Use of empirical medical therapies for idiopathic male infertility in Australia and New Zealand.

OBJECTIVE: Idiopathic male infertility is common, yet there is no approved treatment. This study aimed to understand practice patterns towards empirical medical therapy (EMT) for idiopathic male infertility in Australia and New Zealand (NZ). DESIGN: Clinical members of the Endocrine Society of Australia, Fertility Society of Australia & NZ, and Urological Society of Australia & NZ were invited to complete a survey. Questions included demographics, EMT practice habits, and thoughts regarding infertility case scenarios. Unadjusted group differences between specialists, those with and without additional training in male infertility, and frequency of managing it were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall, 147 of 2340 members participated (6.3%); majority were endocrinologists and gynaecologists. Participants were experienced; 35% had completed additional training in male infertility and 36.2% reported they frequently manage male infertility. Gynaecologists were more likely to manage male infertility and attend education courses than endocrinologists and urologists. Beliefs about the effect of EMT on sperm concentration and pregnancy did not differ between speciality types. Many respondents considered all patient scenarios suitable for EMT. Of medications, hCG and clomiphene were selected most. Two respondents indicated they would use testosterone to treat male infertility. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates common use of EMT in Australia and NZ for idiopathic male infertility. The breadth of responses reflects a lack of consensus within the current literature, highlighting the need for further research to clarify their role in the management of idiopathic male infertility.

The burden of very early dropout in infertility care: a nationwide population-based cohort study.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the frequency and the associated factors of very early dropout following unsuccessful clomiphene citrate (CC)/gonadotropin treatment in the context of full coverage of treatment cost. SUMMARY ANSWER: Despite free treatment, almost one in four women had a very early dropout following unsuccessful CC/gonadotropin treatment, with patients below the poverty line being more likely to drop out early. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Success of infertility care is tarnished by very high dropout rates. Infertility care dropout has been considered as resulting principally from financial barriers because of the high cost of treatment. Nearly all previous work addressed dropout following IVF/ICSI. Factors associated with dropout following CC/gonadotropins may be different and also need to be investigated. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Nationwide population-based cohort study. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Using the French national health insurance and hospital databases, we included in the cohort 27 416 women aged 18-49 years unsuccessfully treated with CC/gonadotropins in 2017. The main outcome was very early dropout, defined as discontinuation of all infertility treatment after unsuccessful treatment for 1-3 months. Very early treatment dropout was analysed by multivariate logistic regression. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Among women unsuccessfully treated with CC/gonadotropins, 22% dropped out of infertility care within 3 months. In multivariate analysis, higher early dropout following unsuccessful CC/gonadotropin treatment was associated with older and younger ages (≥35 and <25 years), being below the poverty line, being treated with CC prescribed by a general practitioner and lack of infertility tests or monitoring. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study is based on health administrative data that do not include reasons for dropout and record only a limited amount of information. It is thus not possible to analyse the reason for early dropout. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Despite full coverage of all infertility treatment, women under the poverty line have a higher risk of very early dropout following unsuccessful CC/gonadotropin treatment. Better understanding is needed of the non-financial barriers and difficulties faced by these patients. To address disparities in infertility treatment, practitioner training could be reinforced to adapt to patients from different social and cultural backgrounds. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported by the ANR StimHo project, grant ANR-17-CE36-0011-01 from the French Agence Nationale de la Recherche. The authors have no conflict of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

A meta-analysis of efficacy on dexamethasone and clomiphene in the treatment of polycystic ovary syndrome patients.

OBJECTIVE: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is an endocrine gynecological disease affecting many women of reproductive age. Clomiphene is the first-line treatment for PCOS patients, but most individuals may be resistant to it. This study aims to assess the efficacy of dexamethasone and clomiphene in the treatment of PCOS patients, and to provide a theoretical basis for clinicians to study and treat PCOS. METHODS: Chinese and English databases including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang Medical Network, and VIP Information Chinese Journal Service Platform (VIP) were searched from the inception to January 2023. Review Manager and Stata software were used for meta- analysis. The risk of bias of eligible studies were assessed using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. Publication bias was assessed by funnel plots, Begg's and Egger's tests. RESULTS: A total of 12 literatures were finally included, with a total of 1270 PCOS patients. Compared with the control group, dexamethasone combined with clomiphene could significantly improve pregnancy (RR = 1.71, P < 0.00001), ovulation (RR = 1.30, P < 0.00001), luteinizing hormone level (SMD = -0.94, P < 0.00001), estradiol level (SMD = 0.99, P = 0.05), progesterone level (SMD = 5.08, P = 0.002) and testosterone level (SMD = -1.59, P < 0.00001). However, there were no significant effects on ovulation-stimulating hormone level (SMD = 0.15, P = 0.37), adverse reactions (RR = 1.30, P = 0.30), dizziness (RR = 1.50, P = 0.45), and vomiting (RR = 1.67, P = 0.48). CONCLUSION: The treatment of dexamethasone combined with clomiphene is helpful to improve the ovulation and pregnancy rate in patients with PCOS, and improve the hormone levels of patients.

