Top

Published in:

Open Access 01-12-2021 | Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome | Review

Dose adjustment of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) during ovarian stimulation as part of medically-assisted reproduction in clinical studies: a systematic review covering 10 years (2007–2017)

Authors: Human Fatemi, Wilma Bilger, Deborah Denis, Georg Griesinger, Antonio La Marca, Salvatore Longobardi, Mary Mahony, Xiaoyan Yin, Thomas D’Hooghe

Published in: Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology | Issue 1/2021

Abstract

Background

Individualization of the follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) starting dose is considered standard clinical practice during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment. Furthermore, the gonadotropin dose is regularly adjusted during COS to avoid hyper- or hypo-ovarian response, but limited data are currently available to characterize such adjustments. This review describes the frequency and direction (increase/decrease) of recombinant-human FSH (r-hFSH) dose adjustment reported in clinical trials.

Methods

We evaluated the proportion of patients undergoing ART treatment who received ≥ 1 r-hFSH dose adjustments. The inclusion criteria included studies (published Sept 2007 to Sept 2017) in women receiving ART treatment that allowed dose adjustment within the study protocol and that reported ≥ 1 dose adjustments of r-hFSH; studies not allowing/reporting dose adjustment were excluded. Data on study design, dose adjustment and patient characteristics were extracted. Point-incidence estimates were calculated per study and overall based on pooled number of cycles with dose adjustment across studies. The Clopper–Pearson method was used to calculate 95% confidence intervals (CI) for incidence where adjustment occurred in < 10% of patients; otherwise, a normal approximation method was used.

Results

Initially, 1409 publications were identified, of which 318 were excluded during initial screening and 1073 were excluded after full text review for not meeting the inclusion criteria. Eighteen studies (6630 cycles) reported dose adjustment: 5/18 studies (1359 cycles) reported data for an unspecified dose adjustment (direction not defined), in 10/18 studies (3952 cycles) dose increases were reported, and in 11/18 studies (5123 cycles) dose decreases were reported. The studies were performed in women with poor, normal and high response, with one study reporting in oocyte donors and one in obese women. The median day that dose adjustment was permitted was Day 6 after the start of treatment. The point estimates for incidence (95% CI) for unspecified dose adjustment, dose increases, and dose decreases were 45.3% (42.7, 48.0), 19.2% (18.0, 20.5), and 9.5% (8.7, 10.3), respectively.

Conclusions

This systematic review highlights that, in studies in which dose adjustment was allowed and reported, the estimated incidence of r-hFSH dose adjustments during ovarian stimulation was up to 45%.

Available only for authorised users

Ruiz-Alonso M, Galindo N, Pellicer A, Simon C. What a difference two days make: "personalized" embryo transfer (pET) paradigm: a case report and pilot study. Hum Reprod. 2014;29(6):1244–7.CrossRef

Lawrenz B, Samir S, Garrido N, Melado L, Engelmann N, Fatemi HM. Luteal Coasting and Individualization of Human Chorionic Gonadotropin Dose after Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonist Triggering for Final Oocyte Maturation-A Retrospective Proof-of-Concept Study. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018;9:33.CrossRef

Mol BW, Bossuyt PM, Sunkara SK, Garcia Velasco JA, Venetis C, Sakkas D, et al. Personalized ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology: study design considerations to move from hype to added value for patients. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(6):968–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.04.037.CrossRefPubMed

Lunenfeld B, Bilger W, Longobardi S, Alam V, D'Hooghe T, Sunkara SK. The Development of Gonadotropins for Clinical Use in the Treatment of Infertility. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019;10:429.CrossRef

EMA. Puregon: Sumamry of product characteristics. 2021.

EMA. Gonal-f: summary of product characteristics. 2020.

Alviggi C, Humaidan P, Ezcurra D. Hormonal, functional and genetic biomarkers in controlled ovarian stimulation: tools for matching patients and protocols. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2012;10(1):9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-10-9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lensen SF, Wilkinson J, Leijdekkers JA, La Marca A, Mol BWJ, Marjoribanks J, et al. 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(2):Cd012693.

