The case for mild stimulation for IVF: recommendations from The International Society for Mild Approaches in Assisted Reproduction.

The practice of ovarian stimulation for IVF is undergoing a fundamental re-evaluation as recent data begin to successfully challenge the traditional paradigm that ovarian stimulation should be aimed at the retrieval of as many oocytes as possible, in the belief that this will increase pregnancy rates. An opposing view is that live birth rate should not be the only end-point in evaluating the success of IVF treatment and that equal emphasis should be placed on safety and affordability. The International Society for Mild Approaches in Assisted Reproduction (ISMAAR) committee has carried out an up-to-date literature search, with the evidence being graded according to the University of Oxford's Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. The recommendations were formulated taking into account the quality of evidence on the efficacy, risk and cost of each intervention. ISMAAR recommends adopting a mild approach to ovarian stimulation in all clinical settings as an increasing body of evidence suggests that mild stimulation is as effective as conventional stimulation, while being safer and less expensive. Mild ovarian stimulation could replace conventional stimulation, thus making IVF safer and more accessible worldwide.

Maximizing live birth rates cannot be the only key performance indicator of IVF.

The success of IVF is currently measured by pregnancy or live birth rate only, without any consideration given to health outcomes for the woman and baby and the total cost of treatment. A successful IVF cycle should be redefined as the birth of a healthy singleton baby at term, without compromising the health and safety of the woman and baby achieved at the lowest possible cost. We recommend that the performance indices for an IVF programme should be based on a weighted scoring system according to live birth per embryo transferred, cumulative live birth rate over 1 year, total cost of treatment cycle and maternal and perinatal outcomes. This holistic approach would prevent the use of unnecessary high stimulation, unproven add-ons without regard for the welfare of the patients and would increase accessibility to IVF treatment.

Oocyte or embryo number needed to optimize live birth and cumulative live birth rates in mild stimulation IVF cycles.

RESEARCH QUESTION: How many oocytes or embryos are needed to optimize the live birth rate (LBR) per cycle and cumulative LBR (CLBR) following mild stimulation IVF (MS-IVF) in women with uncompromised ovarian reserve? DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of a 4-year database of five fertility centres. The study population included women with normal/high ovarian reserve, who underwent autologous MS-IVF (daily ≤150 IU gonadotrophin) with fresh and subsequent frozen embryo transfer(s) (FET) from surplus embryos. Only the first cycle of each patient was included. Cycles with >150 IU daily average of gonadotrophin were excluded. 'Freeze-all embryo' (FAE) cycles were analysed separately. RESULTS: A total of 862 consecutive cycles fulfilled the inclusion criteria; 592 were eligible for fresh embryo transfer, 239 had non-elective 'freeze-all' cycles. Median age (25-75th percentile) of women who had fresh embryo transfer was 35 (32-37) years, median antral follicle count 19 (14-28) and anti-Müllerian hormone 19.2 (13-28.9) pmol/l. LBR/fresh cycle and CLBR inclusive of FAE cycles in the <35, 35-37, 38-39 and 40-42 year age groups were 37.8% and 45.1%, 36.0% and 41.6%, 18.4% and 29.1%, and 8.9% and 18.1%, respectively. The LBR following fresh embryo transfer plateaued after nine oocytes (40.3%) or four embryos (40.8%). The CLBR optimized when 12 oocytes (42.9%) or nine embryos (53.8%) were obtained. The LBR per oocyte peaked in women under 35 years when <5 oocytes were retrieved (11.4%), then declined with age and with higher oocyte yield. There were no cases of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). CONCLUSION: Nine oocytes, or four embryos, can optimize fresh transfer cycle LBR in MS-IVF. The CLBR are optimized with 12 oocytes, or nine embryos in predicted normal responders, while safeguarding against OHSS.