Long-term outcomes of switching to gonadotrophins versus continuing with clomiphene citrate, with or without intrauterine insemination, in women with normogonadotropic anovulation and clomiphene failure: follow-up study of a factorial randomized clinical trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the long-term outcomes after allocation to use of gonadotrophins versus clomiphene citrate (CC) with or without IUI in women with normogonadotropic anovulation and clomiphene failure? SUMMARY ANSWER: About four in five women with normogonadotropic anovulation and CC failure had a live birth, with no evidence of a difference in pregnancy outcomes between the allocated groups. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: CC has long been used as first line treatment for ovulation induction in women with normogonadotropic anovulation. Between 2009 and 2015, a two-by-two factorial multicentre randomized clinical trial in 666 women with normogonadotropic anovulation and six cycles of CC failure was performed (M-ovin trial). This study compared a switch to gonadotrophins with continued treatment with CC for another six cycles, with or without IUI within 8 months. Switching to gonadotrophins increased the chance of conception leading to live birth by 11% over continued treatment with CC after six failed ovulatory cycles, at a cost of €15 258 per additional live birth. The addition of IUI did not significantly increase live birth rates. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In order to investigate the long-term outcomes of switching to gonadotrophins versus continuing treatment with CC, and undergoing IUI versus continuing with intercourse, we conducted a follow-up study. The study population comprised all women who participated in the M-ovin trial. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The participating women were asked to complete a web-based questionnaire. The primary outcome of this study was cumulative live birth. Secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancies, multiple pregnancies, miscarriage, stillbirth, ectopic pregnancy, fertility treatments, neonatal outcomes and pregnancy complications. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: We approached 564 women (85%), of whom 374 (66%) responded (184 allocated to gonadotrophins; 190 to CC). After a median follow-up time of 8 years, 154 women in the gonadotrophin group had a live birth (83.7%) versus 150 women in the CC group (78.9%) (relative risk (RR) 1.06, 95% CI 0.96-1.17). A second live birth occurred in 85 of 184 women (49.0%) in the gonadotrophin group and in 85 of 190 women (44.7%) in the CC group (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.83-1.29). Women allocated to gonadotrophins had a third live birth in 6 of 184 women (3.3%) and women allocated to CC had a third live birth in 14 of 190 women (7.4%). There were respectively 12 and 11 twins in the gonadotrophin and CC groups. The use of fertility treatments in the follow-up period was comparable between both groups. In the IUI group, a first live birth occurred in 158 of 192 women (82.3%) and while in the intercourse group, 146 of 182 women (80.2%) reached at least one live birth (RR: 1.03 95% CI 0.93-1.13; 2.13%, 95% CI -5.95, 10.21). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We have complete follow-up results for 57% of the women.There were 185 women who did not respond to the questionnaire, while 102 women had not been approached due to missing contact details. Five women had not started the original trial. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Women with normogonadotropic anovulation and CC failure have a high chance of reaching at least one live birth. In terms of pregnancy rates, the long-term differences between initially switching to gonadotrophins are small compared to continuing treatment with CC. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The original study received funding from the Dutch Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw number: 80-82310-97-12067). A.H. reports consultancy for development and implementation of a lifestyle App, MyFertiCoach, developed by Ferring Pharmaceutical Company. M.G. receives unrestricted grants for scientific research and education from Ferring, Merck and Guerbet. B.W.M. is supported by an NHMRC Investigatorgrant (GNT1176437). B.W.M. reports consultancy for ObsEva and Merck and travel support from Merck. All other authors have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: This follow-up study was registered in the OSF Register, https://osf.io/pf24m. The original M-ovin trial was registered in the Netherlands Trial Register, number NTR1449.

Recent clomiphene citrate exposure does not impact subsequent clinical outcomes in single euploid frozen embryo transfer cycles.

STUDY QUESTION: Do infertile couples who recently utilized clomiphene citrate (CC) for ovulation induction or ovarian stimulation (<90 days previously) followed by a single euploid embryo transfer (SEET) have lower implantation potential compared with patients who were not exposed to CC within 90 days before embryo transfer (ET)? SUMMARY ANSWER: There does not appear to be an association between recent CC exposure and lower implantation potential in patients who undergo a frozen embryo transfer (FET) of euploid embryos. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Clomiphene has been found to be associated with lower pregnancy rates when compared against other ovarian stimulation medications. The majority of published research about the effects of CC on implantation potential suggest an anti-estrogenic effect on the endometrium. Quality evidence and information about utilization of CC and its effect on implantation potential after euploid ETs is lacking in the literature. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching was carried out. We included all patients that underwent an autologous SEET from September 2016 to September 2022 at a single academic-private ART center. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: The study group included patients that had utilized CC during either ovulation induction cycles and/or controlled ovarian stimulation at least 90 days before FET. A propensity score-matched control group of patients that were unexposed to CC within 90 days prior to SEET was used for comparisons. The primary outcome was positive pregnancy test (defined as a positive serum ß-hCG measured 9 days after ET), with other outcomes including clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, biochemical pregnancy loss, and clinical pregnancy loss rates per SEET. Multivariate regression analyses fitted with generalized estimating equations were utilized to analyze if there was an association between CC utilization and IVF outcomes. Furthermore, the study evaluated the cumulative effect of CC and endometrial receptivity in vivo and subsequent IVF outcomes. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: A total of 593 patients with utilization of CC in <90 days before ET were compared with 1779 matched controls. Positive pregnancy test rates were comparable among the control group and the CC exposed groups, respectively (74.3% versus 75.7%, P = 0.79), as were clinical pregnancy (64.0% versus 65.0%, P = 0.60), ongoing pregnancy (51.8% versus 53.2%, P = 0.74), biochemical pregnancy loss (15.7% versus 14.03%, P = 0.45), and clinical pregnancy loss rates were also comparable among cohorts (17.1% versus 18.1%, P = 0.71). No association was found between utilization of clomiphene and lower implantation rates (adjusted odds ratio 0.95, 95% CI 0.76-1.18). Also, no differences were observed in sub-analyses based on multiple CC utilization periods. Finally, no association was found between the number of consecutive cumulative clomiphene cycles and sub-optimal IVF outcomes. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study has inherent bias that originated from its retrospective design. Serum levels of CC were not measured and sample size for the sub-analyses was small. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: There does not appear to be an association between recent CC exposure and lower implantation potential in patients who undergo a FET of euploid embryos. This finding remains consistent, even in patients who undergo multiple, consecutive clomiphene cycles prior to ET. There were no long-term effects of CC on endometrial development and clinical characteristics examined in this study. Patients that utilized CC medication prior to a SEET cycle for either ovarian stimulation or ovulation induction, can be assured that there is no evidence of a residual effect of recent CC administration that could jeopardize their pregnancy probability. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): No funding was received for the realization of this study. A.C. is advisor and/or board member of Sema4 (stakeholder in data) and Progyny. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Trends in clomiphene citrate and gonadotropins use in women with infertility between 2010 and 2017: A population-based study in France.

