The clinical significance of the retrieval of a low number of oocytes following mild ovarian stimulation for IVF: a meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Milder ovarian stimulation protocols for in vitro fertilization (IVF) are being developed to minimize adverse effects. Mild stimulation regimens result in a decreased number of oocytes at retrieval. After conventional ovarian stimulation for IVF, a low number of oocytes are believed to represent poor ovarian reserve resulting in reduced success rates. Recent studies suggest that a similar response following mild stimulation is associated with better outcomes. METHODS: This review investigates whether the retrieval of a low number of oocytes following mild ovarian stimulation is associated with impaired implantation rates. Three randomized controlled trials comparing the efficacy of the mild ovarian stimulation regimen (involving midfollicular phase initiation of FSH and GnRH co-treatment) for IVF with a conventional long GnRH agonist co-treatment stimulation protocol could be identified by means of a systematic literature search. RESULTS: These studies comprised a total of 592 first treatment cycles. Individual patient data analysis showed that the mild stimulation protocol results in a significant reduction of retrieved oocytes compared with conventional ovarian stimulation (median 6 versus 9, respectively, P < 0.001). Optimal embryo implantation rates were observed with 5 oocytes retrieved following mild stimulation (31%) versus 10 oocytes following conventional stimulation (29%) (P = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: The optimal number of retrieved oocytes depends on the ovarian stimulation regimen. After mild ovarian stimulation, a modest number of oocytes is associated with optimal implantation rates and does not reflect a poor ovarian response. Therefore, the fear of reducing the number of oocytes retrieved following mild ovarian stimulation appears to be unjustified.

Why do couples drop-out from IVF treatment? A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Cumulative IVF pregnancy rates are compromised by the large number of couples who drop-out of treatment before achieving pregnancy. The aim of this study was to identify the role of the treatment strategy applied, and potential other factors that influence the decision of couples to discontinue treatment. METHODS: The incidence of drop-out from IVF treatment and factors related to drop-out were studied in a cohort of IVF patients aged <38 years embarking on IVF treatment either with a mild or a standard treatment strategy for a planned maximum number of treatment cycles. RESULTS: Of the 384 couples studied, 17% dropped out of IVF treatment. The physical or psychological burden of treatment was the most frequent cause of drop-out (28%). The application of a mild treatment strategy (mild ovarian stimulation along with the transfer of a single embryo) significantly reduced the chance of drop-out (hazard ratio (HR) 0.55; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.31-0.96). When a mild IVF strategy was employed, the association between the baseline anxiety score and drop-out was reduced by >50%. The presence of severe male subfertility (HR 4.80; 95% CI, 1.63-14.13) and the failure to achieve embryo transfer (odds ratio 0.41; 95% CI, 0.24-0.72) were also related to drop-out. CONCLUSIONS: Reducing drop-out rate is crucial to further improve the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of IVF treatment. An important factor determining the risk of drop-out is the burden of the treatment strategy. The application of a mild treatment strategy and managing patient's expectations might reduce drop-out rates.

[Reduction of patient discomfort, risks and costs, but not pregnancies, by a mild strategy for in-vitro fertilisation]. / Minder risico's, patiëntenongemak en kosten, maar niet minder zwangerschappen in de milde behandelstrategie voor ivf.

OBJECTIVE: To compare a so-called mild in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment strategy with the standard IVF treatment on the following aspects: the chance of a pregnancy resulting in full-term live birth within 1 year, patient discomfort, multiple pregnancies, and costs. DESIGN: Randomised, open-label, prospective trial (www.controlledtrials.com, number ISRCTN35766970). METHOD: 404 patients were assigned to undergo either a mild treatment, consisting of ovarian stimulation with a gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist combined with single embryo transfer, or the standard treatment consisting of prolonged stimulation with a GnRH agonist combined with the transfer of two embryos. The primary outcome measures were: (1) the percentage of cumulative pregnancies within one year after randomisation leading to full-term live birth; (2) total costs per couple and child up to 6 weeks after expected delivery; and (3) overall patient discomfort. Analysis was done according to the intention-to-treat principle and was intended to show that the mild treatment was not inferior to the standard treatment; the non-inferiority threshold was -12.5%. RESULTS: The proportion of cumulative pregnancies resulting in full-term live birth after 1 year was 43.4% in the mild and 44.7% in the standard treatment group. The lower limit of the one-sided 95% confidence interval was equal to -9.8%. The respective proportion of couples with multiple pregnancies was 0.5% versus 13.1% (p < 0.0001), and the average total costs were Euro 8,333.- versus Euro 10,745.- (difference: Euro 2,412.-, 95% CI: 703-4,131). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with regard to anxiety, depression, physical discomfort, and sleep quality. CONCLUSION: After 1 year of treatment, the cumulative percentage of pregnancies leading to full-term live birth and the total patient discomfort were the same for the mild treatment (average 2.3 IVF-cycles) and the standard treatment (average 1.7 IVF-cycles). The mild treatment significantly reduced the number of multiple pregnancies and the overall costs.

