Cumulative live birth rates in low-prognosis women

Jori A Leijdekkers, Marinus J C Eijkemans, Theodora C van Tilborg, Simone C Oudshoorn, Ron J T van Golde, Annemieke Hoek, Cornelis B Lambalk, Jan Peter de Bruin, Kathrin Fleischer, Monique H Mochtar, Walter K H Kuchenbecker, Joop S E Laven, Ben Willem J Mol, Helen L Torrance, Frank J M Broekmans, OPTIMIST study group, Jori A Leijdekkers, Marinus J C Eijkemans, Theodora C van Tilborg, Simone C Oudshoorn, Ron J T van Golde, Annemieke Hoek, Cornelis B Lambalk, Jan Peter de Bruin, Kathrin Fleischer, Monique H Mochtar, Walter K H Kuchenbecker, Joop S E Laven, Ben Willem J Mol, Helen L Torrance, Frank J M Broekmans, OPTIMIST study group

Abstract

Study question: Do cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) over multiple IVF/ICSI cycles confirm the low prognosis in women stratified according to the POSEIDON criteria?

Summary answer: The CLBR of low-prognosis women is ~56% over 18 months of IVF/ICSI treatment and varies between the POSEIDON groups, which is primarily attributable to the impact of female age.

What is known already: The POSEIDON group recently proposed a new stratification for low-prognosis women in IVF/ICSI treatment, with the aim to define more homogenous populations for clinical trials and stimulate a patient-tailored therapeutic approach. These new criteria combine qualitative and quantitative parameters to create four groups of low-prognosis women with supposedly similar biologic characteristics.

Study design, size, duration: This study analyzed the data of a Dutch multicenter observational cohort study including 551 low-prognosis women, aged <44 years, who initiated IVF/ICSI treatment between 2011 and 2014 and were treated with a fixed FSH dose of 150 IU/day in the first treatment cycle.

Participants/materials, setting, methods: Low-prognosis women were categorized into one of the POSEIDON groups based on their age (younger or older than 35 years), anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level (above or below 0.96 ng/ml), and the ovarian response (poor or suboptimal) in their first cycle of standard stimulation. The primary outcome was the CLBR over multiple complete IVF/ICSI cycles, including all subsequent fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfers, within 18 months of treatment. Cumulative incidence curves were obtained using an optimistic and a conservative analytic approach.

Main results and the role of chance: The CLBR of the low-prognosis women was on average ~56% over 18 months of IVF/ICSI treatment. Younger unexpected poor (n = 38) and suboptimal (n = 179) responders had a CLBR of ~65% and ~68%, respectively, and younger expected poor responders (n = 65) had a CLBR of ~59%. The CLBR of older unexpected poor (n = 41) and suboptimal responders (n = 102) was ~42% and ~54%, respectively, and of older expected poor responders (n = 126) ~39%. For comparison, the CLBR of younger (n = 164) and older (n = 78) normal responders with an adequate ovarian reserve was ~72% and ~58% over 18 months of treatment, respectively. No large differences were observed in the number of fresh treatment cycles between the POSEIDON groups, with an average of two fresh cycles per woman within 18 months of follow-up.

Limitations, reasons for caution: Small numbers in some (sub)groups reduced the precision of the estimates. However, our findings provide the first relevant indication of the CLBR of low-prognosis women in the POSEIDON groups. Small FSH dose adjustments between cycles were allowed, inducing therapeutic disparity. Yet, this is in accordance with current daily practice and increases the generalizability of our findings.

Wider implications of the findings: The CLBRs vary between the POSEIDON groups. This heterogeneity is primarily determined by a woman's age, reflecting the importance of oocyte quality. In younger women, current IVF/ICSI treatment reaches relatively high CLBR over multiple complete cycles, despite reduced quantitative parameters. In older women, the CLBR remains relatively low over multiple complete cycles, due to the co-occurring decline in quantitative and qualitative parameters. As no effective interventions exist to counteract this decline, clinical management currently relies on proper counselling.