PURPOSE: To describe temporal trends and assess factors associated with changes in the prescription of clomiphene citrate and gonadotropins between 2010 and 2017 in women with infertility aged 18-50 from metropolitan France. METHODS: 6321 prevalent women from a representative sample of the national medico-administrative database were identified. We performed a Cochran-Armitage trend test and calculated the rate ratios. A Poisson regression was used to derive the incidence rate ratios, for each treatment class. RESULTS: The prevalence rate and incidence rate of clomiphene citrate use significantly decreased by 20% (RR 0.80: 95% CI 0.71-0.90) and 23% (RR 0.77: 95% CI 0.66-0.89), respectively. Its initiation was higher in all age groups compared to the reference (18-24 years), with a downward gradient. It was also higher when the density of gynaecologists was higher and in disadvantaged areas. The prevalence rate and incidence rate of gonadotropin use increased by 11% (RR 1.11: 95% CI 1.01-1.22) and 33% (RR 1.33: 95% CI 1.14-1.55) respectively. Gonadotropin initiation was highest in the 31-35 age group, but it was also higher in the 25-30 and 36-40 age groups at a similar level (reference 18-24 years). Its initiation was higher when the density of gynaecologists was higher, but not associated with social deprivation. CONCLUSION: Our results showed an increase in gonadotropin use for infertility treatment in France during the 2010-2017 period and a decrease in clomiphene citrate use. Further work should be undertaken to analyse the use of these drugs in relation to women's care pathways.

In vitro fertilisation for unexplained subfertility.

BACKGROUND: In vitro fertilisation (IVF) is a treatment for unexplained subfertility but is invasive, expensive, and associated with risks. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of IVF versus expectant management, unstimulated intrauterine insemination (IUI), and IUI with ovarian stimulation using gonadotropins, clomiphene citrate (CC), or letrozole in improving pregnancy outcomes. SEARCH METHODS: We searched following databases from inception to November 2021, with no language restriction: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL. We searched reference lists of articles and conference abstracts. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing effectiveness of IVF for unexplained subfertility with expectant management, unstimulated IUI, and stimulated IUI. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methods. MAIN RESULTS: IVF versus expectant management (two RCTs) We are uncertain whether IVF improves live birth rate (LBR) and clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) compared to expectant management (odds ratio (OR) 22.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.56 to 189.37; 1 RCT; 51 women; very low-quality evidence; OR 3.24, 95% CI 1.07 to 9.8; 2 RCTs; 86 women; I2 = 80%; very low-quality evidence). Adverse effects were not reported. Assuming 4% LBR and 12% CPR with expectant management, these would be 8.8% to 9% and 13% to 58% with IVF. IVF versus unstimulated IUI (two RCTs) IVF may improve LBR compared to unstimulated IUI (OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.19 to 5.12; 2 RCTs; 156 women; I2 = 60%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether there is a difference between IVF and IUI for multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) (OR 1.03, 95% CI 0.04 to 27.29; 1 RCT; 43 women; very low-quality evidence) and miscarriage rate (OR 1.72, 95% CI 0.14 to 21.25; 1 RCT; 43 women; very low-quality evidence). No study reported ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Assuming 16% LBR, 3% MPR, and 6% miscarriage rate with unstimulated IUI, these outcomes would be 18.5% to 49%, 0.1% to 46%, and 0.9% to 58% with IVF. IVF versus IUI + ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins (6 RCTs), CC (1 RCT), or letrozole (no RCTs) Stratified analysis was based on pretreatment status. Treatment-naive women There may be little or no difference in LBR between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 1.19, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.61; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.91 to 2.92; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I2 = 54%; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 2.51, 95% CI 0.96 to 6.55; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 42% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles) and 26% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle), LBR would be 39% to 54% and 24% to 51% with IVF. Assuming 15% LBR with IUI + CC, LBR would be 15% to 54% with IVF. There may be little or no difference in CPR between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.59; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 4.59, 95% CI 1.86 to 11.35; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 3.58, 95% CI 1.51 to 8.49; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 48% CPR with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles) and 17% with IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle), CPR would be 44% to 60% and 28% to 70% with IVF. Assuming 21% CPR with IUI + CC, CPR would be 29% to 69% with IVF. There may be little or no difference in multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins (1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles: OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.77; 3 RCTs; 731 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence; 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle: OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.58; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence); or between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 0.64, 95% CI 0.17 to 2.41; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference in OHSS between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins with 1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles (OR 6.86, 95% CI 0.35 to 134.59; 1 RCT; 207 women; very low-quality evidence); and there may be little or no difference in OHSS with 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.36 to 4.16; 2 RCTs; 221 women; I2 = 0%; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 1.53, 95% CI 0.24 to 9.57; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if there is a difference in miscarriage rate between IVF and IUI + gonadotropins with 1 IVF to 2 to 3 IUI cycles (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.03 to 3.04; 1 RCT; 207 women; very low-quality evidence); and there may be little or no difference with 1 IVF to 1 IUI cycle (OR 1.16, 95% CI 0.44 to 3.02; 1 RCT; 103 women; low-quality evidence). There may be little or no difference between IVF and IUI + CC (OR 1.48, 95% CI 0.54 to 4.05; 1 RCT; 102 women; low-quality evidence). In women pretreated with IUI + CC IVF may improve LBR compared with IUI + gonadotropins (OR 3.90, 95% CI 2.32 to 6.57; 1 RCT; 280 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 22% LBR with IUI + gonadotropins, LBR would be 39% to 65% with IVF. IVF may improve CPR compared with IUI + gonadotropins (OR 14.13, 95% CI 7.57 to 26.38; 1 RCT; 280 women; low-quality evidence). Assuming 30% CPR with IUI + gonadotropins, CPR would be 76% to 92% with IVF. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: IVF may improve LBR over unstimulated IUI. Data should be interpreted with caution as overall evidence quality was low.

