Halenur BOZDAĞ, Belgin DEVRANOĞLU, Esra AKDENİZ, Nazan YURTÇU, Nurullah PEKER

What did change in poor ovarian responders according to Bologna criteria over the 5 years? A tertiary IVF center experience

Objective: The objective of the study was to evaluate the changes in the prevalence, management strategies, and cycle outcomes of the cycle with the poor ovarian re- sponse (POR). Material and Methods: This study was retrospectively designed. Poor responder in- fertile women who fulfilled Bologna criteria were included in the study. Data were ob- tained from medical records of infertile couples who underwent the intracytoplasmic sperm injection and embryo transfer program from January 2014 to December 2018. Results: Totally 776 cycles with POR were evaluated. The changing trend in the prev- alence of the cycle with POR was estimated by rejecting the null hypothesis that there is no linear trend in the proportion of poor cycles across years (χ2(1)=9.28, p=0.002). A linear increasing trend in the proportion of poor cycles in the 5 years was found. A linear increase in the prefer of the antagonist protocol was found (χ2(1)=6.61, p=0.010), whereas there was a linear decrease in the minimal stimulation protocol with Clomiphene Citrate (χ2(1)=11.028, p

PDF

___

1. Garcia JE, Jones GS, Acosta AA, Wright G Jr. Human menopausal go- nadotropin/human chorionic gonadotropin follicular maturation for oo- cyte aspiration: Phase II, 1981. Fertil Steril 1983;39:174–9.
2. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L, et al. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovari- an stimulation for in vitro fertilization: The Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod 2011;26:1616–24.
3. Boza A, Oguz SY, Misirlioglu S, Yakin K, Urman B. Utilization of the Bologna criteria: A promise unfulfilled? A review of published and unpub- lished/ongoing trials. Fertil Steril 2018;109:104–9.e2.
4. Poseidon Group (Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing Individu- alizeD Oocyte Number), Alviggi C, Andersen CY, Buehler K, Conforti A, De Placido G, 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;105:1452–3.
5. Keay SD, Liversedge NH, Mathur RS, Jenkins JM. Assisted conception following poor ovarian response to gonadotrophin stimulation. Br J Ob- stet Gynaecol 1997;104:521–7.
6. Venetis CA, Kolibianakis EM, Tarlatzi TB, Tarlatzis BC. Evi- dence-based management of poor ovarian response. Ann N Y Acad S 2010;1205:199–206.
7. Patrizio P, Vaiarelli A, Levi Setti PE, Tobler KJ, Shoham G, Leong M, et al. How to define, diagnose and treat poor responders? Responses from a worldwide survey of IVF clinics. Reprod Biomed Online 2015;30:581– 92.
8. Oudendijk JF, Yarde F, Eijkemans MJ, Broekmans FJ, Broer SL. The poor responder in IVF: Is the prognosis always poor?: A systematic re- view. Hum Reprod Update 2012;18:1–11.
9. Papathanasiou A, Searle BJ, King NM, Bhattacharya S. Trends in ‘poor responder’ research: Lessons learned from RCTs in assisted concep- tion. Hum Reprod Update 2016;22:306–19.
10. Butts SF, Ratcliffe S, Dokras A, Seifer DB. Diagnosis and treatment of diminished ovarian reserve in assisted reproductive technology cycles of women up to age 40 years: The role of insurance mandates. Fertil Steril 2013;99:382–8.
11. Devine K, Mumford SL, Wu M, DeCherney AH, Hill MJ, Propst A. Dimin- ished ovarian reserve in the United States assisted reproductive tech- nology population: Diagnostic trends among 181,536 cycles from the society for assisted reproductive technology clinic outcomes reporting system. Fertil Steril 2015;104:612–9.e3.
12. Hu L, Bu Z, Guo Y, Su Y, Zhai J, Sun Y. Comparison of different ovarian hyperstimulation protocols efficacy in poor ovarian responders accord- ing to the Bologna criteria. Int J Clin Exp Med 2014;7:1128–34.
13. La Marca A, Grisendi V, Giulini S, Sighinolfi G, Tirelli A, Argento C, et al. Live birth rates in the different combinations of the Bologna crite- ria poor ovarian responders: A validation study. J Assist Reprod Genet 2015;32:931–7.
14. Kocourkova J, Burcin B, Kucera T. Demographic relevancy of increased use of assisted reproduction in European countries. Reprod Health 2014;11:37.
15. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National center for health statistics. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/key_statis- tics/i_2015-2017.htm#infertilityservices. Accessed Aug 24, 2021.
16. Niederberger C, Pellicer A, Cohen J, Gardner DK, Palermo GD, O’Neill CL, et al. Forty years of IVF. Fertil Steril 2018;110:185–324.e5.
