3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Follitropin delta combined with menotropin in patients at risk for poor ovarian response during in vitro fertilization cycles: a prospective controlled clinical study

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The maximum daily dose of follitropin delta for ovarian stimulation in the first in vitro fertilization cycle is 12 μg (180 IU), according to the algorithm developed by the manufacturer, and based on patient’s ovarian reserve and weight. This study aimed to assess whether 150 IU of menotropin combined with follitropin delta improves the response to stimulation in women with serum antimullerian hormone levels less than 2.1 ng/mL.

          Methods

          This study involved a prospective intervention group of 44 women who received 12 μg of follitropin delta combined with 150 IU of menotropin from the beginning of stimulation and a retrospective control group of 297 women who received 12 μg of follitropin delta alone during the phase 3 study of this drug. The inclusion and exclusion criteria and other treatment and follow-up protocols in the two groups were similar. The pituitary suppression was achieved by administering a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist. Ovulation triggering with human chorionic gonadotropin or GnRH agonist and the option of transferring fresh embryos or using freeze-all strategy were made according to the risk of developing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

          Results

          Women who received follitropin delta combined with menotropin had higher estradiol levels on trigger day (2150 pg/mL vs. 1373 pg/mL, p < 0.001), more blastocysts (3.1 vs. 2.4, p = 0.003) and more top-quality blastocysts (1.8 vs. 1.3, p = 0.017). No difference was observed in pregnancy, implantation, miscarriage, and live birth rates after the first embryo transfer. The incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome did not differ between the groups. However, preventive measures for the syndrome were more frequent in the group using both drugs than in the control group (13.6% vs. 0.6%, p < 0.001).

          Conclusions

          In women with serum antimullerian hormone levels less than 2.1 ng/mL, the administration of 150 IU of menotropin combined with 12 μg of follitropin delta improved the ovarian response, making it a valid therapeutic option in situations where ovulation triggering with a GnRH agonist and freeze-all embryos strategy can be used routinely.

          Trial registration

          U1111-1247-3260 (Brazilian Register of Clinical Trials, available at https://ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-2kmyfm).

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12958-023-01172-9.

          Related collections

          Most cited references44

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range

          Background In systematic reviews and meta-analysis, researchers often pool the results of the sample mean and standard deviation from a set of similar clinical trials. A number of the trials, however, reported the study using the median, the minimum and maximum values, and/or the first and third quartiles. Hence, in order to combine results, one may have to estimate the sample mean and standard deviation for such trials. Methods In this paper, we propose to improve the existing literature in several directions. First, we show that the sample standard deviation estimation in Hozo et al.’s method (BMC Med Res Methodol 5:13, 2005) has some serious limitations and is always less satisfactory in practice. Inspired by this, we propose a new estimation method by incorporating the sample size. Second, we systematically study the sample mean and standard deviation estimation problem under several other interesting settings where the interquartile range is also available for the trials. Results We demonstrate the performance of the proposed methods through simulation studies for the three frequently encountered scenarios, respectively. For the first two scenarios, our method greatly improves existing methods and provides a nearly unbiased estimate of the true sample standard deviation for normal data and a slightly biased estimate for skewed data. For the third scenario, our method still performs very well for both normal data and skewed data. Furthermore, we compare the estimators of the sample mean and standard deviation under all three scenarios and present some suggestions on which scenario is preferred in real-world applications. Conclusions In this paper, we discuss different approximation methods in the estimation of the sample mean and standard deviation and propose some new estimation methods to improve the existing literature. We conclude our work with a summary table (an Excel spread sheet including all formulas) that serves as a comprehensive guidance for performing meta-analysis in different situations. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-135) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Index for rating diagnostic tests

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              ESHRE consensus on the definition of 'poor response' to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria.

              The definition presented here represents the first realistic attempt by the scientific community to standardize the definition of poor ovarian response (POR) in a simple and reproducible manner. POR to ovarian stimulation usually indicates a reduction in follicular response, resulting in a reduced number of retrieved oocytes. It has been recognized that, in order to define the poor response in IVF, at least two of the following three features must be present: (i) advanced maternal age or any other risk factor for POR; (ii) a previous POR; and (iii) an abnormal ovarian reserve test (ORT). Two episodes of POR after maximal stimulation are sufficient to define a patient as poor responder in the absence of advanced maternal age or abnormal ORT. By definition, the term POR refers to the ovarian response, and therefore, one stimulated cycle is considered essential for the diagnosis of POR. However, patients of advanced age with an abnormal ORT may be classified as poor responders since both advanced age and an abnormal ORT may indicate reduced ovarian reserve and act as a surrogate of ovarian stimulation cycle outcome. In this case, the patients should be more properly defined as 'expected poor responder'. If this definition of POR is uniformly adapted as the 'minimal' criteria needed to select patients for future clinical trials, more homogeneous populations will be tested for any new protocols. Finally, by reducing bias caused by spurious POR definitions, it will be possible to compare results and to draw reliable conclusions.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                oscar.filho@vidabemvinda.com.br
                Journal
                Reprod Biol Endocrinol
                Reprod Biol Endocrinol
                Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology : RB&E
                BioMed Central (London )
                1477-7827
                2 January 2024
                2 January 2024
                2024
                : 22
                : 7
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein, ( https://ror.org/04cwrbc27) São Paulo, Brazil
                [2 ]Clínica VidaBemVinda, São Paulo, Brazil
                [3 ]Disciplina de Obstetrícia e Ginecologia, Faculdade de Medicina, Universidade de São Paulo, ( https://ror.org/036rp1748) São Paulo, Brazil
                Article
                1172
                10.1186/s12958-023-01172-9
                10759374
                38166856
                029eec83-ca7c-4cfc-960e-dbe9566ede63
                © The Author(s) 2023

                Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

                History
                : 18 October 2023
                : 8 December 2023
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024

                Human biology
                in vitro fertilization,controlled ovarian stimulation,follitropin delta,menotropin,poor ovarian response

                Comments

                Comment on this article