Clomiphene citrate plus letrozole versus clomiphene citrate alone for ovulation induction in infertile women with ovulatory dysfunction: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of the combination of clomiphene citrate (CC) and letrozole to that of CC alone in inducing ovulation in infertile women with ovulatory dysfunction. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial was conducted at a single academic medical center between November 2020 and December 2021. Anovulatory infertility females, aged 18 to 40, were evenly distributed by a computer-generated block of four into two treatment groups. A "combination group" received a daily dose of CC (50 mg) and letrozole (2.5 mg), while a "CC-alone group" received a daily dose of CC alone (50 mg). The study medications were administered on days 3 through 7 of menstrual cycle. The primary outcome was the ovulation rate, defined by serum progesterone levels exceeding 3 ng/mL at the mid-luteal phase. The secondary outcomes were ovulation induction cycle characteristics, endometrial thickness, conception rate, and adverse events. RESULTS: One hundred women (50 per group) were enrolled in the study. The mean age was not significantly different in both groups: 31.8 years in the combination group and 32.4 years in the CC-alone groups (P = 0.54). The prevalence of polycystic ovary syndrome in the combination and CC-alone groups was 48% and 44%, respectively (P = 0.841). According to intention-to-treat analysis, the ovulation rates were 78% and 70% in the combination and CC-alone groups, respectively (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the mean endometrial thickness or the number of dominant follicles of the groups. No serious adverse events were observed in either group. CONCLUSIONS: Our study found no significant difference between the combination of CC and letrozole and CC alone in inducing ovulation in infertile women with ovulatory dysfunction in one cycle. The small number of live births precluded any meaningful statistical analysis. Further studies are needed to validate and extend our findings beyond the scope of the current study. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at https://www.thaiclinicaltrials.org with the following number: TCTR20201108004 and was approved on 08/11/2020.

Ovulation induction with letrozole and dexamethasone in infertile patients with letrozole-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome.

PURPOSE: To assess efficacy of adjuvant dexamethasone during letrozole cycles for ovulation induction (OI) in women with letrozole-resistant polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated 42 cycles of OI from 28 infertile women with letrozole-resistant PCOS between September 2019 and November 2022. Letrozole was initiated on cycle day 3 for 5 days and increased via a stair-step approach to 7.5 mg as indicated. Patients were deemed letrozole-resistant if no dominant follicle was identified on transvaginal ultrasound following this dose. Resistant patients then received 5 additional days of letrozole 7.5 mg with low-dose dexamethasone 0.5 mg for 7 days and had a repeat ultrasound. The primary outcome was ovulation rate determined by the presence of a dominant follicle on ultrasound. Secondary outcomes included endometrial thickness, number of measurable follicles, and pregnancy outcomes among responders. RESULTS: Twenty-two of 28 (79%) letrozole-resistant PCOS patients had evidence of ovulation after the addition of dexamethasone in 35 out of 42 (83%) cycles. Clinical pregnancy occurred in 20% of ovulatory cycles with a cumulative rate of 32%. All clinical pregnancies resulted in a live birth. Patients who responded to adjuvant dexamethasone were more likely to have a shorter duration of infertility; however, there were no differences in other demographics, serum androgens including DHEA-S, or pretreatment glycemic status. CONCLUSION: Adding dexamethasone to letrozole increased ovulation rates in letrozole-resistant PCOS patients undergoing OI with similar pregnancy outcomes to prior studies. The addition of dexamethasone is an effective, inexpensive, and safe option for PCOS patients otherwise at risk for cycle cancelation.

