Management strategies for POSEIDON patients with poor ovarian response to ovarian stimulation: а literature review
- 作者: Dumanskaya Y.A.1, Kalugina A.S.2
-
隶属关系:
- Aymed Medical Center Ltd.
- Academician I.P. Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University
- 期: 卷 73, 编号 2 (2024)
- 页面: 119-128
- 栏目: Reviews
- URL: https://journal-vniispk.ru/jowd/article/view/259261
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.17816/JOWD546865
- ID: 259261
如何引用文章
详细
A poor ovarian response to ovarian stimulation is a factor that significantly reduces the effectiveness of in vitro fertilization programs. Managing these patients remains an unresolved issue in assisted reproductive technology programs. The difficulties are largely determined by the heterogeneity of groups of patients with a poor ovarian response and the need for a personalized approach to ovarian stimulation. This review covers the data from the global literature on the management tactics of patients with a poor ovarian response according to the POSEIDON classification, with the aim of increasing the quantity and quality of retrieved oocytes and clinical pregnancy rates.
作者简介
Yuliya Dumanskaya
Aymed Medical Center Ltd.
编辑信件的主要联系方式.
Email: julia_vgmu@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-6893-0659
MD, Cand. Sci. (Med.)
俄罗斯联邦, 13 Stakhanovtsev St., Saint Petersburg, 195196Alla Kalugina
Academician I.P. Pavlov First Saint Petersburg State Medical University
Email: alla19021962@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4796-7812
SPIN 代码: 3214-1641
Scopus 作者 ID: 56667466000
MD, Dr. Sci. (Med.), Professor
俄罗斯联邦, Saint Petersburg参考
- Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Ubaldi N, et al. What is new in the management of poor ovarian response in IVF? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2018;30(3):155–162. doi: 10.1097/gco.0000000000000452
- Sugurova AT, Yashchuk AG, Khusainov RI. Clinical and genetic aspects of the problem of ovarian response when using assisted reproductive technologies. Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2020;20(6):48-55. (In Russ.) EDN: JCTAVR doi: 10.17116/rosakush20202006148
- Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, et al.; ESHRE working group on Poor Ovarian Response Definition. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1616–24. doi: 10.1093/humrep/der092
- Poseidon Group (Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number), Alviggi C, Andersen CY, et al. A new more detailed stratification of low responders to ovarian stimulation: from a poor ovarian response to a low prognosis concept. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(6):1452–1453. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.005
- Boudry L, Racca A, Tournaye H, et al. Type and dose of gonadotropins in poor ovarian responders: does it matter? Ther Adv Reprod Health. 2021;15. doi: 10.1177/26334941211024203
- Nazarenko TA, Krasnopol’skaia KV. Modification of ovarian stimulation schemes: Indications and efficiency. Russian Bulletin of Obstetrician-Gynecologist. 2017;17(5):57-61. (In Russ.) EDN: ZNGXMF doi: 10.17116/rosakush201717557-61
- La Marca A, Sighinolfi G, Argento C, et al. Polymorphisms in gonadotropin and gonadotropin receptor genes as markers of ovarian reserve and response in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(4):970–978. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.01.086
- Perez Mayorga M, Gromoll J, Behre HM, et al. Ovarian response to follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) stimulation depends on the FSH receptor genotype. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2000;85(9):3365–3369. doi: 10.1210/jcem.85.9.6789
- Simoni M, Nieschlag E, Gromoll J. Isoforms and single nucleotide polymorphisms of the FSH receptor gene: implications for human reproduction. Hum Reprod Update. 2002;8(5):413–421. doi: 10.1093/humupd/8.5.413
- Lunenfeld B, Bilger W, Longobardi S, et al. Decision points for individualized hormonal stimulation with recombinant gonadotropins for treatment of women with infertility. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2019;35(12):1027–1036. doi: 10.1080/09513590.2019.1650345
- Polyzos NP, Sunkara SK. Sub-optimal responders following controlled ovarian stimulation: an overlooked group? Hum Reprod. 2015;30(9):2005–2008. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dev149
- Mohiyiddeen L, Newman WG, McBurney H, et al. Follicle-stimulating hormone receptor gene polymorphisms are not associated with ovarian reserve markers. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(3):677–681. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.12.040
- Polyzos NP, Drakopoulos P. Management Strategies for POSEIDON’s Group 1. Front Endocrinol. 2019;10:679. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2019.00679
- Alviggi C, Conforti A, Esteves SC, et al. Understanding ovarian hypo-response to exogenous gonadotropin in ovarian stimulation and its new proposed marker — the follicle-To-Oocyte (FOI) index. Front Endocrinol. 2018;17(9):589. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2018.00589
