Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

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

  • ASSISTED REPRODUCTION
  • Published:
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

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

Method

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.

Results

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.

Conclusion

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

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Stillman RJ, Rosenberg MJ, Sachs BP. Smoking and reproduction. Fertil Steril. 1986;46:545–66.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. Scott RT, Hofmann GE. Prognostic assessment of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril. 1995;63:1–11.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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. 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.

  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.

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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..

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  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.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Monash University, Level 5, Monash Medical Centre, 246 Clayton Rd, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia

    Beverley Vollenhoven

  2. Department of Gynaecology, Southern Health, 246 Clayton Rd, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia

    Beverley Vollenhoven

  3. Monash IVF, Suite 1, 252 Clayton Rd, Clayton, Victoria, 3168, Australia

    Beverley Vollenhoven, Tiki Osianlis & James Catt

Authors
  1. Beverley Vollenhoven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Tiki Osianlis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. James Catt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Beverley Vollenhoven.

Additional information

Capsule The type of stimulation regime, be it down regulation, boost or GnRH-antagonist does not improve IVF success for patients classified as poor responders.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Vollenhoven, B., Osianlis, T. & Catt, J. Is there an ideal stimulation regimen for IVF for poor responders and does it change with age?. J Assist Reprod Genet 25, 523–529 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-008-9274-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-008-9274-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation