgroups with either normal ovarian reserve or aged young (IRR 2.13, 95% CI 1.78–2.56, p < 0.001; IRR 1.54, 95% CI 1.26–1.89, p < 0.001; IRR 1.47, 95% CI 1.10–1.98, p = 0.010; in groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively).ConclusionGrowth hormone cotreatment could ameliorate the pregnancy outcome for women with POR under the POSEIDON criteria who failed a previous IVF/ICSI cycle. The application of growth hormone for low-prognosis women who experienced a failed cycle might be considered and further studied.

Metabolomic Profiling of Poor Ovarian Response Identifies Potential Predictive Biomarkers

ObjectiveTo characterize the serum metabolomic profile and its role in the prediction of poor ovarian response (POR).Patient(s)Twenty-five women with normal ovarian reserve (24-33 years, antral follicle count [AFC] ≥5, anti-Müllerian hormone [AMH] ≥1.2 ng/ml) as the control group and another twenty-five women with POR (19-35 years, AFC <5, AMH < 1.2 ng/ml) as the study group were collected in our study. The serum levels of the women in both groups were determined from their whole blood by untargeted liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry (LC-MS). Multivariate statistical analysis and cell signal pathways analysis were used to reveal the results.ResultsA total of 538 different metabolites were finally identified in the two groups. Tetracosanoic acid, 2-arachidonoylglycerol, lidocaine, cortexolone, prostaglandin H2,1-naphthylamine, 5-hydroxymethyl-2-furancarboxaldehyde, 2,4-dinitrophenol, and D-erythrulose1-phosphate in POR were significantly different from control as were most important metabolites in support vector machines (p <0.05). Metabolomic profiling, together with support vector machines and pathway analysis found that the nicotinate and nicotinamide metabolism pathway, including L-aspartic acid, 6-hydroxynicotinate, maleic acid, and succinic acid semialdehyde, was identified to have significant differences in POR women compared to control women, which may be associated with ovarian reserve.ConclusionThis study indicated that LC–MS-based untargeted metabolomics analysis of serum provided biological markers for women with POR. The nicotinate and nicotinamide metabolism pathway may offer new insight into the complementary prediction and therapeutic potential of POR. The functional associations of these metabolites need further investigation.

Different Methods for Inducing Final Oocyte Maturation When Employing Progesterone-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocols

Background Evidently, when undergoing GnRH-antagonist protocols, dual trigger has proven to produce not just better quality and quantity of oocytes but also pregnancy outcome. However, not much comparative studies have been published when PPOS protocol is used for ovarian stimulation. Can the same positive outcomes be expected after the patients have been exposed to the high level of progesterone required for PPOS protocols? Methods In this retrospective cohort study, patients undergoing PPOS protocols were separated into three groups based on the method employed for triggering final follicular maturation, which included: (a) human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG); (b) Gonadotropin-releasing hormone-agonist (GnRH-agonist); or (c)dual trigger (GnRH-agonist + hCG). Either in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) was utilized for fertilization. Assessment comprised of their dynamic hormone profiles, embryonic analysis, and clinical outcomes. Results Of the 344 recruited patients, those fulfilling the Bologna criteria as poor ovarian responders and showing Estradiol (E2)<1000 pg/ml on the day of triggering had higher oocyte maturation rate (82% vs 58%, p<0.05) when triggered with dual trigger (GnRH-agonist + hCG) than hCG alone. For the patients with E2> 6500 pg/ml on the day of triggering, none of the three triggering methods demonstrated a significant advantage regarding the number of oocytes, percentage of matured oocytes, and rate of oocytes at fertilization or cleavage stages. Conclusions Implementing dual trigger for stimulating final follicular maturation in patients undergoing PPOS protocols is debatable. For poor ovarian response (POR) patients, dual trigger appeared to yield higher percentage of matured oocytes. In contrast, for hyper-responders, methods of triggering oocyte maturation did not affect the percentage of matured oocytes or the qualities of the embryos. For this group of patients, therefore, the agent used should be one that would reduce the risks of ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome (OHSS).

The Exploration of Poor Ovarian Response–Related Risk Factors: A Potential Role of Growth Differentiation Factor 8 in Predicting Ovarian Response in IVF-ET Patient

Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) is the most common therapeutic protocol to obtain a considerable number of oocytes in IVF-ET cycles. To date, the risk factors affecting COH outcomes remain elusive. Growth differentiation factor 8 (GDF-8), a member of transforming growth factor β (TGF-β) superfamily, has been long discerned as a crucial growth factor in folliculogenesis, and the aberrant expression of GDF-8 is closely correlated with the reproductive diseases. However, less is known about the level of GDF-8 in IVF-ET patients with different ovarian response. In the present study, the potential risk factors correlated with ovarian response were explored using logistic regression analysis methods. Meanwhile, the expression changes of GDF-8 and its responsible cellular receptors in various ovarian response patients were determined. Our results showed that several factors were intensely related to poor ovarian response (POR), including aging, obesity, endometriosis, surgery history, and IVF treatment, while irregular menstrual cycles and PCOS contribute to hyperovarian response (HOR). Furthermore, POR patients exhibited a decrease in numbers of MII oocytes and available embryos, thereby manifesting a lower clinical pregnancy rate. The levels of GDF-8, ALK5, and ACVR2B in POR patients were higher compared with those in control groups, whereas the expression level of ACVR2A decreased in poor ovarian response patients. In addition, clinical correlation analysis results showed that the concentration of GDF-8 was negatively correlated with LH and estradiol concentration and antral follicle count. Collectively, our observations provide a novel insight of ovarian response–associated risk factors, highlighting the potential role of GDF-8 levels in ovarian response during COH process.