Low-dose clomiphene citrate does not reduce implantation and live birth rates in otherwise unstimulated modified natural cycle IVF-retrospective cohort study.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does antioestrogen effect of clomiphene citrate (CC) on the endometrium reduce implantation and thereby decrease pregnancy and live birth rate per transferred embryo? METHODS: In this cohort, unstimulated IVF cycles modified with clomiphene citrate (CC-NC-IVF) and unstimulated, natural IVF cycles (NC-IVF) conducted between 2011 and 2016 were included. CC was applied in a dosage of 25mcg per day, starting on cycle day 7 until ovulation trigger day. Primary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate, defined as amniotic sac visible in ultrasound, and live birth rate per transferred embryo. Miscarriage rate calculated as amniotic sac not ending in a live birth was secondary outcome. A modified mixed-effect Poisson regression model was applied, and adjustments were made for female age, parity, type and cause of infertility. Additionally, stratification by parity and age was performed. RESULTS: Four hundred and ninety-nine couples underwent a total of 1042 IVF cycles, 453 being NC-IVF and 589 being CC-NC-IVF cycles. Baseline characteristics of both groups did not differ. Addition of CC did neither decrease clinical pregnancy rate (aRR 0.86; 95% CI 0.67-1.12) nor live birth rate per transferred embryo (aRR 0.84; 95% CI 0.62-1.13) in comparison with NC-IVF. Miscarriage rate did not differ between CC-NC-IVF and NC-IVF (aRR 0.95; 95% CI 0.57-1.57). CONCLUSION: Low-dose CC does not reduce pregnancy or live birth rate per transferred embryo. It can be used in infertility treatment without negatively affecting the endometrium and implantation.

Comparative Study Of Combined Co-Enzyme Q10 And Clomiphene Citrate Vs Clomiphene Citrate Alone For Ovulation Induction In Patients With Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome.

A total of 136 patients with PCOS were followed through the Department of the Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Unit-IV, Lady Aitchison Hospital, Lahore. Patients were randomly divided by lottery method into two groups i.e., Group-A (CoQ10 plus Clomiphene citrate) and Group-B (Clomiphene citrate alone). The selected patients in the study group (group-A) were given Clomiphene citrate 100mg/day from cycle days 2-6 for 45 days (2 cycles) and CoQ10 in a dose of 50mg soft gel capsules thrice per day starting at cycle day-2, until HCG administration. Patients in controlled group (group 21 B) received Clomiphene citrate 100mg/day twice a day cycle for 45 days. Data were analysed in SPSS v25.0. In group-A (CoQ10 plus Clomiphene citrate), successful ovulation induction was noted in 16 (23.5%) patients, showing that with the addition of CoQ10, the chances of ovulation induction increased.

Clomiphene Citrate in the Management of Infertility in Oligospermic Obese Men with Hypogonadism: Retrospective Pilot Study.

Background and Objectives: Obesity is a significant risk factor for hypogonadism and infertility that is further associated with reduced semen quality. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of clomiphene citrate (CC), prescribed for treating infertility, on serum testosterone and semen parameters, particularly in oligospermic obese hypogonadal men. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis of data related to men (n = 53) who underwent CC treatment for infertility and hypogonadism (testosterone < 300 ng/dL) was performed. Patients with obesity (BMI ≥ 30 kg/m2) and sperm concentration ≤ 15 × 106/mL were included for analysis. Results: The overall results showed that, in oligospermic obese men (n = 31), treatment with CC significantly improved baseline sperm concentration (4.5 ± 6.8 × 106/mL vs. 11.4 ± 15.5 × 106/mL, p < 0.05) and motility (31.5% ± 21.5% vs. 42.6% ± 14.7%, p < 0.05). Furthermore, subsequent examination of oligospermic hypogonadal obese men treated with CC (n = 13) revealed substantial improvements in baseline serum testosterone levels (193.8 ± 59.3 ng/dL vs. 332.7 ± 114.8 ng/dL, p < 0.05) along with an increase in sperm concentration, total motility, and normal morphology. Conclusions: The results of this retrospective study suggest that CC treatment not only improves chances of fertility outcomes by substantially improving semen parameters but also increases total serum testosterone levels in oligospermic obese men without any supplemental and expensive testosterone replacement therapy.

Emulating a target trial of the comparative effectiveness of clomiphene citrate and letrozole for ovulation induction.

