Is there an ideal stimulation regimen for IVF for poor responders and does it change with age?




To determine whether there is a superior treatment modality for ‘poor’ responders.


Retrospective analysis of three stimulation regimens, with patients stratified based on age, stimulation regime and response in previous cycles (“poor’ responder or “non poor” responder). Fertilisation, embryo utilisation and clinical pregnancy rates were assessed. There were a total of 1,608 cycles in the ‘poor’ responder and 8,489 cycles in the ‘non poor’ responder groups.


In ‘poor’ responders there was no significant difference in fertilisation rate, nor utilisation rate between the three stimulation regimes and no differences in the pregnancy rate/initiated cycle irrespective of age and stimulation regimen in any of the groups. ‘Non poor’ responders had a significantly greater pregnancy rate/initiated cycle for all stimulation regimens in both age groups compared with ‘poor’ responders.


This large retrospective study of ‘poor’ responders has not shown a difference in pregnancy rates/initiated cycle between stimulation regimens.


IVF success Poor responder Stimulation regimen 


  1. 1.
    Garcia JE, Jones GS, Acosta AA, Wright G. HMG/HCG follicular maturation for oocytes aspiration: phase II, 1981. Fertil Steril. 1983;39:174–1791.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Keay SD, Liversedge NH, Mathur RS, Jemkins JM. Assisted conception following poor ovarian response to gonadotrophin stimulation. Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104:521–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sharara FI, Beatse SN, Leonard MR, Navot D, Scott RT. Cigarette smoking accelerates the development of diminished ovarian reserve as evidenced by clomiphene citrate challenge test. Fertil Steril. 1994;62:257–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Stillman RJ, Rosenberg MJ, Sachs BP. Smoking and reproduction. Fertil Steril. 1986;46:545–66.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Nikolaou D, Templeton A. Early ovarian ageing: A hypothesis. Detection and clinical relevance.. Hum Reprod. 2003;18:1137–9. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deg245.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Speroff L, Glass RL, Kase NG. Clinical Gynaecologic Endocrinology and Infertility. 6th Edition. Baltimore, MD: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, 19995. Nikolaou D, Templeton A: Early ovarian ageing: A hypothesis. Detection and clinical relevance. Hum Reprod 2003;18:1137–9. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deg245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Lee DW, Grasso P, Dattatreyamurty B, Deziel MR, Reichert LE Jr. Purification of a high molecular weight FSH-receptor binding inhibitor, from human follicular fluid. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1993;77:160–8. doi: 10.1210/jc.77.1.163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Zeleznik AJ, Schuler HM, Reichter LE. Gonatotrophin binding sites in the rhesus monkey ovary; role of the vasculature in the selective distribution of HCG to the preovulatory follicle. Endocrinology. 1981;109:356–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hernandez ER, Hurwitz A, Vera A, Pellicer A, Adashi EY, LeRoith D, et al. Expression of the genes encoding the IGFs and their receptors in the human ovary. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1992;74419–25doi: 10.1210/jc.74.2.419.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Scott RT, Hofmann GE, Oehninger S, Muasher SJ.. Intercycle variability of day 3 follicle-stimulating hormone concentrations and its effect on stimulation quality in in-vitro fertilization. Fertility &. Sterility 1990;54:297–302.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scott RT, Hofmann GE. Prognostic assessment of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril. 1995;63:1–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Seifer DB, Lambert-Mersserlian G, Hogan J, Gardiner AC, Blazar AS. Day 3 serum inhibin-B is predictive of assisted reproductive technologies outcome. Fertil Steril. 1997;67:110–4. doi: 10.1016/S0015–0282(97)81865–1.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Seifer DB, Maclaughlin DT. Mullerian inhibiting substance is an ovarian growth factor of emerging clinical significance. Fertil Steril. 2007;88:539–46. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.02.014.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Van Rooij IAJ, Broekmans FJM, te Velde ER, Fauser BCJM, Bancsi LFJMM, de jong FH. Serum antimullerian hormone levels: a novel measure of ovarian reserve. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:3065–71. doi: 10.1093/humrep/17.12.3065.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Franco JG Jr, Baruffi RL, Mauri AL, et al. GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in poor responders: a meta analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13:618–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Griesinger G, Diedrich K, Tarlatzis BC, Kolibianakis EM. GnRH-antagonists in ovarian stimulation for IVF in patients with poor response to gonadotrophins, polycystic ovary syndrome, and risk of ovarian hyperstimulation: A meta analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13:628–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mahutte NG, Arici A. Role of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists in poor responders. Fertil Steril. 