Shifting Paradigms in Diminished Ovarian Reserve and Advanced Reproductive Age in Assisted Reproduction: Customization Instead of Conformity

Beverly G. Reed; Samir N. Babayev; Orhan Bukulmez

doi:10.1055/s-0035-1552585

Seminars in Reproductive Medicine, Table of Contents

Semin Reprod Med 2015; 33(03): 169-178
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1552585

Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Shifting Paradigms in Diminished Ovarian Reserve and Advanced Reproductive Age in Assisted Reproduction: Customization Instead of Conformity

Beverly G. Reed

¹Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas

,

Samir N. Babayev

¹Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas

,

Orhan Bukulmez

¹Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, Texas

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

As women are increasingly delaying childbearing into their 30s and beyond, diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) and advanced reproductive age (ARA) patients are bound to become a large proportion of all assisted reproductive technology practices. Traditional controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocols for DOR and/or ARA have had some limited success, but pregnancy rates are lower and cycle cancellation rates are higher than their younger counterparts with normal ovarian reserve. Though many physicians have a selection of favorite standard protocols that they use, patients with DOR may require closer monitoring and customization of the treatment cycle to address the common problems that come with low ovarian reserve. Frequent issues that surface in women with DOR and/or ARA include poor follicular response, premature luteinizing hormone surge, and poor embryo quality. Limited published evidence exists to guide treatment for DOR. However, use of minimal or mild doses of gonadotropins, avoidance of severe pituitary suppression, and consideration for luteal phase stimulation and a “freeze all” approach are possible customized treatment options that can be considered for such patients who have failed more traditional COS protocols.

Keywords

diminished ovarian reserve - poor responder - advanced reproductive age - minimal stimulation - luteal phase stimulation

Full Text

References

References
1 Nabukera S, Wingate MS, Alexander GR, Salihu HM. First-time births among women 30 years and older in the United States: patterns and risk of adverse outcomes. J Reprod Med 2006; 51 (9) 676-682
2 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJ, Curtin SC, Matthews TJ. Births: final data for 2013. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2015; 64 (1) 1-65
3 Faddy MJ, Gosden RG, Gougeon A, Richardson SJ, Nelson JF. Accelerated disappearance of ovarian follicles in mid-life: implications for forecasting menopause. Hum Reprod 1992; 7 (10) 1342-1346
4 Dunson DB, Colombo B, Baird DD. Changes with age in the level and duration of fertility in the menstrual cycle. Hum Reprod 2002; 17 (5) 1399-1403
5 Rowe T. Fertility and a woman's age. J Reprod Med 2006; 51 (3) 157-163
6 Seifer DB, Baker VL, Leader B. Age-specific serum anti-Müllerian hormone values for 17,120 women presenting to fertility centers within the United States. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (2) 747-750
7 Wallace WH, Kelsey TW. Human ovarian reserve from conception to the menopause. PLoS ONE 2010; 5 (1) e8772
8 Battaglia DE, Goodwin P, Klein NA, Soules MR. Influence of maternal age on meiotic spindle assembly in oocytes from naturally cycling women. Hum Reprod 1996; 11 (10) 2217-2222
9 Angell RR. Aneuploidy in older women. Higher rates of aneuploidy in oocytes from older women. Hum Reprod 1994; 9 (7) 1199-1200
10 Cramer SF, Patel A. The frequency of uterine leiomyomas. Am J Clin Pathol 1990; 94 (4) 435-438
11 Kuohung W, Jones GL, Vitonis AF , et al. Characteristics of patients with endometriosis in the United States and the United Kingdom. Fertil Steril 2002; 78 (4) 767-772
12 Muzii L, Achilli C, Lecce F , et al. Second surgery for recurrent endometriomas is more harmful to healthy ovarian tissue and ovarian reserve than first surgery. Fertil Steril 2015; 103 (3) 738-743
13 Oktay K, Oktem O. Ovarian cryopreservation and transplantation for fertility preservation for medical indications: report of an ongoing experience. Fertil Steril 2010; 93 (3) 762-768
14 Kushnir VA, Khanna P, Barad DH, Gleicher N. Establishment of comparative performance criteria for IVF centers: correlation of live birth rates in autologous and donor oocyte IVF cycles. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2014; 12: 122
15 Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L ; 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) 1616-1624
16 Loutradis D, Drakakis P, Vomvolaki E, Antsaklis A. Different ovarian stimulation protocols for women with diminished ovarian reserve. J Assist Reprod Genet 2007; 24 (12) 597-611
17 Tarlatzis BC, Zepiridis L, Grimbizis G, Bontis J. Clinical management of low ovarian response to stimulation for IVF: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2003; 9 (1) 61-76
18 Hofmann GE, Toner JP, Muasher SJ, Jones GS. High-dose follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) ovarian stimulation in low-responder patients for in vitro fertilization. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 1989; 6 (5) 285-289
19 Crosignani PG, Ragni G, Lombroso GC , et al. IVF: induction of ovulation in poor responders. J Steroid Biochem 1989; 32 (1B) 171-173
20 Scott RT, Navot D. Enhancement of ovarian responsiveness with microdoses of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist during ovulation induction for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1994; 61 (5) 880-885
21 Hill MJ, McWilliams GD, Miller KA, Scott Jr RT, Frattarelli JL. A luteal estradiol protocol for anticipated poor-responder patients may improve delivery rates. Fertil Steril 2009; 91 (3) 739-743
22 Haas J, Zilberberg E, Machtinger R, Kedem A, Hourvitz A, Orvieto R. Do poor-responder patients benefit from increasing the daily gonadotropin dose during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for IVF?. Gynecol Endocrinol 2015; 31 (1) 79-82
23 Baart EB, Martini E, Eijkemans MJ , et al. Milder ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization reduces aneuploidy in the human preimplantation embryo: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2007; 22 (4) 980-988
24 Handyside AH, Montag M, Magli MC , et al. Multiple meiotic errors caused by predivision of chromatids in women of advanced maternal age undergoing in vitro fertilisation. Eur J Hum Genet 2012; 20 (7) 742-747
25 Hill MJ, Levens ED, Levy G , et al. The use of recombinant luteinizing hormone in patients undergoing assisted reproductive techniques with advanced reproductive age: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2012; 97 (5) 1108-14.e1
26 Mochtar MH, , Van der Veen, Ziech M, van Wely M. Recombinant luteinizing hormone (rLH) for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in assisted reproductive cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007; 2 (2) CD005070