Study funding/competing interest(s): No external funds were obtained for this study. J.A.L. is supported by a Research Fellowship grant and received an unrestricted personal grant from Merck BV. S.C.O., T.C.v.T., and H.L.T. received an unrestricted personal grant from Merck BV. C.B.L. received research grants from Merck, Ferring, and Guerbet. K.F. received unrestricted research grants from Merck Serono, Ferring, and GoodLife. She also received fees for lectures and consultancy from Ferring and GoodLife. A.H. declares that the Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre Groningen received an unrestricted research grant from Ferring Pharmaceuticals BV, the Netherlands. J.S.E.L. has received unrestricted research grants from Ferring, Zon-MW, and The Dutch Heart Association. He also received travel grants and consultancy fees from Danone, Euroscreen, Ferring, AnshLabs, and Titus Healthcare. B.W.J.M. is supported by an National Health and Medical Research Council Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy work for ObsEva, Merck, and Guerbet. He also received a research grant from Merck BV and travel support from Guerbet. F.J.M.B. received monetary compensation as a member of the external advisory board for Merck Serono (the Netherlands) and Ferring Pharmaceuticals BV (the Netherlands) for advisory work for Gedeon Richter (Belgium) and Roche Diagnostics on automated AMH assay development, and for a research cooperation with Ansh Labs (USA). All other authors have nothing to declare.

Trial registration number: Not applicable.

Keywords: Bologna criteria; IVF/ICSI; POSEIDON criteria; anti-Müllerian hormone; cumulative live birth; female age; low prognosis; ovarian reserve; ovarian stimulation; poor ovarian response.

© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flowchart of the study population of low-prognosis women according to the POSEIDON criteria (Poseidon group et al., 2016). *These twelve women were not assigned to the same group in more than half of the hundred imputed datasets. aHyper response, >15 retrieved oocytes or cycle cancellation for too many follicles according to the POSEIDON criteria. bNormal response, 10–15 retrieved oocytes according to the POSEIDON criteria. cPoor response, <4 retrieved oocytes or cycle cancellation for insufficient follicular growth according to the POSEIDON criteria. dSuboptimal response, 4–9 retrieved oocytes according to the POSEIDON criteria. AMH, anti-Müllerian hormone.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Cumulative live birth curves for low-prognosis women over 18 months of IVF/ICSI treatment. Women were stratified according to the POSEIDON criteria (Poseidon group et al., 2016), and the curves were calculated by using (a) the life table analysis (optimistic approach) and (b) the competing risk method (conservative approach).

References

    1. Alviggi C, Conforti A, Esteves SC, Vallone R, Venturella R, Staiano S, Castaldo E, Andersen CY, De PG. 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. Arce J-C, Nyboe Andersen A, Fernández-Sánchez M, Visnova H, Bosch E, García-Velasco JA, Barri P, de Sutter P, Klein BM, Faucer BCJM. Ovarian response to recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone: a randomized, antimüllerian hormone-stratified, dose-response trial in women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 2014;102:1633–1640.e5.
    1. Baart EB, Martini E, Eijkemans MJ, Van Opstal D, Beckers NGM, Verhoeff A, Macklon NS, Fauser BCJM. Milder ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization reduces aneuploidy in the human preimplantation embryo: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2007;22:980–988. Oxford University Press.
    1. Broekmans FJ, Knauff EAH, te Velde ER, Macklon NS, Fauser BC. Female reproductive ageing: current knowledge and future trends. Trends Endocrinol Metab 2007;18:58–65.
    1. Broekmans FJ, Soules MR, Fauser BC. Ovarian aging: mechanisms and clinical consequences. Endocr Rev 2009;30:465–493.
    1. Broer SL, van Disseldorp J, Broeze KA, Dolleman M, Opmeer BC, Bossuyt P, Eijkemans MJC, Mol B-WJ, Broekmans FJM, Broer SL et al. . Added value of ovarian reserve testing on patient characteristics in the prediction of ovarian response and ongoing pregnancy: an individual patient data approach. Hum Reprod Update 2013;19:26–36.
    1. Busnelli A, Papaleo E, Del Prato D, La Vecchia I, Iachini E, Paffoni A, Candiani M, Somigliana E. 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. van Buuren S, Groothuis-Oudshoorn K. MICE: Multivariate Imputation by Chained Equations in R. J Stat Softw 2011;45:1–67.
    1. Cai J, Liu L, Zheng J, Zhang L, Jiang X, Li P, Sha A, Ren J. Differential response of AMH to GnRH agonist among individuals: the effect on ovarian stimulation outcomes. J Assist Reprod Genet 2018;35:467–473.
    1. Cimadomo D, Fabozzi G, Vaiarelli A, Ubaldi N, Ubaldi FM, Rienzi L. Impact of maternal age on oocyte and embryo competence. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2018;9:327.
    1. Demko ZP, Simon AL, McCoy RC, Petrov DA, Rabinowitz M. Effects of maternal age on euploidy rates in a large cohort of embryos analyzed with 24-chromosome single-nucleotide polymorphism-based preimplantation genetic screening. Fertil Steril 2016;105:1307–1313.
    1. 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.
    1. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BCJM, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L, ESHRE Working Group on Poor Ovarian Response Definition . 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. Fleming R, Seifer DB, Frattarelli JL, Ruman J. Assessing ovarian response: antral follicle count versus anti-Müllerian hormone. Reprod Biomed Online 2015;31:486–496.
    1. Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Werner MD, Upham KM, Treff NR, Scott RT. The nature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the female partner: a review of 15,169 consecutive trophectoderm biopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertil Steril 2014;101:656–663.e1.
    1. Gassner D, Jung R. First fully automated immunoassay for anti-Müllerian hormone. Clin Chem Lab Med 2014;52:1143–1152.
    1. Hamdine O, Eijkemans MJC, Lentjes EGW, Torrance HL, Macklon NS, Fauser BCJM, Broekmans FJ. Antimüllerian hormone: prediction of cumulative live birth in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist treatment for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2015;104:891–898.e2.
    1. Hendriks DJ, te Velde ER, Looman CWN, Bancsi LFJMM, Broekmans FJM. Expected poor ovarian response in predicting cumulative pregnancy rates: a powerful tool. Reprod Biomed Online 2008;17:727–736.
    1. Hommel G. A stagewise rejective multiple test procedure based on a modified Bonferroni test. Biometrika 1988;75:383–386. Oxford University Press.
    1. Humaidan P, Alviggi C, Fischer R, Esteves SC. The novel POSEIDON stratification of ‘low prognosis patients in assisted reproductive technology’ and its proposed marker of successful outcome. F1000Res 2016;5:2911.
    1. Iliodromiti S, Nelson SM. Ovarian response biomarkers. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 2015;27:182–186.
    1. Janssen KJM, Donders ART, Harrell FE, Vergouwe Y, Chen Q, Grobbee DE, Moons KGM. Missing covariate data in medical research: to impute is better than to ignore. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:721–727. Elsevier.
    1. Jayaprakasan K, Campbell BK, Hopkisson JF, Clewes JS, Johnson IR, Raine-Fenning NJ. Effect of pituitary desensitization on the early growing follicular cohort estimated using anti-Mullerian hormone. Hum Reprod 2008;23:2577–2583.
    1. Klinkert ER, Broekmans FJ, Looman CW, te Velde ER. A poor response in the first in vitro fertilization cycle is not necessarily related to a poor prognosis in subsequent cycles. Fertil Steril 2004;81:1247–1253.
    1. Lensen SF, Wilkinson J, Leijdekkers JA, La Marca A, Mol BWJ, Marjoribanks J, Torrance H, Broekmans FJ. Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation plus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;2:CD012693.