Mild versus conventional ovarian stimulation for IVF in poor, normal and hyper-responders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Mild ovarian stimulation has emerged as an alternative to conventional IVF with the advantages of being more patient-friendly and less expensive. Inadequate data on pregnancy outcomes and concerns about the cycle cancellation rate (CCR) have prevented mild, or low-dose, IVF from gaining wide acceptance. OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE: To evaluate parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on IVF where comparisons were made between a mild (≤150 IU daily dose) and conventional stimulation in terms of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness in patients described as poor, normal and non-polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) hyper-responders to IVF. SEARCH METHODS: Searches with no language restrictions were performed using Medline, Embase, Cochrane central, Pre-Medicine from January 1990 until April 2020, using pre-specified search terms. References of included studies were hand-searched as well as advance access articles to key journals. Only parallel-group RCTs that used ≤150 IU daily dose of gonadotrophin as mild-dose IVF (MD-IVF) and compared with a higher conventional dose (CD-IVF) were included. Studies were grouped under poor, normal or hyper-responders as described by the authors in their inclusion criteria. Women with PCOS were excluded in the hyper-responder group. The risk of bias was assessed as per Cochrane Handbook for the included studies. The quality of evidence (QoE) was assessed according to the GRADE system. PRISMA guidance was followed for review methodology. OUTCOMES: A total of 31 RCTs were included in the analysis: 15 in the poor, 14 in the normal and 2 in the hyper-responder group. Live birth rates (LBRs) per randomisation were similar following use of MD-IVF in poor (relative risk (RR) 0.91 (CI 0.68, 1.22)), normal (RR 0.88 (CI 0.69, 1.12)) and hyper-responders (RR 0.98 (CI 0.79, 1.22)) when compared to CD-IVF. QoE was moderate. Cumulative LBRs (5 RCTs, n = 2037) also were similar in all three patient types (RR 0.96 (CI 0.86 1.07) (moderate QoE). Risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome was significantly less with MD-IVF than CD-IVF in both normal (RR 0.22 (CI 0.10, 0.50)) and hyper-responders (RR 0.47 (CI 0.31, 0.72)), with moderate QoE. The CCRs were comparable in poor (RR 1.33 (CI 0.96, 1.85)) and hyper-responders (RR 1.31 (CI 0.98, 1.77)) but increased with MD-IVF among normal responders (RR 2.08 (CI 1.38, 3.14)); all low to very low QoE. Although fewer oocytes were retrieved and fewer embryos created with MD-IVF, the proportion of high-grade embryos was similar in all three population types (low QoE). Compared to CD-IVF, MD-IVF was associated with less gonadotrophin use and lower cost. WIDER IMPLICATIONS: This updated review provides reassurance on using MD-IVF not only for the LBR per cycle but also for the cumulative LBR, with moderate QoE. With risks identified with 'freeze-all' strategies, it may be time to recommend mild-dose ovarian stimulation for IVF for all categories of women i.e. hyper, poor and normal responders to IVF.

Mild versus conventional ovarian stimulation for IVF in poor responders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mild ovarian stimulation is a treatment option for poor responders in IVF treatment. Our updated review evaluated mild IVF solely from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that used genuine low-dose gonadotrophin (≤150 IU daily) alone or in combination with oral medications, comparing it with conventional-dose (>150 IU/ daily) IVF for poor responders. Electronic searches on MEDLINE, Embase, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and PreMEDLINE, and hand searches from 2002 up to 31 January 2019, identified 14 RCTs, which were compiled with the above inclusion criteria. The risk of bias (ROB) and quality of evidence (QOE) were assessed as per Cochrane Collaboration. Meta-analyses found no difference in live birth rate (four RCTs, n = 1057, RR 0.91, CI 0.66 to 1.25) (moderate QOE), ongoing pregnancy rate (six RCTs, n = 1782, RR 1.01, CI 0.86 to 1.20) (moderate-high QOE) and cycle cancellation rates (14 RCTs, n = 2746, RR 1.38, CI 0.99 to 1.92) (low QOE). Fewer oocytes and embryos were obtained from mild IVF; however, the number and proportion of high-grade embryos were similar. Mild IVF resulted in reduced gonadotrophin use and cost. The inference remained unchanged when smaller studies with ROB were excluded, or whether gonadotrophin alone or combination with oral medication was used. The evidence of equal efficacy from a pooled population, which was adequately powered for live birth, supported a mild IVF strategy for poor responders in preference to more expensive conventional IVF. Although clinical heterogeneity remained a limiting factor, it increased the generalizability of the findings.

Mild stimulation for in vitro fertilization.

It has been proven that the use of high gonadotropin dose does not necessarily improve the final outcome of IVF. Mild ovarian stimulation is based on the principle of optimal utilization of competent oocytes/embryos and endometrial receptivity. There is growing evidence that the pregnancy or live birth rates with mild-stimulation protocols are comparable to those with conventional IVF; the cumulative pregnancy outcome has been shown to be no different, despite having fewer numbers of oocytes or embryos available with milder ovarian stimulation. Although equally effective, mild-stimulation IVF is associated with a greater safety profile, in terms of the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and venous thromboembolism. It is also found to be better tolerated by patients and less expensive. Emerging research evidence may lead to widespread acceptance of mild IVF, by both patients and IVF providers, and make IVF more accessible to women and couples worldwide.

Can we predict the chance of successful epididymal or testicular sperm aspiration following vasectomy?

Purpose of this retrospective study was to investigate if serum markers, men's age, interval since vasectomy, BMI, testicular size and smoking could predict the success of epididymal or testicular sperm aspiration (PESA/TESA) in vasectomized men. Forty-four consecutively performed PESA/TESA procedures were reviewed retrospectively. Motile sperm was retrieved from 77.3% of PESA/TESA procedures. Mean serum Inhibin-B (Inh-B) level tended to be higher in men who had motile sperm retrieved compared to those who had not (180.3 versus 126.2 pg/ml, p = 0.05). Univariate analysis identified serum Inh-B to be the only predictor of PESA/TESA success (r = 0.32, CI: 0.006-0.584, p = 0.046). Serum FSH, LH, T levels, age, BMI, smoking status and interval since vasectomy did not correlate with the PESA/TESA outcome. Inh-B could modestly discriminate between successful and unsuccessful PESA/TESA (AUC= 0.70) with high positive (89.5%) but low negative prediction (36.8%); 58.6% sensitivity and 77.7% specificity at the optimum cut-off level of 166 pg/ml. Positive outcome was only 50% when the Inh-B level was below 100 pg/ml. It is concluded that a high serum Inh-B might reliably predict successful PESA/TESA in vasectomized men. More invasive sperm retrieval procedures could be reserved for men with very low Inh-B or failed PESA/TESA. Future studies with adequate power may confirm our findings.