27 Vuong TN, Phung HT, Ho MT. Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and recombinant luteinizing hormone versus recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone alone during GnRH antagonist ovarian stimulation in patients aged ≥35 years: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2015; 30 (5) 1188-1195
28 Tabata C, Fujiwara T, Sugawa M , et al. Comparison of FSH and hMG on ovarian stimulation outcome with a GnRH antagonist protocol in younger and advanced reproductive age women. Reprod Med Biol 2015; 14: 5-9
29 Papaleo E, Vanni VS, Viganò P , et al. Recombinant LH administration in subsequent cycle after “unexpected” poor response to recombinant FSH monotherapy. Gynecol Endocrinol 2014; 30 (11) 813-816
30 Gomaa H, Casper RF, Esfandiari N, Chang P, Bentov Y. Addition of low dose hCG to rFSh benefits older women during ovarian stimulation for IVF. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2012; 10: 55
31 Balasch J, Fábregues F, Peñarrubia J , et al. Pretreatment with transdermal testosterone may improve ovarian response to gonadotrophins in poor-responder IVF patients with normal basal concentrations of FSH. Hum Reprod 2006; 21 (7) 1884-1893
32 Kara M, Aydin T, Aran T, Turktekin N, Ozdemir B. Does dehydroepiandrosterone supplementation really affect IVF-ICSI outcome in women with poor ovarian reserve?. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014; 173: 63-65
33 Poli E, Manfé S, Capuzzo D , et al. DHEA pre-treated patients, poor responders to a first IVF (ICSI) cycle: clinical results. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2014; 41 (1) 5-9
34 Yeung TW, Chai J, Li RH, Lee VC, Ho PC, Ng EH. A randomized, controlled, pilot trial on the effect of dehydroepiandrosterone on ovarian response markers, ovarian response, and in vitro fertilization outcomes in poor responders. Fertil Steril 2014; 102 (1) 108-115.e1
35 Duffy JM, Ahmad G, Mohiyiddeen L, Nardo LG, Watson A. Growth hormone for in vitro fertilization. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; 4 (1) CD000099
36 Eftekhar M, Aflatoonian A, Mohammadian F, Eftekhar T. Adjuvant growth hormone therapy in antagonist protocol in poor responders undergoing assisted reproductive technology. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2013; 287 (5) 1017-1021
37 Kim CH, You RM, Kang HJ , et al. GnRH antagonist multiple dose protocol with oral contraceptive pill pretreatment in poor responders undergoing IVF/ICSI. Clin Exp Reprod Med 2011; 38 (4) 228-233
38 Vlahos N, Papalouka M, Triantafyllidou O , et al. Dehydroepiandrosterone administration before IVF in poor responders: a prospective cohort study. Reprod Biomed Online 2015; 30 (2) 191-196
39 Xu B, Li Z, Yue J , et al. Effect of dehydroepiandrosterone administration in patients with poor ovarian response according to the Bologna criteria. PLoS ONE 2014; 9 (6) e99858
40 Venetis CA, Kolibianakis EM, Tarlatzi TB, Tarlatzis BC. Evidence-based management of poor ovarian response. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2010; 1205: 199-206
41 Madden JD, Milewich L, Parker Jr CR, Carr BR, Boyar RM, Mac Donald PC. The effect of oral contraceptive treatment on the serum concentration of dehydroisoandrosterone sulfate. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1978; 132 (4) 380-384
42 Griesinger G, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis C, Diedrich K, Tarlatzis B. Oral contraceptive pretreatment significantly reduces ongoing pregnancy likelihood in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles: an updated meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (6) 2382-2384
43 Reichman DE, Zakarin L, Chao K, Meyer L, Davis OK, Rosenwaks Z. Diminished ovarian reserve is the predominant risk factor for gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist failure resulting in breakthrough luteinizing hormone surges in in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril 2014; 102 (1) 99-102
44 von Wolff M, Thaler CJ, Frambach T , et al. Ovarian stimulation to cryopreserve fertilized oocytes in cancer patients can be started in the luteal phase. Fertil Steril 2009; 92 (4) 1360-1365
45 Bedoschi GM, de Albuquerque FO, Ferriani RA, Navarro PA. Ovarian stimulation during the luteal phase for fertility preservation of cancer patients: case reports and review of the literature. J Assist Reprod Genet 2010; 27 (8) 491-494
46 Anderson RA, Kinniburgh D, Baird DT. Preliminary experience of the use of a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist in ovulation induction/in-vitro fertilization prior to cancer treatment. Hum Reprod 1999; 14 (10) 2665-2668
47 Kuang Y, Hong Q, Chen Q , et al. Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation is feasible for producing competent oocytes in women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment, with optimal pregnancy outcomes in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril 2014; 101 (1) 105-111
48 Fridén BE, Nilsson L. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone-antagonist luteolysis during the preceding mid-luteal phase is a feasible protocol in ovarian hyperstimulation before in vitro fertilization. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 2005; 84 (8) 812-816
49 Winkler N, Bukulmez O, Hardy DB, Carr BR. Gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonists suppress aromatase and anti-Müllerian hormone expression in human granulosa cells. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (5) 1832-1839
50 Xu B, Li Y. Flexible ovarian stimulation in a poor responder: a case report and literature review. Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 26 (4) 378-383