    1. van Loendersloot LL, van Wely M, Limpens J, Bossuyt PM, Repping S, van der Veen F. Predictive factors in in vitro fertilization (IVF): a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2010;16:577–589. Oxford University Press.
    1. McLernon DJ, Steyerberg EW, te Velde ER, Lee AJ, Bhattacharya S. Predicting the chances of a live birth after one or more complete cycles of in vitro fertilisation: population based study of linked cycle data from 113 873 women. BMJ 2016;355:i5735.
    1. Moolenaar LM, Mohiuddin S, Munro Davie M, Merrilees MA, Broekmans FJM, Mol BWJ, Johnson NP. High live birth rate in the subsequent IVF cycle after first-cycle poor response among women with mean age 35 and normal FSH. Reprod Biomed Online 2013;27:362–366.
    1. Morin SJ, Patounakis G, Juneau CR, Neal SA, Scott RT, Seli E. Diminished ovarian reserve and poor response to stimulation in patients <38 years old: a quantitative but not qualitative reduction in performance. Hum Reprod 2018;33:1489–1498.
    1. Nagels HE, Rishworth JR, Siristatidis CS, Kroon B. Androgens (dehydroepiandrosterone or testosterone) for women undergoing assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;11:CD009749 available at .
    1. Nelson SM, Klein BM, Arce J-C. Comparison of antimüllerian hormone levels and antral follicle count as predictor of ovarian response to controlled ovarian stimulation in good-prognosis patients at individual fertility clinics in two multicenter trials. Fertil Steril 2015a;103:923–930.e1.
    1. Nelson SM, Pastuszek E, Kloss G, Malinowska I, Liss J, Lukaszuk A, Plociennik L, Lukaszuk K. Two new automated, compared with two enzyme-linked immunosorbent, antimüllerian hormone assays. Fertil Steril 2015b;104:1016–1021.e6.
    1. Olivius C, Friden B, Borg G, Bergh C. Why do couples discontinue in vitro fertilization treatment? A cohort study. Fertil Steril 2004;81:258–261.
    1. Oudendijk JF, Yarde F, Eijkemans MJC, Broekmans FJM, Broer SL. The poor responder in IVF: is the prognosis always poor? A systematic review. Hum Reprod Update 2012;18:1–11.
    1. Pandian Z, McTavish AR, Aucott L, Hamilton MP, Bhattacharya S. Interventions for ‘poor responders’ to controlled ovarian hyper stimulation (COH) in in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010;1:CD004379.
    1. Papathanasiou A. Implementing the ESHRE ‘poor responder’ criteria in research studies: methodological implications. Hum Reprod 2014;29:1835–1838.
    1. Polyzos NP, Drakopoulos P, Parra J, Pellicer A, Santos-Ribeiro S, Tournaye H, Bosch E, Garcia-Velasco J. 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 ∼15,000 women. Fertil Steril 2018;110:661–670.e1.
    1. Poseidon group, Alviggi C, Andersen C, Buehler K, Conforti A, De Placido G, Esteves SC, Fischer R, Galliano D, Polyzos N, 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. Sterne JAC, White IR, Carlin JB, Spratt M, Royston P, Kenward MG, Wood AM, Carpenter JR. Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: potential and pitfalls. BMJ 2009;338:b2393.
    1. Stolwijk AM, Hamilton CJ, Hollanders JM, Bastiaans LA, Zielhuis GA. A more realistic approach to the cumulative pregnancy rate after in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 1996;11:660–663.
    1. Su HI, Maas K, Sluss PM, Chang RJ, Hall JE, Joffe H. The impact of depot GnRH agonist on AMH levels in healthy reproductive-aged women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2013;98:E1961–E1966.
    1. Sunkara SK, Rittenberg V, Raine-Fenning N, Bhattacharya S, Zamora J, Coomarasamy A. Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod 2011;26:1768–1774.
    1. van Tilborg TC, Eijkemans MJ, Laven JS, Koks CA, de Bruin JP, Scheffer GJ, van Golde RJ, Fleischer K, Hoek A, Nap AW, et al. . The OPTIMIST study: optimisation of cost effectiveness through individualised FSH stimulation dosages for IVF treatment. A randomised controlled trial. BMC Womens Health 2012;12:29.
    1. van Tilborg TC, Oudshoorn SC, Eijkemans MJC, Mochtar MH, van Golde RJT, Hoek A, Kuchenbecker WKH, Fleischer K, de Bruin JP, Groen H et al. . Individualized FSH dosing based on ovarian reserve testing in women starting IVF/ICSI: a multicentre trial and cost-effectiveness analysis. Hum Reprod 2017a;32:2485–2495.
    1. van Tilborg TC, Torrance HL, Oudshoorn SC, Eijkemans MJC, Koks CAM, Verhoeve HR, Nap AW, Scheffer GJ, Manger AP, Schoot BC et al. . Individualized versus standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF/ICSI: an RCT. Part 1: the predicted poor responder. Hum Reprod 2017b;32:2496–2505.
    1. Wang JG, Nakhuda GS, Guarnaccia MM, Sauer MV, Lobo RA. Müllerian inhibiting substance and disrupted folliculogenesis in polycystic ovary syndrome. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2007;196:77.e1–5.
    1. Wong KM, Mastenbroek S, Repping S. Cryopreservation of human embryos and its contribution to in vitro fertilization success rates. Fertil Steril 2014;102:19–26.
    1. Xu Y, Nisenblat V, Lu C, Li R, Qiao J, Zhen X, Wang S. 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.

Source: PubMed

Спонсоры и соавторы

Заболевания

Медикаментозные вмешательства

Подписаться