Decision points for individualized hormonal stimulation with recombinant gonadotropins for treatment of women with infertility

References

• Zegers-Hochschild F, Adamson GD, Dyer S, et al. The International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care, 2017. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:1786–1801.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheong Y, Broadley R. Fertility testing and treatment decisions. In: Jha S, Ferriman E, editors. Medicolegal issues in obstetrics and gynaecology. Cham: Springer International Publishing AG; 2018. p. 297–299.
   Google Scholar
• Grisendi V, La Marca A. Individualization of controlled ovarian stimulation in vitro fertilization using ovarian reserve markers. Minerva Ginecol. 2017;69:250–258.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Popovic-Todorovic B, Racca A, Blockeel C. Added value today of hormonal measurements in ovarian stimulation in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist treatment cycle. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2018;30:145–150.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mol BW, Bossuyt PM, Sunkara SK, et al. Personalized ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology: study design considerations to move from hype to added value for patients. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:968–979.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Özcan P, Fiçicioğlu C, Ateş S, et al. The cutoff values of serum AMH levels and starting recFSH doses for the individualization of IVF treatment strategies. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2017;33:467–471.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahony M, Hayward B, Richter K, et al. Occurrence and characteristics of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (r-hFSH) dose adjustments during ovarian stimulation in a real-world US database study of 33,962 IVF patient cycles. Proceedings of the 34th Annual Meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology; 2018 Jul 1–4; Barcelona, Spain; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Use of exogenous gonadotropins in anovulatory women: a technical bulletin. Fertil Steril. 2009;90:S7–S12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. CG156: fertility problems: assessment and treatment; 2017; [cited 2018 Jul 5]. London: NICE. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg156/chapter/recommendations
   Google Scholar
• Youssef MA, van Wely M, Al-Inany H, et al. A mild ovarian stimulation strategy in women with poor ovarian reserve undergoing IVF: a multicenter randomized non-inferiority trial. Hum Reprod. 2017;32:112–118.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bou Nemer L, Weitzman VN, Arheart KL, et al. In vitro fertilization versus mild stimulation intrauterine insemination in women aged 40 and older. Reprod Sci. 2017;24:609–612.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu CX, Zhang T, Shu L, et al. Cumulative live birth rates per oocytes retrieved cycle: evaluation of clinical outcomes of IVF/ICSI. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi. 2018;53:160–166.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Steward RG, Lan L, Shah AA, et al. Oocyte number as a predictor for ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and live birth: an analysis of 256,381 in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:967–973.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Magnusson A, Kallen K, Thurin-Kjellberg A, et al. The number of oocytes retrieved during IVF: a balance between efficacy and safety. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:58–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou J, Wang B, Hu Y, et al. Association between the number of oocytes retrieved and cumulative live birth rate in women aged 35–40 years undergoing long GnRH agonist IVF/ICSI cycles. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2017;296:1005–1012.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Al-Inany HG, Youssef MA, Ayeleke RO, et al. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;4:CD001750.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lambalk CB, Banga FR, Huirne JA, et al. GnRH antagonist versus long agonist protocols in IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis accounting for patient type. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23:560–579.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Xiao J, Chang S, Chen S. The effectiveness of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist in poor ovarian responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1594–1601e1–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pundir J, Sunkara SK, El-Toukhy T, et al. Meta-analysis of GnRH antagonist protocols: do they reduce the risk of OHSS in PCOS? Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;24:6–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Youssef MA, Van der Veen F, Al-Inany HG, et al. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus HCG for oocyte triggering in antagonist assisted reproductive technology cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;1:CD008046.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alviggi C, Andersen CY, Buehler K, 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;105:1452–1453.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Humaidan P, Alviggi C, Fischer R, et al. The novel POSEIDON stratification of 'Low prognosis patients in Assisted Reproductive Technology' and its proposed marker of successful outcome. F1000Res. 2016;5:2911.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Polyzos NP, Sunkara SK. Sub-optimal responders following controlled ovarian stimulation: an overlooked group? Hum Reprod. 2015;30:2005–2008.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gat I, Shlush E, Quach K, et al. The continuum of high ovarian response: a rational approach to the management of high responder patient subgroups. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2015;61:336–344.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Teede H, Misso M, Costello M, et al. International evidence-based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome 2018. Melbourne: Monash University; 2018.
