Does 75 IU difference improve the cycle performance in poor responders? Comparison of daily 375 versus 450 IU gonadotrophin doses

References

• SurreyES, SchoolcraftWB. Evaluating strategies for improving ovarian response of the poor responder undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Fertil Steril 2000;73(4):667–676.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• LoutradisD, DrakakisP, VomvolakiE, AntsaklisA. Different ovarian stimulation protocols for women with diminished ovarian reserve. J Assist Reprod Genet 2007;24(12):597–611.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• FaberBM, MayerJ, CoxB, JonesD, TonerJP, OehningerS, MuasherSJ. Cessation of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist therapy combined with high-dose gonadotropin stimulation yields favorable pregnancy results in low responders. Fertil Steril 1998;69(5):826–830.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• LicciardiFL, LiuHC, RosenwaksZ. Day 3 estradiol serum concentrations as prognosticators of ovarian stimulation response and pregnancy outcome in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1995;64(5):991–994.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MukherjeeT, CoppermanAB, LapinskiR, SandlerB, BustilloM, GrunfeldL. An elevated day three follicle-stimulating hormone: luteinizing hormone ratio (FSH:LH) in the presence of a normal day 3 FSH predicts a poor response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Fertil Steril 1996;65(3):588–593.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• SeiferDB, Lambert-MesserlianG, HoganJW, GardinerAC, BlazarAS, BerkCA. Day 3 serum inhibin-B is predictive of assisted reproductive technologies outcome. Fertil Steril 1997;67(1):110–114.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• de VetA, LavenJS, de JongFH, ThemmenAP, FauserBC. Antimullerian hormone serum levels: a putative marker for ovarian aging. Fertil Steril 2002;77(2):357–362.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NavotD, RosenwaksZ, MargaliothEJ. Prognostic assessment of female fecundity. Lancet 1987;2(8560):645–647.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KarandeV, GleicherN. A rational approach to the management of low responders in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1999;14(7):1744–1748.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• FanchinR, de ZieglerD, OlivennesF, TaiebJ, DzikA, FrydmanR. Exogenous follicle stimulating hormone ovarian reserve test (EFORT): a simple and reliable screening test for detecting ‘poor responders’ in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1994;9(9):1607–1611.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• LassA, SkullJ, McVeighE, MargaraR, WinstonRM. Measurement of ovarian volume by transvaginal sonography before ovulation induction with human menopausal gonadotrophin for in-vitro fertilization can predict poor response. Hum Reprod 1997;12(2):294–297.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ChangMY, ChiangCH, HsiehTT, SoongYK, HsuKH. Use of the antral follicle count to predict the outcome of assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril 1998;69(3):505–510.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• PellicerA, ArdilesG, NeuspillerF, RemohiJ, SimonC, Bonilla-MusolesF. Evaluation of the ovarian reserve in young low responders with normal basal levels of follicle-stimulating hormone using three-dimensional ultrasonography. Fertil Steril 1998;70(4):671–675.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• EngmannL, SladkeviciusP, AgrawalR, BekirJS, CampbellS, TanSL. Value of ovarian stromal blood flow velocity measurement after pituitary suppression in the prediction of ovarian responsiveness and outcome of in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil Steril 1999;71(1):22–29.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• JenkinsJM, DaviesDW, DevonportH, AnthonyFW, GaddSC, WatsonRH, MassonGM. Comparison of ‘poor’ responders with ‘good’ responders using a standard buserelin/human menopausal gonadotrophin regime for in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1991;6(7):918–921.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• PellicerA, LightmanA, DiamondMP, RussellJB, DeCherneyAH. Outcome of in vitro fertilization in women with low response to ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril 1987;47(5):812–815.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ScottRT, NavotD. 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.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• SchoolcraftW, SchlenkerT, GeeM, StevensJ, WagleyL. Improved controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in poor responder in vitro fertilization patients with a microdose follicle-stimulating hormone flare, growth hormone protocol. Fertil Steril 1997;67(1):93–97.