Corifollitropin alfa for poor responders patients, a prospective randomized study

F M Fusi, L Zanga, M Arnoldi, S Melis, M Cappato, I Candeloro, A Di Pasqua, F M Fusi, L Zanga, M Arnoldi, S Melis, M Cappato, I Candeloro, A Di Pasqua

Abstract

Background: Poor ovarian response remains one of the biggest challenges for reproductive endocrinologists. The introduction of corifollitropin alpha (CFA) offered an alternative option to other gonadotropins for its longer half-life, its more rapid achievement of the threshold and higher FSH levels. We compared two different protocols with CFA, a long agonist and a short antagonist, and a no-CFA protocol.

Methods: Patients enrolled fulfilled at least two of the followings: AFC < 5, AMH < 1,1 ng/ml, less than three oocytes in a previous cycle, age > 40 years. Ovarian stimulation with an antagonist protocol was performed either with 300 UI rFSH and 150 UI rLH or 300UI HMG. In the long agonist group, after pituitary suppression with triptorelin, CFA was given the 1-2th day of cycle and 300 UI rFSH and 150 UI rLH the 5th day. In the short antagonist group CFA was given the 1-2th day of cycle and 300 UI rFSH and 150 UI rLH the 5th day. The primary objective was the effect on the number of oocytes and MII oocytes. Secondary objective were pregnancy rates, ongoing pregnancies and ongoing pregnancies per intention to treat.

Results: The use of CFA resulted in a shorter lenght of stimulation and a lower number of suspended treatments. Both the CFA protocols were significantly different from the no-CFA group in the number of retrieved oocytes (p < 0,05), with a non-significant difference in favour of the long agonist protocol. Both CFA groups yielded higher pregnancy rates, especially the long protocol, due to the higher number of oocytes retrieved (p < 0,05), as implantation rates did not differ. The cumulative pregnancy rate was also different, due to the higher number of cryopreserved blastocysts (p < 0,02).

Conclusions: The long agonist protocol with the addition of rFSH and rLH showed the best results in all the parameters. A short antagonist protocol with CFA was less effective, but not significantly, although provided better results compared to the no-CFA group. We suggest that a long agonist protocol with CFA and recombinant gonadotropins might be a valuable option for poor responders.

Trial registration: The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee (EudraCT2015-002817-31).

Keywords: Agonist; Antagonist; Corifollitropin alfa; Poor responders.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

    1. Ubaldi F, Vaiarelli A, D’Anna R, Rienzi L. Management of Poor Responders in IVF: is there anything new? Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:1–10. doi: 10.1155/2014/352098.
    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. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.09.048.
    1. Sunkara SK, Coomarasamy A, Faris R, Braude P, Khalaf Y. Long gonadotrophin-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. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.035.
    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. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2013.11.010.
    1. El-Toukhy T, Khalaf Y, Hart R, et al. Young age does not protect against the adverse effects of reduced ovarian reserve -- an eight year study. Hum Reprod. 2002;17:1519–1524. doi: 10.1093/humrep/17.6.1519.
    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. doi: 10.1093/humrep/der092.
    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. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deu319.
    1. Polyzos NP, De Vos M, Corona R, Vloeberghs V, Ortega-Hrepich C, Stoop D, Tournaye H. Addition of highly purified HMG after corifollitropin alfa in antagonist-treated poor ovarian responders: a pilot study. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:1254–1260. doi: 10.1093/humrep/det045.
    1. Verbost P, Sloot WN, Rose UM, de Leeuw R, Hanssen RG, Verheijden GF. Pharmacologic profiling of corifollitropin alfa, the first developed sustained follicle stimulant. Eur J Pharmacol. 2011;651(1–3):227–233. doi: 10.1016/j.ejphar.2010.10.078.
    1. Fatemi HM, Oberyé J, Popovic-Todorovic B, Witjes H, Mannaerts B, Devroey P. Corifollitropin alfa in a long GnRH agonist protocol: proof of concept trial. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(5):1922–1924. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.12.070.
    1. Joaquin Errázuriz, Panagiotis Drakopoulos, David Pening1, Annalisa Racca, Alessia Romito, Nelke De Munck, Herman Tournaye, Michel De Vos, Christophe Blockeel. Pituitary suppression protocol among Bologna poor responders undergoing ovarian stimulation using corifollitropin alfa: does it play any role? RBMO 2019 38;6:1010–1017.
    1. Haydardedeoğlu B, Kılıçdağ EB. A novel approach using a minimal number of injections during the IVF/ICSI cycle: luteal half-dose depot GnRH agonist following corifollitropin alfa versus the corifollitropin alfa with a GnRH-antagonist cycle. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2016;17(3):155–158. doi: 10.5152/jtgga.2016.16015.
    1. 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;13:628–638. doi: 10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60652-9.
    1. Lainas TG, Sfontouris IA, Papanikolaou EG, Zorzovilis JZ, Petsas GK, Lainas GT, Kolibianakis EM. Flexible GnRH antagonist versus flare-up GnRH agonist protocol in poor responders treated by IVF: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:1355–1358. doi: 10.1093/humrep/den107.
    1. Cheung L-P, Lam P-M, Lok IH, Chiu TT-Y, Yeung S-Y, Tjer C-C, Haines CJ. GnRH antagonist versus long GnRH agonist protocol in poor responders undergoing IVF: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:616–621. doi: 10.1093/humrep/deh668.
    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. doi: 10.1093/humrep/der240.
    1. Fauser BCJM, Alper MM, Ledger W, Schoolcraft WB, Zandvliet A, Mannaerts BMJL. Pharmacokinetics and follicular dynamics of corifollitropin alfa versus recombinant FSH during ovarian stimulation for IVF. Reprod BioMed Online. 2010;21:593–601. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2010.06.032.
    1. Polyzos NP, DeVos M, Humaidan P, Stoop D, Ortega-Hrepich C, Devroey P, Tournaye H. Corifollitropin alfa followed by rFSH in a GnRH antagonist protocol for poor ovarian responder patients: an observational pilot study. Fertil Steril. 2013;99:422–426. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.09.043.
    1. Drakopoulos P, Vuong TNL, Ho NAV, Vaiarelli A, Ho MT, Blockeel C, Camus M, Lam AT, van de Vijver A, Humaidan P, Tournaye H, Polyzos NP. 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. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex296.
    1. Yovich J, Keane KN, Borude G, Dhaliwal SS, Hinchliffe PM. Finding a place for corifollitropin within the PIVET FSH dosing algorithms. Reprod BioMed Online. 2018;36:47–58. doi: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.09.017.
    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. doi: 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2010.10.021.
    1. Sacchi S, Sena P, Degli Esposti C, Lui J, La Marca A. Evidence for expression and functionality of FSH and LH/hCG receptors in human endometrium. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018;35(9):1703–1712. doi: 10.1007/s10815-018-1248-8.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다