Association between the number of oocytes and cumulative live birth rate: A systematic review.

The available literature is controversial regarding the association between the number of oocytes retrieved and the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR). Although some authors report a continuous increase in the CLBR with the number of oocytes retrieved, others have found a plateau. A systematic review was conducted, including all eligible studies published until June 2022, to determine the optimal number of oocytes retrieved to maximize the CLBR. We found a positive association between the number of oocytes and the CLBR. However, this association varies according to patients' age. While in patients younger than 35 years, little benefit is derived from increasing the number of oocytes above 25-30, in patients older than 35 years, the number of oocytes seems to improve the CLBR until the extreme of reproductive age is reached. In women aged 44 years or older, the CLBR will be consistently low, independent of the number of oocytes retrieved.

Androgens and diminished ovarian reserve: the long road from basic science to clinical implementation. A comprehensive and systematic review with meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to present a narrative review regarding androgen production, androgens' role in folliculogenesis, and the available therapeutic approaches for androgen supplementation, and to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis regarding the impact of androgens (dehydroepiandrosterone/testosterone) compared with placebo or no treatment on ovarian response and pregnancy outcomes in patients with diminished ovarian reserve and/or poor ovarian responders. DATA SOURCES: An electronic search of MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, the ISRCTN registry, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry, was conducted for studies published until September 2021. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials that compared ovarian response and/or pregnancy outcomes between the different in vitro fertilization protocols using androgens (ie, dehydroepiandrosterone and testosterone) and conventional in vitro fertilization stimulation in patients with diminished ovarian reserve and/or poor ovarian responders were included. METHODS: The quality of each study was evaluated with the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 2). The meta-analysis used random-effects models. All results were interpreted on the basis of intention-to-treat analysis (defined as the inclusion of all randomized patients in the denominator). Risk ratios and 95% confidence intervals were used and combined for meta-analysis. RESULTS: No significant differences were found regarding the number of oocytes retrieved (mean difference, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, -0.35 to 1.88), mature oocytes retrieved (mean difference, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, -0.27 to 0.76), clinical pregnancy rate (risk ratio, 1.17; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-1.57), live-birth rate (risk ratio, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.47-2.01), or miscarriage rate (risk ratio, 0.80; 95% confidence interval, 0.29-2.22) when dehydroepiandrosterone priming was compared with placebo or no treatment. Testosterone pretreatment yielded a higher number of oocytes retrieved (mean difference, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.46-1.42), a higher clinical pregnancy rate (risk ratio, 2.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.33-3.20), and higher live-birth rate (risk ratio, 2.09; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-3.95). CONCLUSION: Although dehydroepiandrosterone did not present a clear effect on outcomes of assisted reproductive techniques, we found a potentially beneficial effect of testosterone priming on ovarian response and pregnancy outcomes. However, results should be interpreted with caution, taking into account the low to moderate quality of the available evidence.

The Role of Androgen Supplementation in Women With Diminished Ovarian Reserve: Time to Randomize, Not Meta-Analyze.

The management of patients with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) remains one of the most challenging tasks in IVF clinical practice. Despite the promising results obtained from animal studies regarding the importance of androgens on folliculogenesis, the evidence obtained from clinical studies remains inconclusive. This is mainly due to the lack of an evidence-based methodology applied in the available trials and to the heterogeneity in the inclusion criteria and IVF treatment protocols. In this review, we analyze the available evidence obtained from animal studies and highlight the pitfalls from the clinical studies that prevent us from closing the chapter of this line of research.