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• SurreyES, BowerJ, HillDM, RamseyJ, SurreyMW. Clinical and endocrine effects of a microdose GnRH agonist flare regimen administered to poor responders who are undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1998;69(3):419–424.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• DettiL, WilliamsDB, RobinsJC, MaxwellRA, ThomasMA. A comparison of three downregulation approaches for poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2005;84(5):1401–1405.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Ben-RafaelZ, StraussJF III, MastroianniL Jr, FlickingerGL. Differences in ovarian stimulation in human menopausal gonadotropin treated woman may be related to follicle-stimulating hormone accumulation. Fertil Steril 1986;46(4):586–592.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hassan-AliH, Hisham-SalehA, El-GezeiryD, BaghdadyI, IsmaeilI, MandelbaumJ. Perivitelline space granularity: a sign of human menopausal gonadotrophin overdose in intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum Reprod 1998;13(12):3425–3430.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• SchoolcraftWB, SurreyES, MinjarezDA, StevensJM, GardnerDK. Management of poor responders: can outcomes be improved with a novel gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist/letrozole protocol? Fertil Steril 2008;89(1):151–156.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• YaraliH, EsinlerI, PolatM, BozdagG, TirasB. Antagonist/letrozole protocol in poor ovarian responders for intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a comparative study with the microdose flare-up protocol. Fertil Steril 2009;92(1):231–235.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• FeldbergD, FarhiJ, AshkenaziJ, DickerD, ShalevJ, Ben-RafaelZ. Minidose gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist is the treatment of choice in poor responders with high follicle-stimulating hormone levels. Fertil Steril 1994;62(2):343–346.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• RombautsL, SuikkariAM, MacLachlanV, TrounsonAO, HealyDL. Recruitment of follicles by recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone commencing in the luteal phase of the ovarian cycle. Fertil Steril 1998;69(4):665–669.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• ZeleznikAJ, SchulerHM, ReichertLE Jr. Gonadotropin-binding sites in the rhesus monkey ovary: role of the vasculature in the selective distribution of human chorionic gonadotropin to the preovulatory follicle. Endocrinology 1981;109(2):356–362.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• LeeDW, GrassoP, DattatreyamurtyB, DezielMR, ReichertLE Jr. Purification of a high molecular weight follicle-stimulating hormone receptor-binding inhibitor from human follicular fluid. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1993;77(1):163–168.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• PellicerA, BallesterMJ, SerranoMD, MirA, Serra-SerraV, RemohiJ, Bonilla-MusolesFM. Aetiological factors involved in the low response to gonadotrophins in infertile women with normal basal serum follicle stimulating hormone levels. Hum Reprod 1994;9(5):806–811.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• MartinezF, BarriPN, CoroleuB, TurR, Sorsa-LeslieT, HarrisWJ, GroomeNP, KnightPG, FowlerPA. Women with poor response to IVF have lowered circulating gonadotrophin surge-attenuating factor (GnSAF) bioactivity during spontaneous and stimulated cycles. Hum Reprod 2002;17(3):634–640.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• LoutradisD, VomvolakiE, DrakakisP. Poor responder protocols for in-vitro fertilization: options and results. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2008;20(4):374–378.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• KyrouD, KolibianakisEM, VenetisCA, PapanikolaouEG, BontisJ, TarlatzisBC. How to improve the probability of pregnancy in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2009;91(3):749–766.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• TarlatzisBC, ZepiridisL, GrimbizisG, BontisJ. Clinical management of low ovarian response to stimulation for IVF: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2003;9(1):61–76.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• WeissmanA, FarhiJ, RoyburtM, NahumH, GlezermanM, LevranD. Prospective evaluation of two stimulation protocols for low responders who were undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 2003;79(4):886–892.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• MorgiaF, SbraciaM, SchimberniM, GiallonardoA, PiscitelliC, GianniniP, AragonaC. A controlled trial of natural cycle versus microdose gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog flare cycles in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2004;81(6):1542–1547.