Flexible Antagonist versus Agonist Flare Protocol in Women above 40 Undergoing IVF, A retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVE: Several strategies have been proposed for ovarian stimulation in older women, such as using an increased daily dose of gonadotropins (300-450 IU per day) with GnRH agonist (long or micro dose flare protocols), or using GnRH antagonist protocols. The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of flexible GnRH antagonist protocol and GnRH agonist flare - pituitary block protocols for ovarian stimulation in women above 40 years old undergoing IVF. METHODS: This study was performed between January 2016 and February 2019. One hundred and fourteen women aged between 40 and 42 years who underwent IVF were divided into two groups; group I were treated by Flexible GnRH antagonist protocol (Antagonist group, n=68); and group II were treated by Flare GnRH agonist protocol (Flare group, n=46). RESULTS: Patients treated with the antagonist protocol had a significantly lower cancellation rate when compared with patients treated with flare agonist protocol (10.3% vs. 21.7%, p value 0.049). The other parameters evaluated did not show statistically significant differences. CONCLUSIONS: Our finding showed that both Flexible antagonist and Flare agonist protocols had comparable outcomes, with lower cycle cancellation rates for older patients treated with the antagonist protocol.

Prediction of metaphase II oocytes according to different serum Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels in antagonist ICSI cycles.

OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to assess a qualitative aspect of ovarian response in terms of metaphase II oocytes according to different serum Anti-Müllerian hormone levels in antagonist ICSI cycles. A prediction index might contribute to the individualization of care. METHODS: This observational study looked into 287 antagonist ICSI cycles carried out with patients treated in a single center between January of 2012 and January of 2016. Serum AMH and subgroup analyses were performed based on five AMH ranges (≤ 0.3 ng/mL;> 0.3 and ≤ 0.7 ng/mL; > 0.7 and ≤ 1.0 ng/mL; > 1.0 and < 3.0 ng/mL; ≥ 3.0 ng/mL). The variables analyzed included patient age; serum FSH and antral follicle count at the start of the cycle; number of stimulation days and number follicles ≥ 15 mm on hCG day; number of oocytes retrieved and number of metaphase II oocytes. RESULTS: AMH is a better predictor of ovarian response to controlled ovarian stimulation than AFC or serum FSH, while age is an independent marker. AMH levels ≤0.70 (patients with poor prognosis) were observed in 140 patients (48.7%). Patients within this AMH level range accounted for 92% of the 24 failed cycles (cancelled cycles, no oocytes or immature oocytes retrieved). CONCLUSION: AMH predicts the quality of ovarian response to stimulation, regardless of patient age. Women with AMH levels ≥1.0 and ≤3.0 ng/mL are probably normal responders with good prognosis. Clinical application relies on the examination of the data from each individual center and on the establishment of correlations between AMH levels and ovarian response in the form of metaphase II oocytes.