Low negative affect prior to treatment is associated with a decreased chance of live birth from a first IVF cycle.

BACKGROUND: Psychological variables, such as anxiety and depression, may have a negative impact on IVF outcomes, but the evidence remains inconclusive. Previous studies have usually measured a single psychological parameter with clinical pregnancy as the outcome. The objective of the current study was to determine whether pretreatment or procedural psychological variables in women undergoing a first IVF cycle affect the chance of achieving a live birth from that cycle. METHODS: Between February 2002 and February 2004, 391 women with an indication for IVF were recruited at two University Medical Centres in The Netherlands. Pretreatment anxiety and depression were measured with the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. The Daily Record Keeping Chart was used to measure negative and positive affect before treatment and daily during ovarian stimulation. Multiple stepwise forward logistic regression analysis was performed with term live birth as the dependent variable. RESULTS: Regression analysis showed that women who expressed less negative affect at baseline were less likely to achieve live birth (P = 0.03). After one IVF cycle, women who received a standard IVF strategy were more likely to reach live birth delivery than those who received a mild IVF strategy (P = 0.002). A male/female indication for IVF was associated with a higher chance of achieving term live birth than a female only indication (P = 0.03). Age, duration of infertility or type of infertility were not independent predictors of live birth. CONCLUSIONS: The relationship between psychological parameters and IVF success rates is more complex than commonly believed. The expression of negative emotions before starting IVF might not be always detrimental for outcomes.

Cost-effectiveness of a mild compared with a standard strategy for IVF: a randomized comparison using cumulative term live birth as the primary endpoint.

BACKGROUND Conventional ovarian stimulation and the transfer of two embryos in IVF exhibits an inherent high probability of multiple pregnancies, resulting in high costs. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of a mild compared with a conventional strategy for IVF. METHODS Four hundred and four patients were randomly assigned to undergo either mild ovarian stimulation/GnRH antagonist co-treatment combined with single embryo transfer, or standard stimulation/GnRH agonist long protocol and the transfer of two embryos. The main outcome measures are total costs of treatment within a 12 months period after randomization, and the relationship between total costs and proportion of cumulative pregnancies resulting in term live birth within 1 year of randomization. RESULTS Despite a significantly increased average number of IVF cycles (2.3 versus 1.7; P < 0.001), lower average total costs over a 12-month period (8333 versus euro10 745; P = 0.006) were observed using the mild strategy. This was mainly due to higher costs of the obstetric and post-natal period for the standard strategy, related to multiple pregnancies. The costs per pregnancy leading to term live birth were euro19 156 in the mild strategy and euro24 038 in the standard. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of the standard strategy compared with the mild strategy was euro185 000 per extra pregnancy leading to term live birth. CONCLUSIONS Despite an increased mean number of IVF cycles within 1 year, from an economic perspective, the mild treatment strategy is more advantageous per term live birth. It is unlikely, over a wide range of society's willingness-to-pay, that the standard treatment strategy is cost-effective, compared with the mild strategy.

The psychological impact of IVF failure after two or more cycles of IVF with a mild versus standard treatment strategy.

BACKGROUND: Failure of IVF treatment after a number of cycles can be devastating for couples. Although mild IVF strategies reduce the psychological burden of treatment, failure may cause feelings of regret that a more aggressive approach, including the transfer of two embryos, was not employed. In this study, the impact of treatment failure after two or more cycles on stress was studied, following treatment with a mild versus a standard treatment strategy. METHODS: Randomized controlled two-centre trial (ISRCTN35766970). Women were randomized to undergo mild ovarian stimulation (including GnRH antagonist co-treatment) and single embryo transfer (n = 197) or standard GnRH agonist long-protocol ovarian stimulation with double embryo transfer (n = 194). Participants completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale prior to commencing treatment and 1 week after the outcome of their final treatment cycle was known. Data from women who underwent two or more IVF cycles were subject to analysis (n = 253). RESULTS: Women who experienced treatment failure after standard IVF treatment presented more symptoms of depression 1 week after treatment termination compared with women who had undergone mild IVF: adjusted mean (+/-95% confidence interval) = 10.2 (+/-2.3) versus 5.4 (+/-1.8), respectively, P = 0.01. CONCLUSIONS: Failure of IVF treatment after a mild treatment strategy may result in fewer short-term symptoms of depression as compared to failure after a standard treatment strategy. These findings may further encourage the application of mild IVF treatment strategies in clinical practice.