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• D'AmatoG, CaroppoE, PasquadibisceglieA, CaroneD, VittiA, VizzielloGM. 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.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• MalmusiS, La MarcaA, GiuliniS, XellaS, TagliasacchiD, MarsellaT, VolpeA. Comparison of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist and GnRH agonist flare-up regimen in poor responders undergoing ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril 2005;84(2):402–406.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• SchmidtDW, BremnerT, OrrisJJ, MaierDB, BenadivaCA, NulsenJC. A randomized prospective study of microdose leuprolide versus ganirelix in in vitro fertilization cycles for poor responders. Fertil Steril 2005;83(5):1568–1571.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• CheungLP, LamPM, LokIH, ChiuTT, YeungSY, TjerCC, HainesCJ. GnRH antagonist versus long GnRH agonist protocol in poor responders undergoing IVF: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2005;20(3):616–621.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• DragisicKG, DavisOK, FasouliotisSJ, RosenwaksZ. Use of a luteal estradiol patch and a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist suppression protocol before gonadotropin stimulation for in vitro fertilization in poor responders. Fertil Steril 2005;84(4):1023-1026.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• De PlacidoG, MolloA, ClariziaR, StrinaI, ConfortiS, AlviggiC. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist plus recombinant luteinizing hormone vs. a standard GnRH agonist short protocol in patients at risk for poor ovarian response. Fertil Steril 2006;85(1):247–250.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• DemirolA, GurganT. Comparison of microdose flare-up and antagonist multiple-dose protocols for poor-responder patients: a randomized study. Fertil Steril 2009;92(2):481–485.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• KahramanK, BerkerB, AtabekogluCS, SonmezerM, CetinkayaE, AytacR, SatirogluH. Microdose gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist flare-up protocol versus multiple dose gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in poor responders undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer cycle. Fertil Steril 2009;91(6):2437–2444.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• BerkkanogluM, OzgurK. What is the optimum maximal gonadotropin dosage used in microdose flare-up cycles in poor responders? Fertil Steril 2010;94(2):662–665.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• SonmezerM, OzmenB, CilAP, OzkavukcuS, TasciT, OlmusH, AtabekoğluCS. Dehydroepiandrosterone supplementation improves ovarian response and cycle outcome in poor responders. Reprod Biomed Online 2009;19(4):508–513.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• OzmenB, SonmezerM, AtabekogluCS, OlmusH. Use of aromatase inhibitors in poor-responder patients receiving GnRH antagonist protocols. Reprod Biomed Online 2009;19(4):478–485.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• MannJS, EngmannL, BenadivaCA, NulsenJC. Endogenous gonadotropin flare following microdose leuprolide (MDL) stimulation protocol does not correlate with in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcome. Fertil Steril 2010;94(6):2427–2429.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• HillierSG. Gonadotropic control of ovarian follicular growth and development. Mol Cell Endocrinol 2001;179(1-2):39–46.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• FilicoriM, CognigniGE, SamaraA, MelappioniS, PerriT, CantelliB, ParmegianiL, PelusiG, DeAloysioD. The use of LH activity to drive folliculogenesis: exploring uncharted territories in ovulation induction. Hum Reprod Update 2002;8(6):543–557.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• MochtarMH, Van derV, ZiechM, van WelyM. Recombinant luteinizing hormone (rLH) for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in assisted reproductive cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007;(2):CD005070.
   Google Scholar
• Recombinant human luteinizing hormone (LH) to support recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH)-induced follicular development in LH – and FSH-deficient anovulatory women: a dose-finding study. The European Recombinant Human LH Study Group. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1998;83(5):1507–1514.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• SonmezerM, Iltemir DuvanC, OzmenB, TasciT, OzkavukcuS, AtabekogluCS. Outcomes after early or midfollicular phase LH supplementation in previous inadequate responders. Reprod Biomed Online 2010;20(3):350–357.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar