Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T14:33:53.753Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 17 - How to Individualize Ovarian Stimulation Protocols to Avoid Difficulties and Complications

from Section 3 - Difficulties and Complications of Ovarian Stimulation and Implantation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 April 2022

By
Suleiman Ghunaim ,
Raja Sayegh  and
Johnny Awwad
Edited by
Mohamed Aboulghar  and
Botros Rizk
Mohamed Aboulghar
Affiliation:
University of Cairo IVF Centre
Botros Rizk
Affiliation:
University of South Alabama
Get access

Summary

Traditionally, controlled ovarian stimulation in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment was designed in a standardized fashion taking into account the age and body weight of the patient. A standardized treatment protocol has been described as a “one-size-fits-all” approach that does not take into account inter-individual differences.

Type
Chapter
Information
Ovarian Stimulation , pp. 166 - 172
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2022

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Nelson, SM, Pastuszek, E, Kloss, G, et al. Two new automated, compared with two enzyme-linked immunosorbent, antimüllerian hormone assays. Fertil Steril 2015;104(4):1016–1021.Google Scholar
Iliodromiti, S, Salje, B, Dewailly, D, et al. Non-equivalence of anti-Müllerian hormone automated assays – clinical implications for use as a companion diagnostic for individualised gonadotrophin dosing. Hum Reprod 2017;32(8):1710–1715.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Broekmans, FJ, de Ziegler, D, Howles, CM, et al. The antral follicle count: practical recommendations for better standardization. Fert Steril 2010;94(3):1044–1051.Google Scholar
Haadsma, ML, Bukman, A, Groen, H, et al. The number of small antral follicles (2–6 mm) determines the outcome of endocrine ovarian reserve tests in a subfertile population. Hum Reprod 2007;22(7):1925–1931.Google Scholar
Bosch, E, Labarta, E, Pellicer, A. Does cumulative live birth plateau beyond a certain ovarian response? Fertil Steril 2017;108(6):943.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Drakopoulos, P, Blockeel, C, Stoop, D, et al. Conventional ovarian stimulation and single embryo transfer for IVF/ICSI. How many oocytes do we need to maximize cumulative live birth rates after utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos? Hum Reprod 2016;31(2):370–376.Google Scholar
Sunkara, SK, Rittenberg, V, Raine-Fenning, N, et al. Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod 2011;26(7):1768–1774.Google Scholar
Steward, RG, Lan, L, Shah, AA, et al. Oocyte number as a predictor for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and live birth: an analysis of 256,381 in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril 2014;101(4):967–973.Google Scholar
Baker, VL, Brown, MB, Luke, B, Conrad, KP. Association of number of retrieved oocytes with live birth rate and birth weight: an analysis of 231,815 cycles of in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2015;103(4):931–938.Google Scholar
Briggs, R, Kovacs, G, MacLachlan, V, Motteram, C, Baker, HG. Can you ever collect too many oocytes? Hum Reprod 2014;30(1):81–87.Google Scholar
Arce, JC, Andersen, AN, Fernández-Sánchez, M, et al. Ovarian response to recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone: a randomized, antimüllerian hormone–stratified, dose–response trial in women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 2014;102(6):1633–1640.Google Scholar
Kolibianakis, EM, Griesinger, G, Venetis, CA. GnRH antagonists vs. long GnRH agonists in IVF: significant flaws in a meta-analysis lead to invalid conclusions. Hum Reprod Update 2017;24(2):242–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolibianakis, EM, Venetis, CA, Kalogeropoulou, L, Papanikolaou, E, Tarlatzis, BC. Fixed versus flexible gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist administration in in vitro fertilization: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2011;95:558–562.Google Scholar
Al-Inany, HG, Youssef, MA, Ayeleke, RO, et al. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;4:CD001750.Google ScholarPubMed
Xiao, JS, Su, CM, Zeng, XT. Comparisons of GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol in supposed normal ovarian responders undergoing IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One 2014;9:e106854.Google Scholar
Lambalk, CB, Banga, FR, Huirne, JA, et al. GnRH antagonist versus long agonist protocols in IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis accounting for patient type. Hum Reprod Update 2017;23:560–579.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mol, BW, Bossuyt, PM, Sunkara, SK, et al. Personalized ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology: study design considerations to move from hype to added value for patients. Fertil Steril 2018;109(6):968–979.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Devroey, P, Tournaye, H, Van Steirteghem, A, Hendrix, P, Out, HJ. The use of a 100 IU starting dose of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon) in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1998;13:565–566.Google Scholar
Out, HJ, Lindenberg, S, Mikkelsen, AL, et al. A prospective, randomized, double-blind clinical trial to study the efficacy and efficiency of a fixed dose of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon) in women undergoing ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod 1999;14:622–627.Google Scholar
Out, HJ, Braat, DD, Lintsen, BM, et al. Increasing the daily dose of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon) does not compensate for the age-related decline in retrievable oocytes after ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod 2000;15:29–35.Google Scholar