Predictors of low response to mild ovarian stimulation initiated on cycle day 5 for IVF.

BACKGROUND: Milder stimulation protocols are being developed to minimize adverse effects of ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization (IVF) programs. A drawback is the possibility of an increased rate of insufficient ovarian response. This study aimed to develop a prognostic model for the prediction of cycle cancellation due to insufficient response to mild stimulation. METHODS: A total of 174 IVF patients aged<38 years and with a body mass index (BMI)<28 Kg/m2 were treated with mild ovarian stimulation using a fixed daily dose (150 IU) of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) from cycle day 5 and GnRH antagonist from the late follicular phase. In women with mono- or bifollicular growth (17%), the cycle was cancelled and the treatment was adjusted in a second treatment cycle by starting rFSH on cycle day 2. RESULTS: In a multivariable logistic regression analysis, duration of infertility, menstrual cycle length, secondary infertility and BMI were included in the prediction model. The area under the receiver-operating characteristics curve of the model was 0.69. A probability cut-off for cancellation of 0.3 yielded an expected sensitivity of 33% and specificity of 92%. Analysis of ovarian response in the subsequent treatment cycle showed an improved ovarian response and a significant reduction in the cancellation rate. CONCLUSIONS: With the presented model, it is possible to identify patients at risk for cycle cancellation, during mild ovarian stimulation, due to insufficient response. The contributing factors of the model suggest that ovarian aging and BMI are related to insufficient response to mild stimulation.

ART: iatrogenic multiple pregnancy?

Assisted reproductive technologies (ART) are now widely accepted as effective treatment for most causes of infertility. With improving success rates, attention has turned to the problem of multiple pregnancies, which are associated with a poor perinatal outcome, maternal complications and significant financial consequences. The challenge is to reduce multigestational pregnancies while maintaining good treatment outcomes. Methods to prevent multiple pregnancy include restrictive use of ART in couples with a good chance of spontaneous pregnancy, cautious use of gonadotrophins, and increased use of natural-cycle intra-uterine insemination and elective single embryo transfer in in-vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The aim of this article is to review the contribution of fertility treatment to multiple pregnancies and strategies for reducing multiples in ART.

Prevention of multiple pregnancies after IVF in women 38 and older: a randomized study.

The objective of this study was to answer the question of whether a double instead of triple embryo transfer strategy in patients over 38 years would substantially reduce the number of multiple pregnancies while maintaining the chance of a term live birth at an acceptable level. A randomized controlled two-centre trial was performed. Forty-five patients, 38 years or older, were randomized. Double embryo transfer over a maximum of four cycles (DET group) or triple embryo transfer over a maximum of three cycles (TET group) was performed. The cumulative term live birth rate was 47.3% after four cycles in the DET group and 40.5% after three cycles in the TET group. The difference between the DET and the TET group was 6.8% in favour of the DET group (95% CI -25 to 38). The multiple pregnancy rates in the DET and TET group were 0% (95% CI 0 to 24) and 30% (95% CI 7 to 65) respectively (P = 0.05). In the DET patients, the mean number of treatment cycles was 2.9 compared with 2.1 in the TET group (P = 0.01). In women of 38 years and older, double embryo transfer after IVF may result in similar cumulative term live birth rates compared with triple embryo transfer, provided that a higher number of treatment cycles is accepted.

A meta-analysis of outcomes of conventional IVF in women with polycystic ovary syndrome.