Nyboe Andersen A, Nelson SM, Fauser BC, Garcia-Velasco JA, Klein BM, Arce JC. Individualized versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a multicenter, randomized, controlled, assessor-blinded, phase 3 noninferiority trial. Fertility Sterility. 2017;107(2):387–96 e4.CrossRef

10.

Nelson SM. Biomarkers of ovarian response: current and future applications. Fertil Steril. 2013;99(4):963–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.11.051.CrossRefPubMed

11.

Sighinolfi G, Grisendi V, La Marca A. How to personalize ovarian stimulation in clinical practice. J Turk Ger Gynecol Assoc. 2017;18(3):148–53. https://doi.org/10.4274/jtgga.2017.0058.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Alviggi C, Conforti A, Esteves SC, Vallone R, Venturella R, Staiano S, 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.

13.

Lunenfeld B, Bilger W, Longobardi S, Kirsten J, D'Hooghe T, Sunkara SK. Decision points for individualized hormonal stimulation with recombinant gonadotropins for treatment of women with infertility. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2019;35(12):1027–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2019.1650345.CrossRefPubMed

14.

Bosch E, Broer S, Griesinger G, Grynberg M, Humaidan P, Kolibianakis E, et al. ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI. Hum Reprod Open. 2020;2020(2):hoaa009.CrossRef

15.

La Marca A, Sighinolfi G, Radi D, Argento C, Baraldi E, Artenisio AC, et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) as a predictive marker in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Hum Reprod Update. 2010;16(2):113–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmp036.CrossRefPubMed

16.

Nelson SM, Yates RW, Fleming R. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone and FSH: prediction of live birth and extremes of response in stimulated cycles--implications for individualization of therapy. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(9):2414–21.CrossRef

17.

Sadeghi MR. How can personalized medicine improve assisted reproduction technology outcomes? J Reprod Infertil. 2017;18(3):265–6.PubMedPubMedCentral

18.

La Marca A, Papaleo E, Grisendi V, Argento C, Giulini S, Volpe A. Development of a nomogram based on markers of ovarian reserve for the individualisation of the follicle-stimulating hormone starting dose in in vitro fertilisation cycles. Bjog. 2012;119(10):1171–9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03412.x.CrossRefPubMed

19.

Rose TH, Roshammar D, Erichsen L, Grundemar L, Ottesen JT. Characterisation of population pharmacokinetics and endogenous follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels after multiple dosing of a recombinant human FSH (FE 999049) in healthy women. Drugs R D. 2016;16(2):165–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40268-016-0126-z.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

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.CrossRef

21.

van Tilborg TC, Oudshoorn SC, Eijkemans MJC, Mochtar MH, van Golde RJT, Hoek A, et al. Individualized FSH dosing based on ovarian reserve testing in women starting IVF/ICSI: a multicentre trial and cost-effectiveness analysis. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(12):2485–95.CrossRef

22.

Kovacs P, Sajgo A, Kaali SG, Pal L. Detrimental effects of high-dose gonadotropin on outcome of IVF: making a case for gentle ovarian stimulation strategies. Reprod Sci. 2012;19(7):718–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1933719111432859.CrossRefPubMed

23.

Martin JR, Mahutte NG, Arici A, Sakkas D. Impact of duration and dose of gonadotrophins on IVF outcomes. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13(5):645–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60654-2.CrossRefPubMed

24.

Lekamge DN, Lane M, Gilchrist RB, Tremellen KP. Increased gonadotrophin stimulation does not improve IVF outcomes in patients with predicted poor ovarian reserve. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2008;25(11–12):515–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10815-008-9266-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Pal L, Jindal S, Witt BR, Santoro N. Less is more: increased gonadotropin use for ovarian stimulation adversely influences clinical pregnancy and live birth after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2008;89(6):1694–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.05.055.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Humaidan P, Nelson SM, Devroey P, Coddington CC, Schwartz LB, Gordon K, et al. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: review and new classification criteria for reporting in clinical trials. Hum Reprod. 2016;31(9):1997–2004.CrossRef

27.