- Behre HM, Greb RR, Mempel A, et al. Significance of a common single nucleotide polymorphism in exon 10 of the follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) receptor gene for the ovarian response to FSH: a pharmacogenetic approach to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2005;15(7):451–456. doi: 10.1097/01.fpc.0000167330.92786.5e
- Drakopoulos P, Santos-Ribeiro S, Bosch E, et al. The effect of dose adjustments in a subsequent cycle of women with suboptimal response following conventional ovarian stimulation. Front Endocrinol. 2018;9:361. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2018.00361
- Alviggi C, Clarizia R, Pettersson K, et al. Suboptimal response to GnRHa long protocol is associated with a common LH polymorphism. Reprod Biomed Online. 2009;18(1):9–14. doi: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60418-x
- Alviggi C, Pettersson K, Longobardi S, et al. A common polymorphic allele of the LH beta-subunit gene is associated with higher exogenous FSH consumption during controlled ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2013;11(1):51. doi: 10.1186/1477-7827-11-51
- Papaleo E, Vanni VS, Vigano P, et al. Recombinant LH administration in subsequent cycle after “unexpected” poor response to recombinant FSH monotherapy. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2014;30(11):813–816. doi: 10.3109/09513590.2014.932342
- De Placido G, Alviggi C, Perino A, et al. Recombinant human LH supplementation versus recombinant human FSH (rFSH) step-up protocol during controlled ovarian stimulation in normogonadotrophic women with initial inadequate ovarian response to rFSH. A multicentre, prospective, randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(2):390–396. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh625
- Devroey P, Pellicer A, Nyboe AA, et al. A randomized assessorblind trial comparing highly purified hMG and recombinant FSH in a GnRH antagonist cycle with compulsory single-blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2012;97(3):561–571. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.12.016
- Lehert P, Schertz JC, Ezcurra D. Recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone produces more oocytes with a lower total dose per cycle in assisted reproductive technologies compared with highly purified human menopausal gonadotrophin: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2010;8(1):112. doi: 10.1186/1477-7827-8-112
- Hompes PG, Broekmans FJ, Hoozemans DA, et al. Effectiveness of highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin vs. recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in first-cycle in vitro fertilizationintracytoplasmic sperm injection patients. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(6):1685–1693. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.05.039
- Platteau P, Andersen AN, Balen A, et al. Similar ovulation rates, but different follicular development with highly purified menotrophin compared with recombinant FSH in WHO Group II anovulatory infertility: a randomized controlled study. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(7):1798–1804. doi: 10.1093/humrep/del085
- Conforti A, Esteves SC, Cimadomo D, et al. Management of women with an unexpected low ovarian response to gonadotropin. Front Endocrinol. 2019;10:387. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2019.00387
- Alviggi C, Conforti A, Santi D, et al. Clinical relevance of genetic variants of gonadotropins and their receptors in controlled ovarian stimulation: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2018;24(5):599–614. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmy019
- Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Trabucco E, et al. Double stimulation in the same ovarian cycle (DuoStim) to maximize the number of oocytes retrieved from poor prognosis patients: a multicenter experience and SWOT analysis. Front Endocrinol. 2018;9:317. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2018.00317
- Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Argento C, et al. Double stimulation in the same ovarian cycle (DuoStim) is an intriguing strategy to improve oocyte yield and the number of competent embryos in a short timeframe. Minerva Ginecol. 2019;71(5):372–376. doi: 10.23736/s0026-4784.19.04390-9
- Baerwald AR, Adams GP, Pierson RA. Ovarian antral folliculogenesis during the human menstrual cycle: a review. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18(1):73–91. doi: 10.1093/humupd/dmr039
- Ubaldi FM, Capalbo A, Vaiarelli A, et al. Follicular versus luteal phase ovarian stimulation during the same menstrual cycle (DuoStim) in a reduced ovarian reserve population results in a similar euploid blastocyst formation rate: new insight in ovarian reserve exploitation. Fertil Steril. 2016;105(6):1488–1495. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.03.002