17. Bozdağ H, Akdeniz E, Devranoğlu B, Haksever M, Bilgiç BE, Kutlu HT. Cytoplasmic abnormalities of mature oocytes have a significant effect on fertilization in Bologna poor responders. Turk J Med Sci 2018;48:750–8.
18. Cakmak H, Tran ND, Zamah AM, Cedars MI, Rosen MP. A novel “de- layed start” protocol with gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist improves outcomes in poor responders. Fertil Steril 2014;101:1308–14.
19. Alpha Scientists in Reproductive Medicine and ESHRE Special Inter- est Group of Embryology. The Istanbul consensus workshop on em- bryo assessment: Proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod 2011;26:1270–83.
20. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Assisted reproductive tech- nology national summary report 2010. Available at: https://www.cdc. gov/art/ART2010/PDFs/ART_2010_National_Summary_Report.pdf. Ac- cessed Aug 24, 2021.
21. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Assisted reproductive tech- nology national summary report 2016. Available at: https://www.cdc. gov/art/ART2016/PDFs/ART_2016_National_Summary_Report.pdf. Ac- cessed Aug 24, 2021.
22. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Assisted reproductive tech- nology national summary report 2017. Available at: https://www.cdc. gov/art/ART2017/PDFs/ART_2017_National_Summary_Report.pdf. Ac- cessed Aug 24, 2021.
23. Broer SL, van Disseldorp J, Broeze KA, Dolleman M, Opmeer BC, Bossuyt P, et al. Added value of ovarian reserve testing on patient char- acteristics in the prediction of ovarian response and ongoing pregnancy: An individual patient data approach. Hum Reprod Update 2013;19:26– 36.
24. Ferraretti AP, Nygren K, Andersen AN, de Mouzon J, Kupka M, Cal- haz-Jorge C, et al. Trends over 15 years in ART in Europe: An analysis of 6 million cycles. Hum Reprod Open 2017;2017:hox012.
25. Ubaldi FM, Cimadomo D, Vaiarelli A, Fabozzi G, Venturella R, Maggiulli R, et al. Advanced maternal age in IVF: Still a challenge? The present and the future of its treatment. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2019;10:94.
26. Osman E, Franasiak J, Scott R. Oocyte and embryo manipulation and epigenetics. Semin Reprod Med 2018;36:e1–e9.
27. Kawamura K, Ishizuka B, Hsueh AJW. Drug-free in-vitro activation of follicles for infertility treatment in poor ovarian response patients with decreased ovarian reserve. Reprod Biomed Online 2020;40:245–53.
28. La Marca A, Sunkara SK. Individualization of controlled ovarian stimula- tion in IVF using ovarian reserve markers: From theory to practice. Hum Reprod Update 2014;20:124–40.
29. Li R, Gong F, Zhu Y, Fang W, Yang J, Liu J, et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone for prediction of ovarian response in Chinese infertile women undergo- ing IVF/ICSI cycles: A prospective, multi-centre, observational study. Reprod Biomed Online 2016;33:506–12.
30. Nelson SM, Klein BM, Arce JC. Comparison of antimüllerian hormone levels and antral follicle count as predictor of ovarian response to con- trolled ovarian stimulation in good-prognosis patients at individual fertil- ity clinics in two multicenter trials. Fertil Steril 2015;103:923–30.e1.
31. Keltz M, Sauerbrun-Cutler MT, Breborowicz A. Managing poor respond- ers in IVF. Exp Rev Obstet Gynecol 2013;8:121–34.
32. Pandian Z, McTavish AR, Aucott L, Hamilton MP, Bhattacharya S. In- terventions for ‘poor responders’ to controlled ovarian hyper stimula- tion (COH) in in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;CD004379.
33. Pu D, Wu J, Liu J. Comparisons of GnRH antagonist versus GnRH ag- onist protocol in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod 2011;26:2742–9.
34. Kamath MS, Maheshwari A, Bhattacharya S, Lor KY, Gibreel A. Oral medications including clomiphene citrate or aromatase inhibitors with gonadotropins for controlled ovarian stimulation in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;11:CD008528.
35. Selçuk S, Bostancı E, Küçükbaş M, Bilgiç BE, Kutlu HT, Devranoğlu B, et al. Comparison of outcomes of KOH/IUI and IVF treatment in ad- vanced age infertile women. Zeynep Kamil Med J 2016;47:60–5.
36. Peker N, Turan G, Ege S, Bademkıran MH, Karaçor T, Erel Ö. The effect of clomiphene citrate on oxidative stress parameters in polycystic ovari- an syndrome. J Obstet Gynaecol 2021;41:112–7.
37. Peker N, Ege S, Bademkiran MH, Aydin E, Karacor T, Obut M, et al. Can clomiphene citrate resistance be predicted by RDW-CV levels in infertile women with PCOS? Niger J Clin Pract 2019;22:1463–6.
38. Van Wely M, Westergaard LG, Bossuyt PM, Van der Veen F. Human menopausal gonadotropin versus recombinant follicle stimulation hor- mone for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003;CD003973