Oudshoorn SC, van Tilborg TC, Eijkemans MJC, Oosterhuis GJE, Friederich J, van Hooff MHA, et al. Individualized versus standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF/ICSI: an RCT. Part 2: The predicted hyper responder. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(12):2506–14.

28.

Broekmans FJ. Individualization of FSH Doses in Assisted Reproduction: Facts and Fiction. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019;10:181.

29.

Mahony MH, B. Richter, K. D'Hooghe, T. Abstracts of the 34th Annual Meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (P⁻⁶⁵⁹); Occurrence and characteristics of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (r-hFSH) dose adjustments during ovarian stimulation in a real-world US database study of 33,962 IVF patient cycles. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(suppl_1):i444.

30.

FDA. Highlights of prescribing information for Gonal-f RFF Redi-ject (follitropin alfa injection) 2013 [Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2013/021684s036lbl.pdf.

31.

FDA. Highlights of prescribing information for Follistrim AQ Cartridge (follitropin beta injection) 2004 [Available from: https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2011/021211s011lbl.pdf.

32.

Ledger WL, Fauser BC, Devroey P, Zandvliet AS, Mannaerts BM. Corifollitropin alfa doses based on body weight: clinical overview of drug exposure and ovarian response. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;23(2):150–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.04.002.CrossRefPubMed

33.

Abbotts C, Salgado-Braga C, Audibert-Gros C. A redesigned follitropin alfa pen injector for infertility: results of a market research study. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2011;5:315–31. https://doi.org/10.2147/PPA.S21421.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

34.

Jeannerot F, Cusin A, Schertz J. Dose accuracy of the redesigned follitropin alfa pen injector for infertility treatment. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2016;13(12):1661–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425247.2017.1237940.CrossRefPubMed

35.

Jeannerot F, Stüdeli T, Gunther-LaVergne L, Hirning D, Schertz J. Usability engineering study in the European Union of a redesigned follitropin alfa pen injector for infertility treatment. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2016;13(9):1221–9. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425247.2016.1203899.CrossRefPubMed

36.

Longobardi S, Seidler A, Martins J, Beckers F, MacGillivray W, D'Hooghe T. An evaluation of the use and handling errors of currently available recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone pen injectors by women with infertility and fertility nurses. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2019;16(9):1003–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425247.2019.1651290.CrossRefPubMed

37.

Schertz J, Worton H. Patient evaluation of the redesigned follitropin alfa pen injector. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2017;14(4):473–81. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425247.2017.1289174.CrossRefPubMed

38.

Schertz J, Worton H. Nurse evaluation of the redesigned fertility pen injector: a questionnaire-based observational survey. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2018;15(5):435–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425247.2018.1450386.CrossRefPubMed

39.

Olivennes F, Trew G, Borini A, Broekmans F, Arriagada P, Warne DW, et al. Randomized, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority study of the CONSORT algorithm for individualized dosing of follitropin alfa. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;30(3):248–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.11.013.CrossRefPubMed

40.

Yovich J, Stanger J, Hinchliffe P. Targeted gonadotrophin stimulation using the PIVET algorithm markedly reduces the risk of OHSS. Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;24(3):281–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.11.014.CrossRefPubMed

41.

Yovich JL, Alsbjerg B, Conceicao JL, Hinchliffe PM, Keane KN. PIVET rFSH dosing algorithms for individualized controlled ovarian stimulation enables optimized pregnancy productivity rates and avoidance of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Drug Des Devel Ther. 2016;10:2561–73. https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S104104.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

42.

Drakopoulos P, Blockeel C, Stoop D, Camus M, de Vos M, Tournaye H, 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(2):370–6.

43.

