Update on the management of poor ovarian response in IVF: the shift from Bologna criteria to the Poseidon concept

Panagiotis Drakopoulos, Erlisa Bardhi, Liese Boudry, Alberto Vaiarelli, Antonis Makrigiannakis, Sandro C Esteves, Herman Tournaye, Christophe Blockeel, Panagiotis Drakopoulos, Erlisa Bardhi, Liese Boudry, Alberto Vaiarelli, Antonis Makrigiannakis, Sandro C Esteves, Herman Tournaye, Christophe Blockeel

Abstract

Despite the considerate progress to which assisted reproduction technology (ART) has been subject since 1978, some issues remain unresolved. Notably, the clinical management of patients with a poor ovarian response is still a challenge in everyday practice, frustrating to both the patient and the fertility expert. Poor ovarian responders (PORs) embody 9-24% of patients undergoing ovarian stimulation, meaning that up to one in four patients conceals a poor reproductive prognosis. The last decade has witnessed the attempts of the medical community to standardize diagnosis of POR with the developing of the Bologna Criteria and the subsequent evolution of the low prognosis patient elaborated in the POSEIDON classification. The aim of this article is to summarize all evidence concerning etiology and management of poor ovarian response, including the most recent advances and future prospects in this regard.

Keywords: Bologna criteria; IVF; Poseidon classification; poor ovarian responder (POR); poor ovarian response.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest statement: The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

© The Author(s), 2020.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
SWOT analysis of the novel POSEIDON criteria.