Retrospective comparison of GnRH agonist trigger with HCG trigger in GnRH antagonist cycles in anticipated high-responders.

All IVF-ICSI cycles carried out between October 2009 and October 2012 using GnRH agonist (GnRHa) ovulation trigger (n = 62) followed by a single dose of HCG plus progesterone and oestradiol in the luteal phase because of anticipated ovarian hypertsimulation were retrospectively compared with historic control cycles using HCG trigger (n = 29) and standard luteal phase support. Women's mean age, body mass index, anti-Müllerian hormone, FSH, LH, starting and total stimulation dose, number of follicles, oocytes, embryos, fertilization, implantation, polycystic ovary syndrome, ICSI, live birth and ongoing pregnancy rates per embryo transfer were similar (GnRHa 40.7% versus HCG 35.0%). For each started cycle, GnRHa resulted in 11.4% higher (statistically non-significant) live birth and ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 1.73, CI 0.64 to 4.69), with a similar difference for double-embryo transfers (OR 1.62, CI 0.44 to 6.38) and less need for freezing all embryos (9.7% versus 27.6%; P = 0.04). Incidence of mild-to-moderate OHSS was 16.2% with GnRHa trigger and 31.0% with HCG trigger) and no severe OHSS in the former. The addition of single low-dose HCG in the luteal phase after GnRHa trigger for suspected high-responders reduced the incidence of OHSS with good clinical outcomes, compared with HCG trigger.

Can the fall in serum FSH during coasting in IVF/ICSI predict clinical outcomes?

This retrospective cohort study determined whether the total falls in serum FSH and oestradiol concentrations from start to end of coasting in IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection could predict clinical outcomes. Ninety-nine cycles, with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone-agonist down-regulation where coasting with serial serum oestradiol and FSH monitoring was adopted due to risk of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, were consecutively included. The primary clinical outcome was live-birth rate (LBR); other outcomes measured were number of oocytes retrieved and fertilization, implantation and clinical pregnancy rates. LBR for FSH fall>10 IU/l compared with 5-10 and<5 IU/l were 45.4% versus 22.0% and 25.0%, respectively. Mean serum FSH fall was similar with and without live birth (8.4 ± 6.2 versus 7.3 ± 5.0 IU/l) as were mean oestradiol and FSH concentrations on HCG administration, oestradiol fall, percentage fall in FSH/oestradiol and duration of coasting. None of the variables efficiently predicted live birth on regression analysis. The AUC of FSH fall was 0.53 at 11.0 IU/l. Basal FSH, starting and total gonadotrophin dose and duration of coasting were positively correlated with FSH fall. A potentially clinically important association between live birth and FSH fall during coasting was apparent, which requires further evaluation. The purpose of this retrospective cohort study was to determine whether the magnitude of fall in the serum FSH and oestradiol concentrations from start to end of coasting in IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles could predict the clinical outcomes. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone-agonist down-regulated cycles (n=99), where coasting with serial serum oestradiol and FSH monitoring was adopted due to risk of ovarian hyperstimulation, were consecutively included. Live birth was the primary clinical outcome measured; number of oocytes retrieved and fertilization, implantation and clinical pregnancy rates were the other outcomes examined. Live-birth rate tended to be high when FSH fall was >10 IU/l, compared with 5-10 IU/l and <5 IU/l, although not statistically significantly. Mean serum FSH fall were similar in live-birth and no-live-birth cycles (8.4 ± 6.2 versus 7.3 ± 5.0) as were mean oestradiol and FSH concentrations on hCG administration, oestradiol fall, percentage fall in FSH and oestradiol and duration of coasting. None of the variables efficiently predicted live birth. The area under the curve of FSH fall was 0.53. FSH fall of <11.0 IU/l was found to be more likely to predict negative outcome (specificity 84.72%) than predicting positive outcome when FSH fall was >11 IU/l (sensitivity 34.48%). Women's basal FSH, starting and total gonadotrophin dose of ovarian stimulation and duration of coasting had direct positive correlation with the magnitude of FSH fall. A potentially clinically important rise in live birth in association with greater FSH fall during coasting was apparent, which requires further evaluation.

Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for low responders in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a low-dose flare protocol.

In this retrospective study of 652 anticipated low response women, the overall clinical outcomes (live birth rate and clinical pregnancy rate [PR]) of low-dose flare (LDF) protocol appeared lower than those of conventional down-regulation (DR) (LDF: 15.1% vs. DR: 20.6% and LDF: 10.3% vs. DR: 17.4%, respectively). The findings that LDF protocol improved the clinical outcome in older women, or when LDF followed an unsuccessful IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycle with DR (LDF: 19.4% vs. DR: 9.76% and LDF: 13.9% vs. DR: 4.2% respectively), need further evaluation through randomized trials.