   Google Scholar
• Broekmans FJ, Verweij PJ, Eijkemans MJ, et al. Prognostic models for high and low ovarian responses in controlled ovarian stimulation using a GnRH antagonist protocol. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:1688–1697.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Broer SL, Mol BW, Hendriks D, et al. The role of antimullerian hormone in prediction of outcome after IVF: comparison with the antral follicle count. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:705–714.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nastri CO, Teixeira DM, Moroni RM, et al. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: pathophysiology, staging, prediction and prevention. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2015;45:377–393.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borth R, Lunenfeld B, De Watteville H. Day-to-day variation in urinary gonadotrophin and steroid levels during the normal menstrual cycle. Fertil Steril. 1957;8:233–254.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borth R, Lunenfeld B, Stamm O, et al. Gonadotrophin and steroid excretion in a case of twin pregnancy. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1959;38:417–423.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Blankstein J, Shalev J, Saadon T, et al. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: prediction by number and size of preovulatory ovarian follicles. Fertil Steril. 1987;47:597–602.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunkara SK, Rittenberg V, Raine-Fenning N, et al. Nomogram for predicting live birth from egg number: an analysis of 400,135 IVF cycles. Hum Reprod. 2011;1:i34.
   Google Scholar
• Arce J-C, Klein BM, La Marca A. The rate of high ovarian response in women identified at risk by a high serum AMH level is influenced by the type of gonadotropin. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2014;30:444–450.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunkara SK, La Marca A, Seed PT, et al. Increased risk of preterm birth and low birthweight with very high number of oocytes following IVF: an analysis of 65 868 singleton live birth outcomes. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:1473–1480.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Griesinger G, Schultz L, Bauer T, et al. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome prevention by gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist triggering of final oocyte maturation in a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in combination with a “freeze-all” strategy: a prospective multicentric study. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:2029–2033, 2033e1.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Herrero L, Pareja S, Losada C, et al. Avoiding the use of human chorionic gonadotropin combined with oocyte vitrification and GnRH agonist triggering versus coasting: a new strategy to avoid ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:1137–1140.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garcia-Velasco JA. Agonist trigger: what is the best approach? Agonist trigger with vitrification of oocytes or embryos. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:527–528.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, et al. ESHRE consensus on the definition of 'poor response' to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1616–1624.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Younis JS, Ben-Ami M, Ben-Shlomo I. The Bologna criteria for poor ovarian response: a contemporary critical appraisal. J Ovarian Res. 2015;8:76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Venetis CA. The Bologna criteria for poor ovarian response: the good, the bad and the way forward. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:1839–1841.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ferraretti AP, Gianaroli L. The Bologna criteria for the definition of poor ovarian responders: is there a need for revision? Hum Reprod. 2014;29:1842–1845.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Papathanasiou A. Implementing the ESHRE 'poor responder' criteria in research studies: methodological implications. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:1835–1838.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehert P, Chin W, Schertz J, et al. Predicting live birth for poor ovarian responders: the PROsPeR concept. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;37:43–52.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Polyzos NP, Sunkara SK. Reply: is it necessary to recognize the sub-optimal responder. Hum Reprod. 2015;30:2959.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Alviggi C, Conforti A, Esteves SC, et al. Recombinant luteinizing hormone supplementation in assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:644–664.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conforti A, Esteves SC, Di Rella F, et al. The role of recombinant LH in women with hypo-response to controlled ovarian stimulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2019;17:18.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lehert P, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, et al. Recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (r-hFSH) plus recombinant luteinizing hormone versus r-hFSH alone for ovarian stimulation during assisted reproductive technology: systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014;12:17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mochtar MH, Danhof NA, Ayeleke RO, et al. Recombinant luteinizing hormone (rLH) and recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) for ovarian stimulation in IVF/ICSI cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;5:CD005070.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Santi D, Casarini L, Alviggi C, et al. Efficacy of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) alone, FSH + luteinizing hormone, human menopausal gonadotropin or FSH + human chorionic gonadotropin on assisted reproductive technology outcomes in the “personalized” medicine era: a meta-analysis. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2017;8:114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Collaborating Centre for Women’s and Children’s Health. Fertility: assessment and treatment for people with fertility problems – NICE Clinical Guideline; 2013; [cited 2019 Mar 12]. London: NICE. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg156/evidence/full-guideline-pdf-188539453