2007;87:241–9. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2006.07.1457.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shanbhag S, Aucott L, Bhattacharya S, Hamilton MA, McTavish AR. Interventions for ‘poor responders’ to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). Cochrane Database Syst Rev Issue 2007;1:CD004379. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004379.pub2.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tarlatzis BC, Kirou D, Venetis CA. Management of poor response: Facts or myths In Advances in Fertility Studies and Reproductive Medicine, IFFS 2007 In: Kruger TF, Van Der Spuy Z, Kempers RD editors. Juta & Co Ltd; 2007. p. 311–318.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Daya S. Gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist protocols for pituitary desensitization in an in vitro fertilization and gamete intrafallopian transfer cycles (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1, 2000. Oxford: Update Software.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Akman MA, Erden HF, Tosun SB, Bayazitet N, Aksoy E, Bahceci M. Comparison of agonistic flare-up protocol and antagonistic multiple dose protocol in ovarian stimulation of poor responders: results of a prospective randomized trial. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:868–70. doi: 10.1093/humrep/16.5.868.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Cheung LP, Lam PM, Lok IH, et al. GnRH antagonist versus long GnRH agonist protocols in poor responders undergoing IVF: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:616–21. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh668.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Surrey ES, Schoolcraft WB. Evaluating strategies for improving ovarian response of the poor responder undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:667–76. doi: 10.1016/S0015–0282(99)00630–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Klinkert ER, Broekmans FJ, Bllman CW, Te Venlde ER. A poor response in the first in vitro fertilization cycle is not necessarily related to a poor prognosis in subsequent cycles. Fertil Steril 2004;81:1247–53. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.10.030.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Weissman A, Farhi J, Royburt M, et al. Prospective evaluation of 2 stimulation protocols for low responders who were undergoing in-vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2003;79:886–92. doi: 10.1016/S0015–0282(02)04928–2..PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dirnfield M, Gonen Y, Lissak A, Goldman S, Koifman M, Sorokin Y. A randomized prospective study on the effect of short and long buserelin treatment in women with repeated unsuccessful in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles due to inadequate ovarian response. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf. 1991;8:339–43. doi: 10.1007/BF01133025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mohamed KA, Davies WA, Allsopp J, Lashen H. Agonist “flare-up” versus antagonist in the management of poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:331–5. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.07.963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dirnfield M, Fruchter O, Yshai D, et al. Cessation of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue (GnRH-a) upon down-regulation versus conventional long GnRH: A protocol in poor responders undergoing in vitro-fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1999;72:406–11. doi: 10.1016/S0015–0282(99)00289–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Garcia-Velasco JA, Isaza V, Requena A, et al. High doses of gonadotrophins combined with stop versus non-stop protocol of GnRH analogue administration in low responder IVF patients; a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:2292–6. doi: 10.1093/humrep/15.11.2292.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Akman MA, Erden HF, Tosun SB, Bayazit N, Aksoy E, Bahceci M. Addition of GnRH antagonist in cycles of poor responders undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:2145–7. doi: 10.1093/humrep/15.10.2145.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Morgia F, Sbracia M, Schimberni M. A controlled trial of natural cycle versus microdose gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analog flare cycles in poor responders undergoing in-vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:1542–7. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2003.11.031.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bendikson K, Milki AA, Speck-Zulak A, Westphal LM. Comparison of GnRH antagonist cycles with or without oral contraceptive pre-treatment in potential poor prognosis patients. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2006;33:145–7. doi: 10.1016/j.ogc.2005.12.008.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beverley Vollenhoven
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Tiki Osianlis
    • 3
  • James Catt
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Obstetrics and GynaecologyMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  2. 2.Department of GynaecologySouthern HealthClaytonAustralia
  3. 3.Monash IVF, Suite 1ClaytonAustralia

Personalised recommendations