References

    1. Ubaldi FM, Rienzi L, Ferrero S, et al. Management of poor responders in IVF. Reprod Biomed Online 2005; 10: 235–246.
    1. Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Ubaldi N, et al. What is new in the management of poor ovarian response in IVF. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2018; 30: 155–162.
    1. Blumenfeld Z. What is the best regimen for ovarian stimulation of poor responders in ART/IVF. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2020; 11: 192.
    1. Blumenfeld Z. Premature ovarian failure: etiology and possible prevention. Expert Rev Endocrinol Metab 2009; 4: 173–181.
    1. Goswami D, Conway GS. Premature ovarian failure. Hum Reprod Update 2005; 11: 391–410.
    1. Lee HC, Lyndon A, Blumenfeld YJ, et al. Antenatal steroid administration for premature neonates in California. Obstet Gynecol 2011; 117: 603–609.
    1. Skillern A, Rajkovic A. Recent developments in identifying genetic determinants of premature ovarian failure. Sex Dev 2008; 2: 228–243.
    1. Drakopoulos P, Vuong TNL, Ho NAV, et al. Corifollitropin alfa followed by highly purified HMG versus recombinant FSH in young poor ovarian responders: a multicentre randomized controlled clinical trial. Hum Reprod 2017; 32: 2225–2233.
    1. Polyzos NP, Devroey P. A systematic review of randomized trials for the treatment of poor ovarian responders: is there any light at the end of the tunnel. Fertil Steril 2011; 96: 1058–1061.
    1. 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.
    1. La Marca A, Grisendi V, Giulini S, et al. Live birth rates in the different combinations of the Bologna criteria poor ovarian responders: a validation study. J Assist Reprod Genet 2015; 32: 931–937.
    1. Polyzos NP, Nwoye M, Corona R, et al. Live birth rates in Bologna poor responders treated with ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI. Reprod Biomed Online 2014; 28: 469–474.
    1. Busnelli A, Papaleo E, Del Prato D, et al. A retrospective evaluation of prognosis and cost-effectiveness of IVF in poor responders according to the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod 2015; 30: 315–322.
    1. Boza A, Oguz SY, Misirlioglu S, et al. Utilization of the Bologna criteria: a promise unfulfilled? A review of published and unpublished/ongoing trials. Fertil Steril 2018; 109: 104–109.
    1. Frydman R. Poor responders: still a problem. Fertil Steril 2011; 96: 1057.
    1. Papathanasiou A. Implementing the ESHRE “poor responder” criteria in research studies: methodological implications. Hum Reprod 2014; 29: 1835–1838.
    1. Younis JS. The Bologna criteria for poor ovarian response; has the job been accomplished? Hum Reprod 2012; 27: 1874–1875; author reply 1875–1876.
    1. Bozdag G, Polat M, Yarali I, et al. Live birth rates in various subgroups of poor ovarian responders fulfilling the Bologna criteria. Reprod Biomed Online 2017; 34: 639–644.
    1. Romito A, Bardhi E, Errazuriz J, et al. Heterogeneity among poor ovarian responders according to Bologna criteria results in diverging cumulative live birth rates. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2020; 11: 208.
    1. Xu B, Chen Y, Geerts D, et al. Cumulative live birth rates in more than 3,000 patients with poor ovarian response: a 15-year survey of final in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 2018; 109: 1051–1059.
    1. Polyzos NP, Corona R, Van De Vijver A, et al. Corifollitropin alfa followed by hpHMG in GnRH agonist protocols. Two prospective feasibility studies in poor ovarian responders. Gynecol Endocrinol 2015; 31: 885–890.
    1. Polyzos NP, Drakopoulos P, Tournaye H. Modified natural cycle IVF for poor ovarian responders: rethink before concluding. Hum Reprod 2016; 31: 221–222.
    1. Errázuriz J, Romito A, Drakopoulos P, et al. Cumulative live birth rates following stimulation with corifollitropin alfa compared with hp-hMG in a GnRH antagonist protocol in poor ovarian responders. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2019; 10: 175.
    1. Errázuriz J, Drakopoulos P, Pening D, et al. Pituitary suppression protocol among Bologna poor responders undergoing ovarian stimulation using corifollitropin alfa: does it play any role. Reprod Biomed Online 2019; 38: 1010–1017.
    1. Poseidon Group (Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number), Alviggi C, Andersen CY, 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.
    1. 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.
    1. Esteves SC, Carvalho JF, Bento FC, et al. A novel predictive model to estimate the number of mature oocytes required for obtaining at least one euploid blastocyst for transfer in couples undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: the ART calculator. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2019; 10: 99.
    1. Esteves SC, Yarali H, Ubaldi FM, et al. Validation of ART calculator for predicting the number of metaphase II oocytes required for obtaining at least one euploid blastocyst for transfer in couples undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2019; 10: 917.
    1. Haahr T, Dosouto C, Alviggi C, et al. Management strategies for POSEIDON groups 3 and 4. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2019; 10: 614.
    1. Alsbjerg B, Haahr T, Elbaek HO, et al. Dual stimulation using corifollitropin alfa in 54 Bologna criteria poor ovarian responders—a case series. Reprod Biomed Online 2019; 38: 677–682.
    1. Pu D, Wu J, Liu J. Comparisons of GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod 2011; 26: 2742–2749.
    1. 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.
    1. Sunkara SK, Coomarasamy A, Faris R, et al. Long gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus short agonist versus antagonist regimens in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2014; 101: 147–153.
    1. Humaidan P, La Marca A, Alviggi C, et al. Future perspectives of POSEIDON stratification for clinical practice and research. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2019; 10: 439.