STUDY QUESTION: What are the comparative pregnancy outcomes in women who receive up to six consecutive cycles of ovulation induction with letrozole versus clomiphene citrate? SUMMARY ANSWER: The risks of pregnancy, livebirth, multiple gestation, preterm birth, neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) admission and congenital malformations were higher for letrozole compared with clomiphene in participants with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), though no treatment differences were observed in those with unexplained infertility. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Randomized trials have reported higher pregnancy and livebirth rates for letrozole versus clomiphene among individuals with PCOS, but no differences among those with unexplained infertility. None of these trials were designed to study maternal or neonatal complications. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: We emulated a hypothetical trial of the comparative effectiveness of letrozole versus clomiphene citrate for ovulation induction among all women, then stratified by PCOS and unexplained infertility status. We used real-world data from a large healthcare claims database in the USA (2011-2015). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: We analyzed data from 18 120 women who initiated letrozole and 49 647 women who initiated clomiphene during 2011-2014, and who were aged 18-45 years with no history of diabetes, thyroid disease, liver disease or breast cancer and had no fertility treatments for 3 months before trial initiation. The treatment strategies were clomiphene citrate or letrozole for six consecutive cycles. The outcomes were pregnancy, livebirth, multiple gestation, preterm birth, small for gestational age (SGA), NICU admission and major congenital malformations. We estimated the probability of each outcome under each strategy via pooled logistic regression and used standardization to adjust for confounding and selection bias due to loss to follow-up. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The estimated probabilities of pregnancy, livebirth and neonatal outcomes were similar under each strategy, both overall and among individuals with unexplained infertility. Among women with PCOS, the probability of pregnancy was 43% for letrozole vs 37% for clomiphene (risk difference [RD] = 6.0%; 95% CI: 4.4, 7.7) in the intention-to-treat analyses. The corresponding probability of livebirth was 32% vs 29% (RD = 3.1%; 95% CI: 1.5, 4.8). In per protocol analyses, the risk of multiple gestation was 19% vs 9%, the risk of preterm birth was 20% vs 15%, the risk of SGA was 5% vs 3%, the risk of NICU admission was 22% vs 16% and the risk of congenital malformation was 8% vs 2% among those with a livebirth. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: We cannot completely rule out the possibility of residual confounding by body mass index or duration of infertility. However, we adjusted for proxies identified in administrative data and results did not change. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Our findings suggest that for women with unexplained infertility, the two treatments result in comparable probabilities of a livebirth. For women with PCOS, letrozole appears slightly more effective for attaining a livebirth. Neonatal outcomes were similar for the two treatments among women with unexplained infertility; we did not confirm the hypothesized higher risk of adverse neonatal outcomes for clomiphene versus letrozole. The risks of adverse neonatal outcomes were slightly greater among women with PCOS who were treated with letrozole versus clomiphene. It is likely that these effects are partially mediated through an increased risk of multiple gestation among women who received letrozole. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD088393). Y.-H.C. reports grants from the American Heart Association (834106) and NIH (R01HD097778). P.R. reports grants from the National Institutes of Health. J.H. reports grants from the National Institutes of Health, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the California Health Care Foundation during the conduct of the study; and consulting for several health care delivery organizations including Cambridge Health Alliance, Columbia University, University of Southern California, Community Servings, and the Delta Health Alliance. S.H.-D. reports grants from the National Institutes of Health and the US Food and Drug Administration during the conduct of the study; grants to her institution from Takeda outside the submitted work; consulting for UCB (biopharmaceutical company) and Roche; and being an adviser for the Antipsychotics Pregnancy Registry and epidemiologist for the North American Antiepileptics Pregnancy Registry, both at Massachusetts General Hospital. M.A.H. reports grants from the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Veterans Administration during the conduct of the study; being a consultant for Cytel; and being an adviser for ProPublica. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Nomogram to predict an endometrial thickness above 7.5 mm in the frozen embryo transfer cycle of women with a thin endometrium.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Which characteristics of patients with a thin endometrium (endometrial thickness [EMT] ≤7.5 mm on human chorionic gonadotrophin [HCG] trigger day) suggest the possibility of an EMT >7.5 mm in the subsequent frozen cycle? DESIGN: Data were collected from the university-affiliated Centre for Reproductive Medicine between January 2013 and September 2019. Multivariable logistic regression was used to generate the final prediction model and construct the nomogram. Model performances were quantified by discrimination and calibration. RESULTS: The predictive variables that entered the final model were: hysteroscopic adhesiolysis history, polycystic ovary syndrome status, application of clomiphene in the ovarian stimulation process, the ovarian stimulation protocol and the endometrial preparation protocol. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve for the final model and validation cohort was 0.760 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.722-0.797) and 0.713 (95% CI 0.664-0.759), respectively. Discrimination performed well in both the modelling and validation cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: In women with a thin endometrium (EMT ≤7.5 mm on HCG trigger day), the absence of a hysteroscopic adhesiolysis history, the presence of polycystic ovary syndrome, the application of clomiphene in the ovarian stimulation process, the application of a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist short protocol, mild stimulation protocol, natural cycle protocol, and natural cycle for endometrial preparation are prognostic for an increased possibility of an EMT >7.5 mm in the subsequent frozen cycle.

IVF Lite: a smart IVF programme based on mild ovarian stimulation for good prognosis patients.

RESEARCH QUESTION: The IVF Lite programme is based on mild ovarian stimulation including up to three fresh/frozen embryo transfers within 12 months. Is it effective and safe in good prognosis patients? DESIGN: Single-centre prospective study on infertile patients at their first IVF attempt (female age ≤38 years, anti-Müllerian hormone concentrations >1.5 ng/ml and/or FSH ≤10 mIU/ml). Induction of multiple follicular growth was based on a fixed protocol consisting of clomiphene citrate (100 mg/day) from day 3 to 7 of the menstrual cycle and 150 IU of recombinant FSH on days 5, 7 and 9. In case of low follicular recruitment (fewer than four follicles), the cycle was cancelled. The IVF Lite programme was considered complete after a live birth delivery or up to three embryo transfers within 12 months. The primary outcome was the cumulative live birth rate (cLBR) per couples that completed the programme. RESULTS: A total of 369 patients completed the IVF Lite programme, with 239 live births; 132 patients delivered after one embryo transfer (35.8%), 70 after a second embryo transfer (cLBR 54.7%), and 37 after a third attempt (cLBR 64.8%). No cases of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome or clinical complications occurred. Spontaneous dropout rate from the programme was 4.5%. The cLBR per intention to treat was 46.8%. CONCLUSIONS: The IVF Lite programme proved to be effective and safe in good prognosis patients with a good response to clomiphene citrate stimulation. It was well tolerated and implied low gonadotrophin consumption. Two-thirds of the patients achieved a live birth at the completion of the programme.