Out, HJ, David, I, Ron-El, R, et al. A randomized, double blind clinical trial using fixed daily doses of 100 or 200 IU of recombinant FSH in ICSI cycles. Hum Reprod 2001;16:1104–1109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sterrenburg, MD, Veltman-Verhulst, SM, Eijkemans, MJ, et al. Clinical outcomes in relation to the daily dose of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization in presumed normal responders younger than 39 years: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2011;17:184–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Meer, M, Hompes, PG, Scheele, F, et al. Follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) dynamics of low dose step-up ovulation induction with FSH in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod 1994;9:1612–1617.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Popovic-Todorovic, B, Loft, A, Lindhard, A, et al. A prospective study of predictive factors of ovarian response in ‘standard’ IVF/ICSI patients treated with recombinant FSH. A suggestion for a recombinant FSH dosage normogram. Hum Reprod 2003;18:781–787.Google Scholar
Howles, CM, Saunders, H, Alam, V, Engrand, P; FSH Treatment Guidelines Clinical Panel. Predictive factors and a corresponding treatment algorithm for controlled ovarian stimulation in patients treated with recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (follitropin alfa) during assisted reproduction technology (ART) procedures. An analysis of 1378 patients. Curr Med Res Opin 2006;22:907–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Popovic-Todorovic, B, Loft, A, Ejdrup Bredkjæer, H, et al. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing an individual dose of recombinant FSH based on predictive factors versus a ‘standard’ dose of 150 IU/day in ‘standard’ patients undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. Hum Reprod 2003;18:2275–2282.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olivennes, F, Howles, CM, Borini, A, et al. Individualizing FSH dose for assisted reproduction using a novel algorithm: the CONSORT study. Reprod Biomed Online 2009;18:195–204.Google Scholar
Broekmans, FJ, Kwee, J, Hendriks, DJ, Mol, BW, Lambalk, CB. A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Update 2006;12:685–718.Google Scholar
Broer, SL, van Disseldorp, J, Broeze, KA, et al. Added value of ovarian reserve testing on patient characteristics in the prediction of ovarian response and ongoing pregnancy: an individual patient data approach. Hum Reprod Update 2013;19:26–36.Google Scholar
Aflatoonian, A, Oskouian, H, Ahmadi, S, Oskouian, L. Prediction of high ovarian response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: anti-Mullerian hormone versus small antral follicle count (2-6 mm). J Assist Reprod Genet 2009;26:319–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magnusson, A, Kallen, K, Thurin-Kjellberg, A, Bergh, C. The number of oocytes retrieved during IVF: a balance between efficacy and safety. Hum Reprod 2018;33:58–64.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Friis Petersen, J, Løkkegaard, E, Andersen, LF, et al. A randomized controlled trial of AMH-based individualized FSH dosing in a GnRH antagonist protocol for IVF. Hum Reprod Open 2019;2019(1):hoz003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyboe Andersen, A, Nelson, SM, Fauser, BC, et al. Individualized versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, assessor blinded, phase three non-inferiority trial. Fertil Steril 2017;107:396.e4.Google Scholar
Lensen, SF, Wilkinson, J, Leijdekkers, JA, et al. Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in vitro fertilization plus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;2:CD012693.Google Scholar
Lan, VT, Linh, NK, Tuong, HM, Wong, PC, Howles, CM. Anti-mullerian hormone versus antral follicle count for defining the starting dose of FSH. Reprod Biomed Online 2013;27:390–399.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Tilborg, TC, Torrance, HL, Oudshoorn, SC, et al. Individualized versus standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF/ICSI: an RCT. Part 1: The predicted poor responder. Hum Reprod 2017;32:2496–2505.Google Scholar
Youssef, MA, Van Wely, M, Al-Inany, H, et al. A mild ovarian stimulation strategy in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF: a multicenter randomized non-inferiority trial. Hum Reprod 2016;32(1):112–118.Google Scholar
Oudendijk, JF, Yarde, F, Eijkemans, MJ, Broekmans, FJ, Broer, SL. The poor responder in IVF: is the prognosis always poor? A systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2012;18:1–11.Google Scholar
Hamdine, O, Eijkemans, MJC, Lentjes, EGW, et al. Antimullerian hormone: prediction of cumulative live birth in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist treatment for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2015;104:898.e2.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Esteves, SC, Roque, M, Bedoschi, GM, et al. Defining low prognosis patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology: POSEIDON criteria–the why. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2018;9:461.Google Scholar
Mochtar, MH, Van der Veen, F, Ziech, M, van Wely, M, Musters, A. Recombinant luteinizing hormone (rLH) for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in assisted reproductive cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;2:CD005070.Google Scholar
Lahoud, R, Ryan, J, Illingworth, P, Quinn, F, Costello, M. Recombinant LH supplementation in patients with a relative reduction in LH levels during IVF/ICSI cycles: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2017;210:300–305.Google Scholar
Humaidan, P, Chin, W, Rogoff, D, et al. Efficacy and safety of follitropin alfa/lutropin alfa in ART: a randomized controlled trial in poor ovarian responders. Hum Reprod 2017;32:544–555.Google Scholar
Griesinger, G, Boostanfar, R, Gordon, K, et al. Corifollitropin alfa versus recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2016;33:56–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×