   Google Scholar
• Yasmin E, Davies M, Conway G, et al. British Fertility Society. 'Ovulation induction in WHO Type 1 anovulation: guidelines for practice'. Produced on behalf of the BFS Policy and Practice Committee. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2013;16:228–234.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liu X, Tang C, Wen G, et al. The mechanism and pathways of dopamine and dopamine agonists in prolactinomas. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018;9:768.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohlen B, Bijkerk A, Van der Poel S, et al. IUI: review and systematic assessment of the evidence that supports global recommendations. Hum Reprod Update. 2018;24:300–319.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Effectiveness and treatment for unexplained infertility. Fertil Steril. 2006;86:S111–S114.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collège National des Gynécologues et Obstétriciens Français (CNGOF). Extrait des mises à jour en gynécologie et obstétrique. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod. 2010;39:S1–S342.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gerris J, Delvigne A, Dhont N, et al. Self-operated endovaginal telemonitoring versus traditional monitoring of ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction: an RCT. Hum Reprod. 2014;29:1941–1948.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jiang F, Jiang Y, Zhi H, et al. Artificial intelligence in healthcare: past, present and future. Stroke Vasc Neurol. 2017;2:230–243.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rigla M, Garcia-Saez G, Pons B, et al. Artificial intelligence methodologies and their application to diabetes. J Diabetes Sci Technol. 2018;12:303–310.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Contreras I, Vehi J. Artificial intelligence for diabetes management and decision support: literature review. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20:e10775.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fazal MI, Patel ME, Tye J, et al. The past, present and future role of artificial intelligence in imaging. Eur J Radiol. 2018;105:246–250.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mayo RC, Leung J. Artificial intelligence and deep learning – radiology's next frontier? Clin Imaging. 2018;49:87–88.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schild W, Lunenfeld B, Gavish G. Computer-aided diagnosis with an application to endocrinology. IBM J Res Dev. 1978;22:518–532.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schoolcraft W, Meseguer M, Alliance GF. Paving the way for a gold standard of care for infertility treatment: improving outcomes through standardization of laboratory procedures. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;35:391–399.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• VerMilyea MD, Tan L, Anthony JT, et al. Computer-automated time-lapse analysis results correlate with embryo implantation and clinical pregnancy: a blinded, multi-centre study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29:729–736.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Conaghan J, Chen AA, Willman SP, et al. Improving embryo selection using a computer-automated time-lapse image analysis test plus day 3 morphology: results from a prospective multicenter trial. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:412–419e5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Diamond MP, Suraj V, Behnke EJ, et al. Using the Eeva test adjunctively to traditional day 3 morphology is informative for consistent embryo assessment within a panel of embryologists with diverse experience. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2015;32:61–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Adamson GD, Abusief ME, Palao L, et al. Improved implantation rates of day 3 embryo transfers with the use of an automated time-lapse-enabled test to aid in embryo selection. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:369–375e6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aparicio-Ruiz B, Basile N, Perez Albala S, et al. Automatic time-lapse instrument is superior to single-point morphology observation for selecting viable embryos: retrospective study in oocyte donation. Fertil Steril. 2016;106:1379–1385e10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen AA, Tan L, Suraj V, et al. Biomarkers identified with time-lapse imaging: discovery, validation, and practical application. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:1035–1043.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simopoulou M, Sfakianoudis K, Maziotis E, et al. Are computational applications the “crystal ball” in the IVF laboratory? The evolution from mathematics to artificial intelligence. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35:1545.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Arvis P, Lehert P, Guivarc'h-Leveque A. Simple adaptations to the Templeton model for IVF outcome prediction make it current and clinically useful. Hum Reprod. 2012;27:2971–2978.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang Z, Dai C, Huang JY, et al. Robotic immobilization of motile sperm for clinical intracytoplasmic sperm injection. IEEE Trans Biomed Eng. 2018;66:444–452.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Roy TK, Brandi S, Peura TT, Chapter 20 Gavi-automated vitrification instrument. Methods Mol Biol. 2017;1568:261–277.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar