Co-Administration of Clomiphene Citrate and Letrozole in Mild Ovarian Stimulation Versus Conventional Controlled Ovarian Stimulation Among POSEIDON Group 4 Patients

This retrospective study assessed the effect of the co-administration of clomiphene citrate (CC) and letrozole in mild ovarian stimulation, compared to conventional regimens, among Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing Individualized Oocyte Number (POSEIDON) Group 4 patients. There were 114 POSEIDON Group 4 patients undergoing in vitro fertilization treatments with 216 stimulation cycles recruited from a Taiwan’s reproductive center during 2016-2020. Main outcomes were the numbers, quality of retrieved oocytes and embryo development. Pregnancy outcomes were assessed after embryo transfers. Per stimulation cycle, patients receiving mild stimulation with a combination of CC and letrozole (study group) versus those with COS (control group) had lower numbers of pre-ovulatory follicles (2.00 ± 1.23 vs. 2.37 ± 1.23, p=0.0066) and oocytes retrieved (1.83 ± 1.17 vs. 2.37 ± 1.23, p=0.0017), and lower follicular output rate (58.6% vs. 68.38%, p=0.0093) and mature oocyte output rate (44.29% vs. 52.88%, p=0.0386) but a higher top-quality metaphase II oocyte ratio (66.7% vs. 54.59%, p=0.0444) and a similar fertilization rate (91.67% vs. 89.04%, p=0.4660). With adjustment for significant between-group baseline differences using multivariable logistic generalized estimating equation model analyses, there was no statistical difference in oocytes retrieved and embryo development between the study and control groups, and insignificant increases in successful pregnancies in the study group were found compared to the control group (i.e., odds ratios [95% CIs]: 1.13 [0.55, 232] and 1.50 [0.65, 3.49] for ongoing pregnancy and live birth, respectively). For POSEIDON Group 4 patients, cotreatment of CC and letrozole in mild stimulation may increase the high-quality oocyte ratio and yield comparable fertilization rate and pregnancy outcomes.

Effect of Hyperinsulinemia and Insulin Resistance on Endocrine, Metabolic, and Reproductive Outcomes in Non-PCOS Women Undergoing Assisted Reproduction: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Objective: To evaluate the effect of hyperinsulinemia (HI) and insulin resistance (IR) on endocrine, metabolic, and reproductive outcomes in women without polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) undergoing assisted reproduction.Materials and Methods: The study included 1,104 non-PCOS women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection-fresh embryo transfer. HI was evaluated by serum fasting insulin (FIN), and IR was evaluated by homeostatic model assessment of insulin resistance index (HOMA-IR). In addition, biometric, sex hormone, and metabolic parameters were measured. Independent t-test, linear, and logistic regression examined associations between HI, IR, and endocrine, metabolic, ovarian stimulation characteristics, and reproductive outcomes.Results: Women with HI and IR had lower levels of progesterone, luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone, estradiol, high-density lipoproteins, and increased levels of triglycerides low-density lipoproteins. For ovarian stimulation characteristics, those with HI and IR had a longer duration of stimulation, a higher total gonadotropin dose, and a lower peak estradiol level. Linear regression confirmed these associations. For reproductive outcomes, HI and IR were not associated with clinical pregnancy, live birth, and miscarriage.Conclusions: HI and IR did not impair reproductive outcomes in non-PCOS women undergoing assisted reproduction.

Usefulness of random-start progestin-primed ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation

Background Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) has been used in infertility cases in recent years, and several reports have stated that it has oocyte collection results similar to those of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol. For emergency fertility preservation, random-start ovarian stimulation is usually recommended. Therefore we compared the clinical outcomes of random-start PPOS with those of conventional random-start GnRH-ant protocols in fertility-preserving cases. Methods We retrospectively examined 86 cycles of oocyte collection, of which 56 were random-start GnRH-ant and 30 were random-start PPOS for fertility preservation at our hospital between January 2016 and April 2021. The primary outcome was the number of mature oocytes per cycle. The secondary outcome was the number of vitrified blastocysts per cycle for embryo freezing cases. Results No significant differences were noted in the number of days of stimulation, total dose of gonadotropin preparation, and the number of mature oocytes and vitrified blastocysts. The number of hospital visits for monitoring was significantly lower in the PPOS group. The start of menstruation before oocyte collection was significantly less in the PPOS group. Conclusions Random-start PPOS and GnRH-ant were similar in oocyte collection results. PPOS can reduce the number of hospital visits, thus reducing patient stress. PPOS at the start of the luteal phase can prevent the start of menstruation during ovarian stimulation.

Efficacy of intrauterine insemination in women with endometrioma-associated subfertility: analysis using propensity score matching

Background Intrauterine insemination (IUI) treatment is recommended in subfertile women with AFS/ASRM stage I/II endometriosis. However, the efficacy of IUI in women with ovarian endometriomas with tubal patency is uncertain. We explored the efficacy of IUI for the treatment of endometrioma-associated subfertility. Methods We performed a retrospective matched cohort study using propensity matching (PSM) analysis. Subfertile couples undergoing IUI with and without ovarian stimulation between January 1, 2015, and May 30, 2020 were reviewed. Results After PSM, 56 women with endometrioma alone were matched to 173 patients with unexplained subfertility. The per-cycle pregnancy rate (PR) was comparable between women with endometrioma-associated subfertility (n = 56, 87 cycles) and women with unexplained subfertility (n = 173, 280 cycles) (9.2% vs. 17.9%, OR 0.47; 95% CI, 0.21–1.03). Subgroup analyses based on IUI with or without stimulation also resulted in comparable results. A trend toward a lower cumulative pregnancy rates (CPRs) was seen in women with endometrioma (14.3%, 8/56) compared with women with unexplained subfertility (28.9%, 50/173), but the differences were not significant (HR 0.49; 95% CI, 0.23–1.15). However, patients with endometrioma were nearly twice as likely to converse to IVF treatment compared with those without the disease (60.7% versus 43.9%; OR 1.97; 95% CI, 1.07–3.65). Conclusion IUI may be a viable approach for subfertile women with endometrioma and no other identifiable infertility factor. More studies are needed to reassure the findings.

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.