    1. Blockeel C, Riva A, De Vos M, et al. Administration of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist during the 3 days before the initiation of the in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment cycle: impact on ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 1714–1719.
    1. Fischer R, Nakano FY, Roque M, et al. A quality management approach to controlled ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology: the “Fischer protocol.” Panminerva Med 2019; 61: 11–23.
    1. Ubaldi F, Vaiarelli A, D’Anna R, et al. Management of poor responders in IVF: is there anything new. Biomed Res Int 2014; 2014: 352098.
    1. Group EREG. Guideline on ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI. Grimbergen: European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology, 2019.
    1. Berkkanoglu M, Ozgur K. What is the optimum maximal gonadotropin dosage used in microdose flare-up cycles in poor responders. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 662–665.
    1. Baker VL, Brown MB, Luke B, et al. Gonadotropin dose is negatively correlated with live birth rate: analysis of more than 650,000 assisted reproductive technology cycles. Fertil Steril 2015; 104: 1145–1152.e5.
    1. Bosch E, Labarta E, Crespo J, et al. Impact of luteinizing hormone administration on gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles: an age-adjusted analysis. Fertil Steril 2011; 95: 1031–1036.
    1. Hill MJ, Levens ED, Levy G, et al. The use of recombinant luteinizing hormone in patients undergoing assisted reproductive techniques with advanced reproductive age: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2012; 97: 1108–1114.e1.
    1. 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.
    1. Humaidan P, Chin W, Rogoff D, et al. Efficacy and safety of follitropin alfa/lutropin alfa in ART: a randomized controlled trial in poor ovarian responders. Hum Reprod 2017; 32: 544–555.
    1. 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.
    1. Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Comparison of pregnancy rates for poor responders using IVF with mild ovarian stimulation versus conventional IVF: a guideline. Fertil Steril 2018; 109: 993–999.
    1. Zhang Y, Zhang C, Shu J, et al. Adjuvant treatment strategies in ovarian stimulation for poor responders undergoing IVF: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2020; 26: 247–263.
    1. Drakopoulos P, Romito A, Errázuriz J, et al. Modified natural cycle IVF versus conventional stimulation in advanced-age Bologna poor responders. Reprod Biomed Online 2019; 39: 698–703.
    1. Polyzos NP, Blockeel C, Verpoest W, et al. Live birth rates following natural cycle IVF in women with poor ovarian response according to the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod 2012; 27: 3481–3486.
    1. Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Trabucco E, et al. Double stimulation in the same ovarian cycle (DuoStim) to maximize the number of oocytes retrieved from poor prognosis patients: a multicenter experience and SWOT analysis. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2018; 9: 317.
    1. Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Conforti A, et al. Luteal phase after conventional stimulation in the same ovarian cycle might improve the management of poor responder patients fulfilling the Bologna criteria: a case series. Fertil Steril 2020; 113: 121–130.
    1. Yeung T, Chai J, Li R, et al. A double-blind randomised controlled trial on the effect of dehydroepiandrosterone on ovarian reserve markers, ovarian response and number of oocytes in anticipated normal ovarian responders. BJOG 2016; 123: 1097–1105.
    1. Zhang M, Niu W, Wang Y, et al. Dehydroepiandrosterone treatment in women with poor ovarian response undergoing IVF or ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Assist Reprod Genet 2016; 33: 981–991.
    1. Nagels HE, Rishworth JR, Siristatidis CS, et al. Androgens (dehydroepiandrosterone or testosterone) for women undergoing assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015: CD009749.
    1. Polyzos NP, Davis SR, Drakopoulos P, et al. Testosterone for poor ovarian responders: lessons from ovarian physiology. Reprod Sci 2018; 25: 980–982.
    1. Drakopoulos P, Pluchino N, Bischof P, et al. Effect of growth hormone on endometrial thickness and fertility outcome in the treatment of women with panhypopituitarism: a case report. J Reprod Med 2016; 61: 78–82.
    1. Mason HD, Martikainen H, Beard RW, et al. Direct gonadotrophic effect of growth hormone on oestradiol production by human granulosa cells in vitro. J Endocrinol 1990; 126: R1–R4.
    1. Bachelot A, Monget P, Imbert-Bolloré P, et al. Growth hormone is required for ovarian follicular growth. Endocrinology 2002; 143: 4104–4112.
    1. Norman RJ, Alvino H, Hull LM, et al. Human growth hormone for poor responders: a randomized placebo-controlled trial provides no evidence for improved live birth rate. Reprod Biomed Online 2019; 38: 908–915.
    1. Xu Y, Nisenblat V, Lu C, et al. Pretreatment with coenzyme Q10 improves ovarian response and embryo quality in low-prognosis young women with decreased ovarian reserve: a randomized controlled trial. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2018; 16: 29.
    1. Sfakianoudis K, Simopoulou M, Nitsos N, et al. A case series on platelet-rich plasma revolutionary management of poor responder patients. Gynecol Obstet Invest 2019; 84: 99–106.
    1. Stojkovska S, Dimitrov G, Stamenkovska N, et al. Live birth rates in poor responders’ group after previous treatment with autologous platelet-rich plasma and low dose ovarian stimulation compared with poor responders used only low dose ovarian stimulation before in vitro fertilization. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2019; 7: 3184–3188.
    1. Kawamura K, Cheng Y, Suzuki N, et al. Hippo signaling disruption and Akt stimulation of ovarian follicles for infertility treatment. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2013; 110: 17474–17479.
    1. 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: 245–253.