The influence of ethnicity on outcomes of ovulation induction with clomifene citrate in women with PCOS.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the influence of ethnicity on the outcome of ovulation induction with clomifene citrate in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)? DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. In total, 420 women diagnosed with PCOS who were of Northern European, Mediterranean, African, South-East Asian or South American descent, and who started ovulation induction treatment with clomifene citrate, were included. All women were treated with clomifene citrate according to a standardized treatment regimen. The minimal effective dose of clomifene citrate and prevalence of clomifene resistance (CRA) were assessed, and the chance of becoming ovulatory was predicted. RESULTS: Differences were observed in body mass index (P = 0.008), waist circumference (P = 0.036) and serum LH, insulin and androgen concentrations (all P < 0.001) in women of different ethnicities with PCOS. Compared with women of Northern European descent, the minimal effective dose of clomifene citrate in women of other ethnic groups was not significantly different. The prevalence of CRA (P = 0.574) was similar in all ethnic groups A similar chance of ovulation (P = 0.504) was predicted for the different ethnic groups. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study aiming to link ethnicity to ovulation induction outcome in PCOS. Although women of different ethnicities who have PCOS exhibit a variation in phenotypic expression, there do not appear to be differences in the prevalence of clomifene-resistant anovulation or the minimal effective dose of clomifene citrate. Furthermore, a prediction model revealed no significant differences in the predicted chance of ovulation. A larger cohort is needed to validate these findings.

Association between preconception serum lipid concentrations and treatment outcomes in women with PCOS who underwent ovulation induction.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the association between preconception serum lipid concentrations and reproductive outcomes after ovulation induction in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)? DESIGN: A secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial with 1000 PCOS women undergoing ovulation induction with clomiphene with or without acupuncture. Preconception serum total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides, apolipoprotein A1 (ApoA1), apolipoprotein B (ApoB) were measured. Outcomes were ovulation, conception, pregnancy, live birth and miscarriage. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). RESULTS: In total, 780 women ovulated; 320 women achieved conception, 218 had a clinical pregnancy, 205 had a live birth and 115 had a miscarriage. Serum lipid concentrations per one unit increment were independently associated with reproductive outcomes after controlling for confounders. Increasing LDL-C (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.63-0.99) was independently associated with a lower chance of ovulation. Increasing total cholesterol (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.62-0.92), LDL-C (OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57-0.93), triglycerides (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58-0.95) and ApoB (OR 0.34, 95% CI 0.16-0.74) were independently associated with a lower chance of clinical pregnancy. Increased total cholesterol (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.64-0.96), LDL-C (OR 0.77, 95% CI 0.60-0.99), triglycerides (OR 0.76, 95% CI 0.59-0.96) and ApoB (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18-0.86) were independently associated with a lower chance of live birth. Furthermore, increased total cholesterol (OR 1.43, 95% CI 1.06-1.93), LDL-C (OR 1.51, 95% CI 1.04-2.19) and ApoB (OR 3.82, 95% CI 1.17-12.41) were independently associated with a higher chance of miscarriage. CONCLUSIONS: Increased serum lipids were negatively associated with the reproductive outcomes of PCOS women undergoing ovulation induction with clomiphene with or without acupuncture.

Luteal phase support for women trying to conceive by intrauterine insemination or sexual intercourse.

