Ovarian response prediction in GnRH antagonist treatment for IVF using anti-Müllerian hormone.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the clinical value of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) for the prediction of high or low ovarian response in controlled ovarian stimulation for IVF using GnRH antagonist treatment? SUMMARY ANSWER: AMH as a single test has substantial accuracy for ovarian response prediction in GnRH antagonist treatment for IVF, with a higher accuracy for predicting a high response than for low response. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The role of AMH and other patient characteristics in ovarian response prediction has been studied extensively in long GnRH agonist protocols; however, little information is available regarding the clinical value in GnRH antagonists. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is an observational (retrospective) substudy as part of an ongoing cohort study. A total of 487 patients scheduled for IVF/ICSI between 2006 and 2011 were included in the study. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Patients with a regular cycle who underwent their first IVF/ICSI cycle with GnRH antagonist treatment while receiving a starting dose of 150 or 225 IU recombinant FSH were included in the study. Patients were divided into three subgroups according to the following ovarian response categories: high (>15 oocytes or cycle cancellation), normal (4-15 oocytes) and low (<4 oocytes or cycle cancellation). Serum samples collected prior to IVF treatment were used to determine serum AMH levels. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: According to the predefined ovarian response categories, 58 patients were classified as high, 326 as normal and 101 as low responders, and the ongoing pregnancy rates did not differ among groups (19.0, 22.1 and 16.8%, respectively, P = 0.9). For the prediction of high response, AMH had an area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.87. Both female age and BMI had lower accuracy (AUC 0.66 and 0.58, respectively). For low response prediction, again AMH had a better accuracy (AUC 0.79) than female age and BMI (AUC 0.59 and 0.56, respectively). In a multivariate model, including the factors age, AMH, BMI, smoking, type and duration of subfertility, only BMI added some predictive value to AMH for both high and low response prediction. Clinical test characteristics demonstrated that using a specificity of ∼90%, the detection rate of AMH for high and low response, corresponding with a test cut-off of 4.5 and 0.8 µg/l, was ∼60 and ∼45%, respectively. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The impact of the antral follicle count (AFC) on ovarian response prediction in GnRH antagonists was not assessed; however, previously studies demonstrated that for GnRH antagonists, AMH has a better accuracy than AFC. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The current study demonstrates that AMH is an adequate predictor for both high and low response in GnRH antagonist cycles, showing a similar accuracy to GnRH agonists, as reported previously. The optimization and individualization of GnRH antagonist protocols may be improved by using an AMH-tailored approach. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study was funded by the Academic Institutional Resources of the Department of Reproductive Medicine of the UMC Utrecht. O.H., M.J.C.E, E.W.G.L and H.L.T. have nothing to declare. N.S.M. has received fees and/or grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Anecova, Ferring, Informa, Merck Serono and MSD. B.C.J.M.F. has received fees and/or grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order); Childhealth, CVON, Ferring, Ova-Science, PregLem, Roche and Watson laboratories. F.J.B. has received fees and/or grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order); Merck Serono and MSD. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: www.clinicaltrials.gov, Protocol ID 13-109.

Ovarian stimulation for IVF: mild approaches.

In contrast to current approaches, the aim of mild stimulation is to develop safer and more patient-friendly protocols in which the risks of the treatment as a whole are minimized. Mild stimulation is defined as the method when exogenous gonadotropins are administered at lower doses, and/or for a shorter duration in GnRH antagonist co-treated cycles, or when oral compounds (antiestrogens, aromatase inhibitors) are used for ovarian stimulation for IVF, with the aim of limiting the number of oocytes obtained to fewer than eight. In this chapter we discuss the relevant physiology of follicle development, the development of milder stimulation protocols, the implications of mild stimulation, the current state of affairs, and future developments.

Comparison of early versus late initiation of GnRH antagonist co-treatment for controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the impact of initiating GnRH antagonist co-treatment for in vitro fertilization (IVF) on cycle day (CD) 2 compared with CD 6 on live birth rate (LBR) per started cycle and on the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR)? SUMMARY ANSWER: Early initiation of GnRH antagonist does not appear to improve clinical outcomes of IVF compared with midfollicular initiation. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: During ovarian stimulation for IVF, GnRH antagonist co-treatment is usually administered from the midfollicular phase onwards. Earlier initiation may improve the follicular phase hormonal milieu and therefore overall clinical outcomes. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This open-label, multicentre randomized controlled trial was conducted between September 2009 and July 2011. A web-based program was used for randomization and 617 IVF-intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) patients were included. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Recombinant FSH (150-225 IU) was administered daily from CD 2 onwards in both groups. The study group (CD2; n = 308) started GnRH antagonist co-treatment on CD 2, whereas the control group (CD6; n = 309) started on CD 6. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes between the two groups. A non-significant trend towards a higher LBR per started cycle and CLBR was observed in the CD6 group compared with the CD2 group (LBR: 24.0 versus 21.5%, P = 0.5; CLBR: 29.9 versus 26.7%, P = 0.6). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was terminated prematurely because no significant difference was observed in clinical outcomes after 617 inclusions. A much larger study population would be needed to detect a small significant difference in favour of either study arm, which raises the question of whether this would be relevant for clinical practice. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The present study shows that the additional treatment burden and costs of starting GnRH antagonist on CD 2 instead of on CD 6 are not justified, as early initiation of GnRH antagonist does not improve LBRs. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was partially supported by a grant from Merck Serono. O.H., M.J.C.E, A.V., P.A.D., R.E.B., G.J.E.O., C.A.G.H., G.C.D.M., H.J.V., P.F.M.H. and A.B. have nothing to declare. F.J.B. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Merck Serono, MSD and Roche. B.J.C. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Ferring, Merck Serono and MSD. C.B.L has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Auxogen, Ferring, Merck Serono and MSD. B.C.J.M.F. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Andromed, Ardana, Ferring, Genovum, Merck Serono, MSD, Organon, Pantharei Bioscience, PregLem, Schering, Schering Plough, Serono and Wyeth. J.S.E.L. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Ferring, Gennovum, MSD, Merck Serono, Organon, Schering Plough and Serono. N.S.M. has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Anecova, Ferring, Merck Serono, MSD, Organon and Serono. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: www.clinicaltrials.gov, no. NCT00866034.