Fresh and cumulative live birth rates in mild versus conventional stimulation for IVF cycles in poor ovarian responders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY QUESTION: Are cumulative and live birth rates (LBRs) comparable in poor ovarian response women treated with different protocols of mild stimulation IVF (i.e. oral compounds, lower doses or shorter treatments) versus conventional IVF? SUMMARY ANSWER: Mild ovarian stimulation (MOS) results in comparable outcomes to those of conventional stimulation in poor ovarian response patients with low ovarian reserve. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Several randomized trials and meta-analyses have been published evaluating the role of mild (MOS) versus conventional ovarian stimulation in poor ovarian response patients. Most report a potentially higher safety profile, patient satisfaction and lower costs, suggesting that the higher cycle cancellation rate and fewer oocytes retrieved following MOS does not affect the final reproductive outcome. Additionally, over the last few years, new publications have added data regarding MOS, and shown the possible benefit of a higher oocyte yield which may also improve prognosis in patients with poor ovarian response. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: We conducted a systematic search of relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We searched electronic databases, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS-BIREME, CINAHL, The Cochrane Library, CENTRAL (Cochrane Register), Web of Science, Scopus, Trip Database and Open Grey, to identify all relevant studies published up to March 2020. We examined trial registries for ongoing trials. No publication-year or language restrictions were adopted. We explored the reference list of all included studies, reviews and abstracts of major scientific meetings. The primary outcomes were cumulative and fresh LBR (CLBR and FLBR) per woman randomized. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: We included subfertile women undergoing IVF/ICSI characterized as poor responders and compared primary and secondary outcomes between the different protocols of mild stimulation IVF (i.e. oral compounds, lower doses or shorter treatments) and conventional IVF. We used the PICO (Patients, Intervention, Comparison and Outcomes) model to select our study population. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Overall, 15 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis. CLBR and FLBR were comparable between mild versus conventional stimulation (RR 1.15; 95% CI: 0.73 - 1.81; I2 = 0%, n = 424, moderate certainty and RR 1.01; 95% CI: 0.97 - 1.04; I 2 = 0%, n = 1001, low certainty, respectively). No difference was observed either when utilizing oral compounds (i.e. letrozole and clomiphene) or lower doses. Similarly, ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) were equivalent when comparing the two groups (RR 1.01; 95% CI: 0.98 - 1.05; I 2 = 0%, n = 1480, low certainty, and RR 1.00; 95% CI: 0.97 - 1.03; I2 = 0%, n = 2355, low certainty, respectively). A significantly lower oocyte yield (mean differences (MD) -0.80; 95% CI: -1.28, -0.32; I2 = 83%, n = 2516, very low certainty) and higher rate of cycle cancellation (RR 1.48; 95% CI: 1.08 - 2.02; I2 = 62%, n = 2588, low certainty) was observed in the MOS group. LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: The overall quality of the included studies was low to moderate. Even though strict inclusion criteria were used, the selected studies were heterogeneous in population characteristics and treatment protocols. We found no differences in CLBR between MOS and COS (95% CI: 0.73 - 1.81.). WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: MOS could be considered as a treatment option in low prognosis poor responder patients, given that it results in similar fresh and CLBRs compared with COS. A milder approach is associated with a lower number of oocytes retrieved and a higher cancellation rate, although treatment cost is significantly reduced. Future research should focus on which type of ovarian stimulation may be of benefit in better prognosis women. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: There were no sources of financial support. N.P.P. received research grants, honoraria for lectures from: Merck Serono, MSD, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Besins International, Roche Diagnostics, IBSA, Theramex and Gedeon Richter. P.D. received unrestricted grants and honoraria from Merck Serono, MSD and Ferring Pharmaceuticals. I.G.F. received unrestricted grants and honoraria from Merck Serono, MSD, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Gedeon-Richter and IBSA. P.M.B. reported no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020167260.

The effect of type of oral contraceptive pill and duration of use on fresh and cumulative live birth rates in IVF/ICSI cycles.

STUDY QUESTION: Are there any differences in the fresh (LB) and cumulative live birth rates (CLBR) of women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for IVF/ICSI following pretreatment with different types of oral contraceptive pills (OCP) for different durations as compared to no-OCP? SUMMARY ANSWER: OCP administration for an interval of 12- to 30-day treatment period and with a 5-day washout period does not affect clinical pregnancy, LB nor cumulative LB in patients undergoing COS for an IVF cycle. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The use of OCP is an effective way of treatment planning in IVF/ICSI cycles, but published evidence about its effect on pregnancy and LBR is inconsistent, some studies finding decreased rates but others no difference. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a retrospective analysis carried out in a University-affiliated tertiary centre between January 2009 and December 2017. Overall, 4116 infertile women between 18 and 45 years, who underwent their first ovarian stimulation cycle in our centre, were included. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Patients were categorised into two groups as receiving OCP (n = 3517) or not (no OCP, n = 599). All patients with OCP pretreatment initiated controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) 5 days post-pill. Overall, two types of OCP were used at the study's centre: ethinylestradiol (EE) 30 µg/desogestrel 150 µg, a third-generation progesterone; or EE 30 µg/drospirenone 3 mg, a fourth-generation progestin with mild antiandrogenic activity. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of n = 4116 patients were analysed, (OCP n = 3517 and non-OCP n = 599). The use of OCP was independently associated with a small increase in the number of oocytes retrieved after adjusting for age, BMI, use of OCP, cause of infertility, initial dose (IU), type of gonadotropin, stimulation days, total stimulation units (total IU) (ß 0.22, 95% CI 0.12-0.31). Cumulative LBRs were comparable between groups OCP versus non-OCP (32.4 versus 31.6%, P = 0.712). Following adjustment for age, BMI, infertility diagnosis, starting and total dose, type of gonadotropin, total days of stimulation, type of insemination, number of oocytes retrieved, day of transfer and number of embryos transferred in a multiple logistic analysis, patients using OCPs had a similar probability of achieving a LB as compared with patients not-using OCPs following fresh embryo transfer (ORadj 0.89, 95% CI 0.69-1.15) and a similar probability for CLBR after the use of fresh and frozen embryos (ORadj 0.94, 95% CI 0.73-1.21). No differences were observed in ovarian stimulation and clinical outcomes between drospirenone and desogestrel OCP groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Limitations are related to the retrospective nature of the study; despite the sample size, the adjustments and the multivariable regression analysis conducted, we cannot exclude the presence of confounding bias. OCP administration was not randomly assigned, not allowing to exclude the presence of selection bias. Lastly, we only used two types of OCP with durations and washout periods as per institution protocol. Therefore, we cannot exclude that longer duration of administration, a different type of OCP or different pill-free interval might have had an alternative effect on LBR or CLBR; thus, the generalizability of this study's results should be considered with caution. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our study provides reassuring evidence that the use of 12-30 days OCP for cycle programming, prior to IVF, does not decrease the chance of live birth and cumulative live birth rates. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No external funding was used for this study. This research was performed under the auspices of 'Càtedra d'Investigació en Obstetrícia I Ginecologia' of the Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Medicine, Hospital Universitario Dexeus, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. The authors report no conflict of interest associated with the current study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NA.