- Cimadomo D, Vaiarelli A, Colamaria S, et al. Luteal phase anovulatory follicles result in the production of competent oocytes: intra-patient paired case-control study comparing follicular versus luteal phase stimulations in the same ovarian cycle. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(8):1442–1448. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dey217
- Boots CE, Meister M, Cooper AR, et al. Ovarian stimulation in the luteal phase: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016;33(8):971–980. doi: 10.1007/s10815-016-0721-5
- Conforti A, Esteves SC, Picarelli S, et al. Novel approaches for diagnosis and management of low prognosis patients in assisted reproductive technology: the POSEIDON concept. Panminerva Med. 2019;61(1):24–29. doi: 10.23736/s0031-0808.18.03511-5
- Kim C-H, Kim S-R, Cheon Y-P, et al. Minimal stimulation using gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist and recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone versus GnRH antagonist multiple-dose protocol in low responders undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 2009;92(6):2082–2084. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.06.005
- Morgia F, Sbracia M, Schimberni M, et al. A controlled trial of natural cycle versus microdose gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog flare cycles in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(6):1542–1547. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.11.031
- Barash OO, Hinckley MD, Rosenbluth EM, et al. High gonadotropin dosage does not affect euploidy and pregnancy rates in IVF PGS cycles with single embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(11):2209–2217. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex299
- Labarta E, Bosch E, Alamá P, et al. Moderate ovarian stimulation does not increase the incidence of human embryo chromosomal abnormalities in in vitro fertilization cycles. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2012;97(10):E1987–E1994. doi: 10.1210/jc.2012-1738
- Sekhon L, Shaia K, Santistevan A, et al. The cumulative dose of gonadotropins used for controlled ovarian stimulation does not influence the odds of embryonic aneuploidy in patients with normal ovarian response. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34(6):749–758. doi: 10.1007/s10815-017-0909-3
- Wu Q, Li H, Zhu Y, et al. Dosage of exogenous gonadotropins is not associated with blastocyst aneuploidy or live-birth rates in PGS cycles in Chinese women. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(10):1875–1882. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dey270
- Polyzos NP, Blockeel C, Verpoest W, et al. Live birth rates following natural cycle IVF in women with poor ovarian response according to the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2012;27(12):3481–3486. doi: 10.1093/humrep/des318
- 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(7):544–555. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex208
- Alsbjerg B, Haahr T, Elbaek HO, et al. Dual stimulation using corifollitropin alfa in 54 Bologna criteria poor ovarian responders — a case series. Reprod Biomed Online. 2019;38(5):677–682. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.01.007
- Pu D, Wu J, Liu J. Comparisons of GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(10):2742–2749. doi: 10.1093/humrep/der240
- Sunkara SK, Coomarasamy A, Faris R, et al. Long gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus short agonist versus antagonist regimens in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2014;101(1):147–153. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.035
- Garcia-Velasco JA, Bermejo A, Ruiz F, et al. Cycle scheduling with oral contraceptive pills in the GnRH antagonist protocol vs the long protocol: a randomized, controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2011;96(3):590–593. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.06.022
- Hauzman EE, Zapata A, Bermejo A, et al. Cycle scheduling for in vitro fertilization with oral contraceptive pills versus oral estradiol valerate: a randomized, controlled trial. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2013;11(1):96. doi: 10.1186/1477-7827-11-96
- De Geyter C, Fehr P, Moffat R, et al. Twenty years’ experience with the Swiss data registry for assisted reproductive medicine: outcomes, key trends and recommendations for improved practice. Swiss Med Wkly. 2015;145. doi: 10.4414/smw.2015.14087
- 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. doi: 10.1093/humrep/der106
- Huang M-C, Tzeng S-L, Lee C-I, et al. GnRH agonist long protocol versus GnRH antagonist protocol for various aged patients with diminished ovarian reserve: a retrospective study. PLoS ONE. 2018;13(11). doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207081
- Mignini Renzini M, Brigante C, Coticchio G, et al. Retrospective analysis of treatments with recombinant FSH and recombinant LH versus human menopausal gonadotropin in women with reduced ovarian reserve. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2017;34(12):1645–1651. doi: 10.1007/s10815-017-1034-z
补充文件