This meta-analysis was conducted to compare outcomes of conventional IVF in women presenting with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and non-PCOS patients. Studies in which PCOS patients undergoing IVF were compared with a matched--no male factor--control group were considered for this review. A definition consistent with the Rotterdam consensus criteria of PCOS was required, and all patients within a given study had to be treated with the same ovarian stimulation protocol. Information regarding patient characteristics and pregnancy outcome was also required. Nine out of 290 identified studies reporting data on 458 PCOS patients (793 cycles) and 694 matched controls (1116 cycles) fulfilled these inclusion criteria. PCOS patients demonstrated a significantly reduced chance of oocyte retrieval per started cycle, odds ratio (OR) = 0.5 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.2-1.0]. However, no difference was observed in chance of embryo transfer per oocyte retrieval between the groups (OR = 0.7, 95% CI = 0.4-1.3). Significantly more oocytes per retrieval were obtained in PCOS patients compared with controls [random effects estimate 3.4 [95% (CI) = 1.7-5.1)]. The number of oocytes fertilized did not differ significantly between PCOS patients and controls, weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.1 oocytes (95% CI = 21.4-1.6). No significant difference was observed in the clinical pregnancy rates per started cycle, OR = 1.0 (95% CI = 0.8-1.3). The incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) after oocyte retrieval was rarely reported. This meta-analysis demonstrates an increased cancellation rate, but more oocytes retrieved per retrieval and a lower fertilization rate in PCOS undergoing IVF. Overall, PCOS and control patients achieved similar pregnancy and live birth rates per cycle.

Comparison of different treatment strategies in IVF with cumulative live birth over a given period of time as the primary end-point: methodological considerations on a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial.

BACKGROUND: We discuss methodological considerations related to a study in IVF, which compares the effectiveness, health economics and patient discomfort of two treatment strategies that differ in both ovarian stimulation and embryo transfer policies. METHODS: This was a randomized controlled clinical trial in two large Dutch IVF centres. The tested treatment strategies are: mild ovarian stimulation [including gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist co-treatment] together with the transfer of one embryo, versus conventional stimulation (with GnRH agonist long protocol co-treatment) and the transfer of two embryos. Outcome measures are: (i) pregnancies resulting in term live birth; (ii) total costs per term live birth; and (iii) patient stress/discomfort per started IVF treatment, over a 12 month period. Power considerations for this study were an overall cumulative live birth rate of 45% for the conventional treatment strategy, with non-inferiority of the mild treatment strategy defined as a live birth rate no more than 12.5% lower compared with the conventional study arm. For a power of 80% and alpha of 0.05, 400 subjects are required. RESULTS: As planned, from February 2002 until February 2004, 410 patients were enrolled. CONCLUSIONS: This effectiveness study applies an integrated medical, health economics and psychological approach with term live birth over a given period of time after starting IVF as the end-point. Complete and timely patient enrolment vindicates many of the design decisions.

The psychological impact of mild ovarian stimulation combined with single embryo transfer compared with conventional IVF.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to assess the psychological implications of mild ovarian stimulation combined with single embryo transfer (SET) during a first IVF cycle. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled two-centre trial. Three hundred and ninety-one couples were randomized to undergo either mild ovarian stimulation with GnRH antagonist co-treatment and SET (n=199) or conventional GnRH agonist long protocol ovarian stimulation with double embryo transfer (DET) (n=192). Women completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, the Hopkins Symptom Checklist and the Subjective Sleep Quality Scale at baseline, on the first day of ovarian stimulation and following embryo transfer. Affect was assessed daily with the Daily Record Keeping Chart from the first day of ovarian stimulation until the day treatment outcome became known. RESULTS: The conventional IVF group experienced elevated levels of physical and depressive symptoms during pituitary downregulation. At oocyte retrieval, this group experienced more positive affect and less negative affect than the mild IVF group. In the conventional IVF group, cycle cancellation was associated with less positive and more negative affect. CONCLUSIONS: During the first IVF treatment cycle, mild ovarian stimulation and SET does not lead to more psychological complaints than conventional IVF.

What is the most relevant standard of success in assisted reproduction? The next step to improving outcomes of IVF: consider the whole treatment.

Changing the way in which successful IVF treatment is defined offers a tool to improve efficacy while reducing costs and complications of treatment. Crucial to this paradigm shift is the move away from considering outcomes in terms of the single IVF cycle, and towards the started IVF treatment as a whole. We propose the most informative end-point of success in IVF to be the term singleton birth rate per started IVF treatment (or per given time period) in the overall context of patient discomfort, complications and costs. These end-points are important not only for patients, but also for clinicians, health economists and policy makers. Such an approach would encourage the development of patient-friendly and cheaper stimulation protocols with less stress, discomfort and side effects. The combination of mild ovarian stimulation with single embryo transfer may provide the same overall pregnancy rate per total IVF treatment, achieved in the same amount of time for similar direct costs, but with reduced patient stress and discomfort, and the near complete elimination of multiple pregnancies. This would offer major health and indirect cost benefits. If IVF success rates were to be expressed in terms of delivery of a term single baby per IVF treatment (or in a given treatment period), the introduction of single embryo transfer on a large scale would be facilitated.