Androgen supplementation in assisted reproduction: where are we in 2019?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of androgen supplementation in ART with the most updated evidence, from animal studies to its clinical applications in poor ovarian responders (POR) and the future studies to be published. RECENT FINDINGS: Animal studies, has shown that testosterone supplementation, can be an option to increase the recruitable follicular pool in POR. However, the potential mechanism of action, dose, and duration of treatment is still under investigation. Early studies in humans reported promising results in favor of androgens [dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) or testosterone] in POR. Nevertheless, recent evidence does not appear to follow the initial results, whereas the type, dose, and duration of testosterone administration appear to be crucial for treatment effect. SUMMARY: Testosterone seems to play an essential role in regulating ovarian function. However, it is worrisome that androgens are used off-label, despite that the available evidence is weak. Although testosterone supplementation may be beneficial in POR, published studies have used inconsistent doses and duration of administration. An ongoing trial (T-TRANSPORT trial) for the first time aims to provide conclusive evidence on whether transdermal testosterone administration can improve the reproductive outcomes in patients undergoing IVF/ICSI.

The endometrium during and after ovarian hyperstimulation and the role of segmentation of infertility treatment.

Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) is a crucial part of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) that resulted in a substantial increase in pregnancy rates from in vitro fertilization (IVF). However, in spite of the apparent benefit of COH on an increase in the number of follicles and the number of oocytes retrieved, allowing for extended embryo culture and enabling the selection of the best quality embryo for transfer, several reports has shown that the supraphysiologic hormonal levels may indeed have a detrimental effect at the endometrial level. The current article revises the pathophysiological mechanisms through which ovarian stimulation may negatively affect endometrial receptivity. Also, the evidence is analyzed explaining how segmentation of IVF treatment may allow us to overcome the deleterious effects of hyperstimulation on endometrial receptivity. Deferred embryo transfer may be performed in a more physiologic uterine environment in a subsequent cycle, improve endometrial receptivity, decrease uterine contractility, diminishes the impact of premature luteinization and allow individualized stimulation according to the level of response.

Ultrasonographically diagnosed dermoid cysts do not influence ovarian stimulation response in an in vitro fertilization cycle.

To determine if patients with a DC respond similarly to ovarian stimulation when compared to patients without a DC. Infertility patients with a DC that underwent IVF between January 2009 and December 2016 were included. A cystic mass with mixed echogenicity, internal echoes similar to thick bands, fatty-fluid level, or an echogenic tubercle with acoustic shadow (Rokitansky nodule) within two years of the cycle characterized the diagnosis. The z-score compared the standard deviations (SDs) in patients with/without a DC and were compared to a nomogram (expected oocytes minus oocytes obtained divided by the SD), adjusted for age and number of oocytes retrieved, built utilizing cycles from noninfertile female patients. Thirty-nine patients with DC and 7839 patients without DC were identified. The mean number of oocytes (8.6 ± 5.8 vs. 8.5 ± 7.7, p = .43) and MIIs (6.7 ± 4.7 vs. 7.0 ± 6.7, p = .74) retrieved were similar. When cycles with and without a DC were compared to the nomogram (z-score of 0), cycles with a DC presented a z-score for ovarian response of 0.1921 SDs from the mean, and patients without DC presented a z-score of -0.2065 SDs from the mean (similar and less than -1.0). After building a population 'normal' response as a template, patients with and without a DC responded similar to COS.