    1. Bardhi E, Blockeel C, Cools W, et al. Is ovarian response associated with adverse perinatal outcomes in GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI cycles? Reprod Biomed Online. Epub ahead of print 11 April 2020. DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.03.010.
    1. Perez Mayorga M, Gromoll J, Behre HM, et al. Ovarian response to follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) stimulation depends on the FSH receptor genotype. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2000; 85: 3365–3369.
    1. Alviggi C, Humaidan P, Howles CM, et al. Biological versus chronological ovarian age: implications for assisted reproductive technology. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2009; 7: 101.
    1. Alviggi C, Pettersson K, Longobardi S, et al. A common polymorphic allele of the LH beta-subunit gene is associated with higher exogenous FSH consumption during controlled ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2013; 11: 51.
    1. Lindgren I, Bååth M, Uvebrant K, et al. Combined assessment of polymorphisms in the LHCGR and FSHR genes predict chance of pregnancy after in vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 2016; 31: 672–683.
    1. Sunkara SK, Polyzos NP. OPTIMIST trial: optimistic evidence? Hum Reprod 2018; 33: 983–984.
    1. Romanski PA, Farland LV, Tsen LC, et al. Effect of class III and class IV obesity on oocyte retrieval complications and outcomes. Fertil Steril 2019; 111: 294–301.
    1. Gallot V, Berwanger da, Silva AL, Genro V, et al. Antral follicle responsiveness to follicle-stimulating hormone administration assessed by the Follicular Output RaTe (FORT) may predict in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer outcome. Hum Reprod 2012; 27: 1066–1072.
    1. Alviggi C, Conforti A, Esteves SC, et al. Understanding ovarian hypo-response to exogenous gonadotropin in ovarian stimulation and its new proposed marker—the follicle-to-oocyte (FOI) index. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2018; 9: 589.
    1. Drakopoulos P, Blockeel C, Stoop D, et al. Conventional ovarian stimulation and single embryo transfer for IVF/ICSI. How many oocytes do we need to maximize cumulative live birth rates after utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos? Hum Reprod 2016; 31: 370–376.
    1. Conforti A, Esteves SC, Picarelli S, et al. Novel approaches for diagnosis and management of low prognosis patients in assisted reproductive technology: the POSEIDON concept. Panminerva Med 2019; 61: 24–29.
    1. Mohiyiddeen L, Newman WG, McBurney H, et al. Follicle-stimulating hormone receptor gene polymorphisms are not associated with ovarian reserve markers. Fertil Steril 2012; 97: 677–681.
    1. Polyzos NP, Drakopoulos P, Parra J, et al. Cumulative live birth rates according to the number of oocytes retrieved after the first ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a multicenter multinational analysis including approximately 15,000 women. Fertil Steril 2018; 110: 661–670.e1.
    1. Ata B, Kaplan B, Danzer H, et al. Array CGH analysis shows that aneuploidy is not related to the number of embryos generated. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 24: 614–620.
    1. Drakopoulos P, Errazuriz J, Santos-Ribeiro S, et al. Cumulative live birth rates in in-vitro fertilization. Minerva Ginecol 2019; 71: 207–210.
    1. Devroey P, Pellicer A, Nyboe Andersen A, et al. A randomized assessor-blind trial comparing highly purified hMG and recombinant FSH in a GnRH antagonist cycle with compulsory single-blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 2012; 97: 561–571.
    1. 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.
    1. Behre HM, Greb RR, Mempel A, et al. Significance of a common single nucleotide polymorphism in exon 10 of the follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) receptor gene for the ovarian response to FSH: a pharmacogenetic approach to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Pharmacogenet Genomics 2005; 15: 451–456.
    1. Drakopoulos P, Santos-Ribeiro S, Bosch E, et al. The effect of dose adjustments in a subsequent cycle of women with suboptimal response following conventional ovarian stimulation. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2018; 9: 361.
    1. Martin JR, Bromer JG, Sakkas D, et al. Live babies born per oocyte retrieved in a subpopulation of oocyte donors with repetitive reproductive success. Fertil Steril 2010; 94: 2064–2068.
    1. De Placido G, Alviggi C, Perino A, et al. Recombinant human LH supplementation versus recombinant human FSH (rFSH) step-up protocol during controlled ovarian stimulation in normogonadotrophic women with initial inadequate ovarian response to rFSH. A multicentre, prospective, randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2005; 20: 390–396.
    1. Papaleo E, Vanni VS, Viganò P, et al. Recombinant LH administration in subsequent cycle after “unexpected” poor response to recombinant FSH monotherapy. Gynecol Endocrinol 2014; 30: 813–816.
    1. 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.
    1. Conforti A, Esteves SC, Cimadomo D, et al. Management of women with an unexpected low ovarian response to gonadotropin. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2019; 10: 387.
    1. Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Argento C, et al. Double stimulation in the same ovarian cycle (DuoStim) is an intriguing strategy to improve oocyte yield and the number of competent embryos in a short timeframe. Minerva Ginecol 2019; 71: 372–376.
    1. Cimadomo D, Vaiarelli A, Colamaria S, et al. Luteal phase anovulatory follicles result in the production of competent oocytes: intra-patient paired case-control study comparing follicular versus luteal phase stimulations in the same ovarian cycle. Hum Reprod 2018; 33: 1442–1448.
    1. Tartagni M, Cicinelli MV, Baldini D, et al. Dehydroepiandrosterone decreases the age-related decline of the in vitro fertilization outcome in women younger than 40 years old. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2015; 13: 18.

Source: PubMed

Szponzorok és közreműködők

Egészségi állapot

Kábítószer-beavatkozások

3
Iratkozz fel