Comparison of Dydrogesterone and Medroxyprogesterone in the Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol for Patients With Poor Ovarian Response

ObjectiveTo compare the clinical outcomes of dydrogesterone (DYG) and medroxyprogesterone (MPA) in the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol for patients with poor ovarian response (POR).Patients and MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study. Women with POR who underwent IVF/ICSI at the Reproductive Center of Third Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University between January 2020 and January 2021 were included. The primary outcome measure of our study was the number of oocytes retrieved. The secondary outcome measures in the present study were the number of 2PN, number of available embryos, oocyte retrieval rate, fertilization rate, viable embryo rate per oocyte retrieved, cancellation rate and pregnancy outcomes of the first embryo transfer cycle, including the biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy and miscarriage rates.ResultsIn total, 118 women underwent hMG +DYG protocols, and 692 women who underwent hMG +MPA met the Bologna criteria for POR. After baseline characteristics were balanced using the PSM model, 118 hMG +DYG protocols were matched to 118 hMG +MPA protocols, and the baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups. The numbers of oocytes retrieved, 2PN, and available embryos and the oocyte retrieval rate, fertilization rate, viable embryo rate per oocyte retrieved and cancellation rate of the hMG+DYG and hMG+MPA protocols were comparable. Altogether, 66 women in the hMG+DYG group and 87 women in the hMG+MPA group underwent first embryo transfers. In the hMG+DYG group, 81.8% (54/66) of the patients underwent cleavage embryo transfers; similarly, 79.3% (69/87) of patients in the hMG+MPA group had cleavage embryo transfers (P=0.70).The biochemical pregnancy rate of the hMG+DYG group was 42.4%, and this was comparable to the rate in the hMG+DYG group, at 34.5% (P=0.32). The clinical pregnancy rates were similar between the two groups (36.4% vs. 31.0%, P=0.49), and there was no significant difference in the rate of miscarriage between the two groups (12.5% vs. 29.6%, P=0.14).ConclusionFor women with POR, the clinical outcome of the hMG + DYG group was similar to that of the hMG + MPA group, indicating that both combinations can be useful options for PPOS protocols.

The Use of Androgen Priming in Women with Reduced Ovarian Reserve Undergoing Assisted Reproductive Technology

Androgen priming with either dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) or testosterone has been suggested as an adjunct to improve in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes in women with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR). Numerous studies have investigated the effects of both DHEA and testosterone on IVF outcome. The results were inconsistent, and the quality of most studies is substandard. Meta-analyses have consistently reported that DHEA does appear to significantly improve IVF outcome in women with predicted or proven poor ovarian response (POR), but these have included some normal responders and/or nonrandomized studies. Our meta-analyses including randomized controlled trials (RCTs) incorporating only women with DOR or POR suggest that DHEA confers no benefit. While meta-analyses of RCTs on the use of testosterone in women with DOR or POR showed an improved IVF outcome, most studies included are of low quality with high risk of bias. When analysis of data from studies of only low-risk bias was performed, such a benefit with testosterone was not observed. Although recruitment may well be a challenge, a large, well-designed RCT is, however, still warranted to investigate whether or not androgen priming with either DHEA or testosterone should be recommended as an adjuvant treatment for women with DOR or POR undergoing IVF.

Evaluation of intra-ovarian platelet-rich plasma administration on oocytes-dependent variables in patients with poor ovarian response: A retrospective study according to the POSEIDON criteria

Background Poor ovarian response (POR) is among the common findings in infertile women with no significant underlying condition. The aim of this study was to investigate the intra-ovarian potential of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) administration on oocytes-dependent variables in the POR women grouped according to the POSEIDON criteria. Methods This retrospective study was performed on POR women with no underlying condition who have undergone intra-ovarian PRP injection. As well as patients’ age, the number of total and MI, MII, and GV oocytes were extracted from the files. The laboratory variables including anti-mullerian hormone (AMH), follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), and estradiol were also gathered. In order to reduce any bias due to the possible differences in kits or devices, a single laboratory with the highest number of cases was selected and others were excluded from the study. Then, the included cases were grouped into four according to the POSEIDON criteria and analyzed for the mentioned variables by SPSS, version 25. The statistical significance level was set as P-value < 0.05. Results From 383 cases, a total number of 96 women were enrolled in this study. According to the POSEIDON criteria, group 4 (Age ≥ 35 years, AMH < 1.2 ng/mL) with the ratio of 56/96 (58.3%) had the highest prevalence among others. As the analyses showed, changes in the laboratory variables (LH, FSH, AMH, and estradiol) were not significant in almost all the groups following the intervention. Regarding the total oocytes number, PRP administration caused a significant increase in the total number in all the groups (all P < 0.05). Also, the number of MII oocytes was significantly increased following the treatment in all groups except for group 2 (Age ≥ 35 years, AMH ≥ 1.2 ng/mL; all P < 0.05). Of 96 cases, 14 (14.6%) got clinically pregnant following assisted reproductive techniques which this number were significantly differed among the groups (P = 0.002). Conclusion This study showed that PRP treatment was effective on total and MII oocyte numbers in the patients with POR, however, further studies are required.