BACKGROUND: Ovulation induction may impact endometrial receptivity due to insufficient progesterone secretion. Low progesterone is associated with poor pregnancy outcomes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness and safety of luteal phase support (LPS) in infertile women trying to conceive by intrauterine insemination or by sexual intercourse. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, trial registries for ongoing trials, and reference lists of articles (from inception to 25 August 2021). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of LPS using progestogen, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist supplementation in IUI or natural cycle. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were live birth rate/ongoing pregnancy rate (LBR/OPR) and miscarriage.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 RCTs (5111 participants). Most studies were at unclear or high risk of bias. We graded the certainty of evidence as very low to low. The main limitations of the evidence were poor reporting and imprecision. 1. Progesterone supplement versus placebo or no treatment  We are uncertain if vaginal progesterone increases LBR/OPR (risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.48; 7 RCTs; 1792 participants; low-certainty evidence) or decreases miscarriage per pregnancy compared to placebo or no treatment (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.25; 5 RCTs; 261 participants). There were no data on LBR or miscarriage with oral stimulation. We are uncertain if progesterone increases LBR/OPR in women with gonadotropin stimulation (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.92; 4 RCTs; 1054 participants; low-certainty evidence) and oral stimulation (clomiphene citrate or letrozole) (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.64; 2 RCTs; 485 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported on OPR in women with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation; the evidence from this study was uncertain (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.42; 1 RCT; 253 participants; low-certainty evidence). Given the low certainty of the evidence, it is unclear if progesterone reduces miscarriage per clinical pregnancy in any stimulation protocol (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.91; 2 RCTs; 102 participants, with gonadotropin; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; 2 RCTs; 123 participants, with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation; and RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.14; 2 RCTs; 119 participants, with oral stimulation). Low-certainty evidence suggests that progesterone in all types of ovarian stimulation may increase clinical pregnancy compared to placebo (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.74; 7 RCTs; 1437 participants, with gonadotropin; RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.90; 4 RCTs; 733 participants, with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation (clomiphene citrate or letrozole); and RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.98; 6 RCTs; 1073 participants, with oral stimulation). 2. Progesterone supplementation regimen  We are uncertain if there is any difference between 300 mg and 600 mg of vaginal progesterone for OPR and multiple pregnancy (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.09; 1 RCT; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence; and RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.43; 1 RCT; 200 participants, very low-certainty evidence, respectively). No other outcomes were reported for this comparison. There were three different comparisons between progesterone regimens. For OPR, the evidence is very uncertain for intramuscular (IM) versus vaginal progesterone (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.02; 1 RCT; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence); we are uncertain if there is any difference between oral and vaginal progesterone (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.22; 1 RCT; 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or between subcutaneous and vaginal progesterone (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.05; 1 RCT; 246 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if IM or oral progesterone reduces miscarriage per clinical pregnancy compared to vaginal progesterone (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.32; 1 RCT; 81 participants and RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.09; 1 RCT; 41 participants, respectively). Clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy were reported for all comparisons; the evidence for these outcomes was very uncertain. Only one RCT reported adverse effects. We are uncertain if IM route increases the risk of adverse effects when compared with the vaginal route (RR 9.25, 95% CI 2.21 to 38.78; 1 RCT; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence). 3. GnRH agonist versus placebo or no treatment  No trials reported live birth. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GnRH agonist in ongoing pregnancy (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.74; 1 RCT; 291 participants, very low-certainty evidence), miscarriage per clinical pregnancy (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.10; 2 RCTs; 79 participants, very low-certainty evidence) and clinical pregnancy (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47; 2 RCTs; 340 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and multiple pregnancy (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; 2 RCTs; 126 participants). 4. GnRH agonist versus vaginal progesterone  The evidence for the effect of GnRH agonist injection on clinical pregnancy is very uncertain (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.95; 1 RCT; 242 participants). 5. HCG injection versus no treatment  The evidence for the effect of hCG injection on clinical pregnancy (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.13; 1 RCT; 130 participants) and multiple pregnancy rates (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.22 to 4.92; 1 RCT; 130 participants) is very uncertain. 6. Luteal support in natural cycle No study evaluated the effect of LPS in natural cycle. We could not perform sensitivity analyses, as there were no studies at low risk of selection bias and not at high risk in other domains. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We are uncertain if vaginal progesterone supplementation during luteal phase is associated with a higher live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate. Vaginal progesterone may increase clinical pregnancy rate; however, its effect on miscarriage rate and multiple pregnancy rate is uncertain. We are uncertain if IM progesterone improves ongoing pregnancy rates or decreases miscarriage rate when compared to vaginal progesterone. Regarding the other reported comparisons, neither oral progesterone nor any other medication appears to be associated with an improvement in pregnancy outcomes (very low-certainty evidence).

Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol with or without clomiphene citrate for poor ovarian responders: a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore the efficacy of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) combined with clomiphene citrate (CC) versus PPOS protocol used alone on cycle characteristics and pregnancy outcomes for women with the poor ovarian response (POR). METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study and a total of 578 POR patients who underwent IVF/ICSI cycles were collected and divided into Group A (HMG 300 IU/d + MPA 10 mg/d) and Group B (HMG 300 IU/d + MPA 10 mg/d + CC 50 mg/d). The primary outcome measure was the number of oocytes retrieved, other outcome measures were cycle characteristics and clinical pregnancy rate. RESULTS: The baseline information between the two groups were not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Compared with Group A, Group B had a lower total dose of human menopausal gonadotrophin (HMG) (2998.63 ± 1051.09 vs. 3399.18 ± 820.75, P < 0.001) and the duration of stimulation (10.21 ± 3.56 vs. 11.27 ± 2.56, P < 0.001). Serum luteinizing hormone level was higher in Group B on human chorionic gonadotrophin injection day (P < 0.001). The number of oocyte for retrieval, maturation, and fertilization were significantly lower in Group B than that in Group A (P < 0.001). However, the oocyte retrieval rate, maturation rate, fertilization rate, and viable embryo rate showed no statistical difference in the two groups (P > 0.05). After adjusting for confounders, the clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.286; 95% CI 0.671-2.470) and live birth rate (OR 1.390; 95% CI 0.478-3.990) were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: PPOS protocol combined with CC reduces the total dose of HMG and the duration of stimulation, and can also achieve similar oocyte yields and clinical pregnancy rate compared with the PPOS protocol used alone in poor ovarian responders.

Does elevated luteinizing hormone level before trigger mean premature luteinizing hormone surge in advanced-aged women undergoing mild ovarian stimulation?

OBJECTIVE: To explore whether elevated luteinizing hormone (LH) level before trigger means premature LH surge in advanced aged women undergoing mild ovarian stimulation. METHODS: To retrospectively analyze 235 in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles in women >35 years old with the poor ovarian response (POR) from January 2012 to March 2016. Cycles are named Group 1, Group 2, and Group 3, being treated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol (76 cycles), mild stimulation protocol using clomiphene citrate (73 cycles), and tamoxifen (86 cycles), respectively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The dynamic change of LH level during stimulation; the proportion of an elevated LH level defined as >10 IU/L on trigger day; the proportion of premature ovulation in each group. RESULTS: Serum LH level increased early in Group 2 and Group 3 and remained significantly higher than that in Group 1 during stimulation. In a sequence of three groups, the proportion of elevated LH levels before the trigger was 11.84, 43.8, and 37.21% (p＜.001) respectively. And the proportion of premature ovulation in patients with elevated LH levels was 11.11, 18.75, and 25% (p = .11) respectively. CONCLUSION: Elevated LH level before trigger does not mean premature LH surge in women more than 35 years old with POR undergoing mild ovarian stimulation with clomiphene or tamoxifen.