Malchau SS, Henningsen AA, Forman J, Loft A, Nyboe Andersen A, Pinborg A. Cumulative live birth rate prognosis based on the number of aspirated oocytes in previous ART cycles. Hum Reprod. 2019;34(1):171–80.

44.

Polyzos NP, Sunkara SK. Sub-optimal responders following controlled ovarian stimulation: an overlooked group? Hum Reprod. 2015;30(9):2005–8.

45.

Delvigne A, Rozenberg S. Epidemiology and prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS): a review. Hum Reprod Update. 2002;8(6):559–77. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/8.6.559.CrossRefPubMed

46.

Gera PS, Tatpati LL, Allemand MC, Wentworth MA, Coddington CC. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: steps to maximize success and minimize effect for assisted reproductive outcome. Fertil Steril. 2010;94(1):173–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.02.049.CrossRefPubMed

47.

Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.CrossRefPubMed

48.

Allegra A, Marino A, Volpes A, Coffaro F, Scaglione P, Gullo S, et al. A randomized controlled trial investigating the use of a predictive nomogram for the selection of the FSH starting dose in IVF/ICSI cycles. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;34(4):429–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.01.012.CrossRefPubMed

49.

Buhler K, Naether OG, Bilger W. A large, multicentre, observational, post-marketing surveillance study of the 2:1 formulation of follitropin alfa and lutropin alfa in routine clinical practice for assisted reproductive technology. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014;12(1):6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-12-6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Devroey P, Pellicer A, Nyboe Andersen A, Arce JC. Menopur in Gn RHACwSETTG. 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(3):561–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.12.016.CrossRefPubMed

51.

Durnerin CI, Erb K, Fleming R, Hillier H, Hillier SG, Howles CM, et al. Effects of recombinant LH treatment on folliculogenesis and responsiveness to FSH stimulation. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(2):421–6.

52.

Espinós JJ, Polo A, Sanchez-Hernandez J, Bordas R, Pares P, Martinez O, et al. Weight decrease improves live birth rates in obese women undergoing IVF: a pilot study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;35(4):417–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.06.019.CrossRefPubMed

53.

Esteves SC, Schertz JC, Verza S Jr, Schneider DT, Zabaglia SF. A comparison of menotropin, highly-purified menotropin and follitropin alfa in cycles of intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2009;7(1):111. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-7-111.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Devroey P, Boostanfar R, Koper NP, Mannaerts BM, Ijzerman-Boon PC, Fauser BC. A double-blind, non-inferiority RCT comparing corifollitropin alfa and recombinant FSH during the first seven days of ovarian stimulation using a GnRH antagonist protocol. Hum Reprod. 2009;24(12):3063–72.

55.

Freiesleben NL, Lossl K, Bogstad J, Bredkjaer HE, Toft B, Loft A, et al. Predictors of ovarian response in intrauterine insemination patients and development of a dosage nomogram. Reprod Biomed Online. 2008;17(5):632–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60310-0.CrossRefPubMed

56.

Kyrou D, Popovic-Todorovic B, Fatemi HM, Bourgain C, Haentjens P, Van Landuyt L, et al. Does the estradiol level on the day of human chorionic gonadotrophin administration have an impact on pregnancy rates in patients treated with rec-FSH/GnRH antagonist? Hum Reprod. 2009;24(11):2902–9.

57.

Lossl K, Andersen CY, Loft A, Freiesleben NL, Bangsboll S, Andersen AN. Short-term androgen priming by use of aromatase inhibitor and hCG before controlled ovarian stimulation for IVF. A randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(8):1820–9.

58.

Magnusson A, Nilsson L, Olerod G, Thurin-Kjellberg A, Bergh C. The addition of anti-Mullerian hormone in an algorithm for individualized hormone dosage did not improve the prediction of ovarian response-a randomized, controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2017;32(4):811–9.

59.