51 Kuang Y, Chen Q, Hong Q , et al. Double stimulations during the follicular and luteal phases of poor responders in IVF/ICSI programmes (Shanghai protocol). Reprod Biomed Online 2014; 29 (6) 684-691
52 Kucuk T, Sozen E. Luteal start of exogenous FSH in poor responder women. J Assist Reprod Genet 2007; 24 (12) 635-638
53 Revelli A, Chiadò A, Dalmasso P , et al. “Mild” vs. “long” protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in patients with expected poor ovarian responsiveness undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF): a large prospective randomized trial. J Assist Reprod Genet 2014; 31 (7) 809-815
54 Macklon NS, Fauser BC. Mild stimulation in in vitro fertilization. Ann N Y Acad Sci 2003; 997: 105-111
55 Zarek SM, Muasher SJ. Mild/minimal stimulation for in vitro fertilization: an old idea that needs to be revisited. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (8) 2449-2455
56 Zhang J, Chang L, Sone Y, Silber S. Minimal ovarian stimulation (mini-IVF) for IVF utilizing vitrification and cryopreserved embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online 2010; 21 (4) 485-495
57 Hu L, Bu Z, Guo Y, Su Y, Zhai J, Sun Y. Comparison of different ovarian hyperstimulation protocols efficacy in poor ovarian responders according to the Bologna criteria. Int J Clin Exp Med 2014; 7 (4) 1128-1134
58 Kato K, Takehara Y, Segawa T , et al. Minimal ovarian stimulation combined with elective single embryo transfer policy: age-specific results of a large, single-centre, Japanese cohort. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2012; 10: 35
59 D'Amato G, Caroppo E, Pasquadibisceglie A, Carone D, Vitti A, Vizziello GM. A novel protocol of ovulation induction with delayed gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist administration combined with high-dose recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and clomiphene citrate for poor responders and women over 35 years. Fertil Steril 2004; 81 (6) 1572-1577
60 Takahashi K, Mukaida T, Tomiyama T, Goto T, Oka C. GnRH antagonist improved blastocyst quality and pregnancy outcome after multiple failures of IVF/ICSI-ET with a GnRH agonist protocol. J Assist Reprod Genet 2004; 21 (9) 317-322
61 Craft I, Gorgy A, Hill J, Menon D, Podsiadly B. Will GnRH antagonists provide new hope for patients considered ‘difficult responders’ to GnRH agonist protocols?. Hum Reprod 1999; 14 (12) 2959-2962
62 Check JH, Choe JK, Cohen R. Successful pregnancy following a single fresh embryo transfer in a 45-year-old woman whose early follicular phase serum follicle stimulating hormone was 29 mIU/ml. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2011; 38 (4) 335-337
63 Check JH, Chern R, Amui J. Successful pregnancy following in vitro fertilization embryo transfer in a 46-year-old woman with diminished oocyte reserve as evidenced by a high day 3 serum estradiol. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol 2011; 38 (3) 209-210
64 Schachter M, Friedler S, Raziel A, Strassburger D, Bern O, Ron-el R. Improvement of IVF outcome in poor responders by discontinuation of GnRH analogue during the gonadotropin stimulation phase—a function of improved embryo quality. J Assist Reprod Genet 2001; 18 (4) 197-204
65 Yanagimachi R. Intracytoplasmic injection of spermatozoa and spermatogenic cells: its biology and applications in humans and animals. Reprod Biomed Online 2005; 10 (2) 247-288
66 Artini PG, Obino ME, Carletti E , et al. Conventional IVF as a laboratory strategy to rescue fertility potential in severe poor responder patients: the impact of reproductive aging. Gynecol Endocrinol 2013; 29 (11) 997-1001
67 Babayev SN, Park CW, Bukulmez O. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection indications: how rigorous?. Semin Reprod Med 2014; 32 (4) 283-290
68 Greco E, Litwicka K, Arrivi C , et al. Accumulation of oocytes from a few modified natural cycles to improve IVF results: a pilot study. J Assist Reprod Genet 2013; 30 (11) 1465-1470
69 Chatziparasidou A, Nijs M, Moisidou M , et al. Accumulation of oocytes and/or embryos by vitrification: a new strategy for managing poor responder patients undergoing pre implantation diagnosis. F1000 Res 2013; 2: 240
70 Cobo A, Garrido N, Crespo J, José R, Pellicer A. Accumulation of oocytes: a new strategy for managing low-responder patients. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 24 (4) 424-432
71 Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Restrepo H, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C. Matched-cohort comparison of single-embryo transfers in fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril 2013; 99 (2) 389-392
72 Roque M, Lattes K, Serra S , et al. Fresh embryo transfer versus frozen embryo transfer in in vitro fertilization cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2013; 99 (1) 156-162
73 Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C. Clinical rationale for cryopreservation of entire embryo cohorts in lieu of fresh transfer. Fertil Steril 2014; 102 (1) 3-9
74 Barnhart KT. Introduction: are we ready to eliminate the transfer of fresh embryos in in vitro fertilization?. Fertil Steril 2014; 102 (1) 1-2
75 Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Elective single-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2012; 97 (4) 835-842
76 Papathanasiou A. Implementing the ESHRE ‘poor responder’ criteria in research studies: methodological implications. Hum Reprod 2014; 29 (9) 1835-1838
77 Frydman R, Nargund G. Mild approaches in assisted reproduction—better for the future?. Fertil Steril 2014; 102 (6) 1540-1541