Nakhuda GS, Douglas NC, Thornton MH, Guarnaccia MM, Lobo R, Sauer MV. Anti-Mullerian hormone testing is useful for individualization of stimulation protocols in oocyte donors. Reprod Biomed Online. 2010;20(1):42–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2009.10.009.CrossRefPubMed

60.

Nyboe Andersen A, Humaidan P, Fried G, Hausken J, Antila L, Bangsboll S, et al. Recombinant LH supplementation to recombinant FSH during the final days of controlled ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. A multicentre, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2008;23(2):427–34.CrossRef

61.

Requena A, Landeras JL, Martinez-Navarro L, Calatayud C, Sanchez F, Maldonado V, et al. Could the addition of hp-hMG and GnRH antagonists modulate the response in IVF-ICSI cycles? Hum Fertil (Camb). 2010;13(1):41–9. https://doi.org/10.3109/14647270903586356.CrossRef

62.

Rettenbacher M, Andersen AN, Garcia-Velasco JA, Sator M, Barri P, Lindenberg S, et al. A multi-Centre phase 3 study comparing efficacy and safety of Bemfola((R)) versus Gonal-f((R)) in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;30(5):504–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2015.01.005.CrossRefPubMed

63.

Strowitzki T, Kuczynski W, Mueller A, Bias P. Randomized, active-controlled, comparative phase 3 efficacy and safety equivalence trial of Ovaleap(R) (recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone) in infertile women using assisted reproduction technology (ART). Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2016;14(1):1. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-015-0135-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

64.

Longobardi S.; D’Hooghe T. Comments on the results of the ESTHER-1 trial (Evidence-based Stimulation Trial with human rFSH in Europe and Rest of world 1). Available at: https://www.fertstertdialog.com/users/16110-fertility-and-sterility/posts/12852-23086. 2017.

65.

Wilkinson J. Comments on the results of the ESTHER-1 trial (Evidence-based Stimulation Trial with human rFSH in Europe and Rest of world 1). Available at: https://www.fertstertdialog.com/users/16110-fertility-and-sterility/posts/12852-23086. 2017.

66.

Cedrin-Durnerin I, Bstandig B, Herve F, Wolf J, Uzan M, Hugues J. A comparative study of high fixed-dose and decremental-dose regimens of gonadotropins in a minidose gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist flare protocol for poor responders. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(5):1055–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(00)00471-4.CrossRefPubMed

67.

van Hooff MH, Alberda AT, Huisman GJ, Zeilmaker GH, Leerentveld RA. Doubling the human menopausal gonadotrophin dose in the course of an in-vitro fertilization treatment cycle in low responders: a randomized study. Hum Reprod. 1993;8(3):369–73.CrossRef

68.

Yovich JL, Hinchliffe PM, Lingam S, Srinivasan S, Keane KN. Adjusting the PIVET rFSH dosing algorithm for the biosimilar Bemfola product. J Fertil In vitro IVF Worldw Reprod Med Genet Stem Cell Biol. 2018;5:3.

69.

Huirne JA, Homburg R, Lambalk CB. Are GnRH antagonists comparable to agonists for use in IVF? Hum Reprod. 2007;22(11):2805–13.CrossRef

70.

Cheung LP, Lam PM, Lok IH, Chiu TT, Yeung SY, Tjer CC, et al. GnRH antagonist versus long GnRH agonist protocol in poor responders undergoing IVF: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(3):616–21.CrossRef

71.

Gordon K, Hodgen GD. GnRH agonists and antagonists in assisted reproduction. Baillieres Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 1992;6(2):247–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0950-3552(05)80085-9.CrossRefPubMed

72.

Al-Inany HG, Youssef MA, Aboulghar M, Broekmans F, Sterrenburg M, Smit J, et al. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;5:CD001750.

73.

Lambalk CB, Banga FR, Huirne JA, Toftager M, Pinborg A, Homburg R, 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(5):560–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmx017.CrossRefPubMed

74.

Xiao JS, Su CM, Zeng XT. Comparisons of GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol in supposed normal ovarian responders undergoing IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014;9(9):e106854. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0106854.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

75.

Pundir J, Sunkara SK, El-Toukhy T, Khalaf Y. Meta-analysis of GnRH antagonist protocols: do they reduce the risk of OHSS in PCOS? Reprod Biomed Online. 2012;24(1):6–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.09.017.CrossRefPubMed

76.

Al-Inany HG, Youssef MA, Ayeleke RO, Brown J, Lam WS, Broekmans FJ. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;4:Cd001750.PubMed

77.

Devroey P, Polyzos NP, Blockeel C. An OHSS-Free Clinic by segmentation of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(10):2593–7.CrossRef

78.

Grisendi V, Mastellari E, La Marca A. Ovarian Reserve Markers to Identify Poor Responders in the Context of Poseidon Classification. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019;10:281.CrossRef

79.

Schneyer AL, Fujiwara T, Fox J, Welt CK, Adams J, Messerlian GM, et al. Dynamic changes in the intrafollicular inhibin/activin/follistatin axis during human follicular development: relationship to circulating hormone concentrations. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 2000;85(9):3319–30. https://doi.org/10.1210/jcem.85.9.6767.CrossRefPubMed

80.

Lawrenz B, Labarta E, Fatemi H, Bosch E. Premature progesterone elevation: targets and rescue strategies. Fertil Steril. 2018;109(4):577–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.02.128.CrossRefPubMed

81.

Kwan I, Bhattacharya S, Kang A, Woolner A. Monitoring of stimulated cycles in assisted reproduction (IVF and ICSI). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;8:CD005289.

82.

Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Electronic address Aao, Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive M. Prevention and treatment of moderate and severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a guideline. Fertil Steril. 2016;106(7):1634–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.08.048.CrossRef

83.

Golan A, Herman A, Soffer Y, Bukovsky I, Ron-El R. Ultrasonic control without hormone determination for ovulation induction in in-vitro fertilization/embryo transfer with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue and human menopausal gonadotrophin. Hum Reprod. 1994;9(9):1631–3.

84.

Wiser A, Gonen O, Ghetler Y, Shavit T, Berkovitz A, Shulman A. Monitoring stimulated cycles during in vitro fertilization treatment with ultrasound only--preliminary results. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2012;28(6):429–31. https://doi.org/10.3109/09513590.2011.633666.CrossRefPubMed

85.

Klinkert ER, Broekmans FJ, Looman CW, Habbema JD, te Velde ER. Expected poor responders on the basis of an antral follicle count do not benefit from a higher starting dose of gonadotrophins in IVF treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod, 2005. 20(3):611–5.

86.

Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI, Al-Inany HG, Amin YM, Aboulghar MM. Increasing the dose of human menopausal gonadotrophins on day of GnRH antagonist administration: randomized controlled trial. Reprod Biomed Online. 2004;8(5):524–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1472-6483(10)61098-X.CrossRefPubMed

87.

Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI, Rhodes CA, Amin YM. Reduction of human menopausal gonadotropin dose before coasting prevents severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome with minimal cycle cancellation. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2000;17(5):298–301. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009470602525.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

88.

La Marca A, Blockeel C, Bosch E, Fanchin R, Fatemi HM, Fauser BC, et al. Individualized FSH dosing improves safety and reduces iatrogenic poor response while maintaining live-birth rates. Hum Reprod. 2018;33(5):982–3.CrossRef

89.

Sunkara SK, Polyzos NP. OPTIMIST trial: optimistic evidence? Hum Reprod. 2018;33(5):983–4.CrossRef

90.

Delvigne A, Rozenberg S. A qualitative systematic review of coasting, a procedure to avoid ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in IVF patients. Hum Reprod Update. 2002;8(3):291–6. https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/8.3.291.CrossRefPubMed

91.

D'Angelo A, Amso NN, Hassan R. Coasting (withholding gonadotrophins) for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;5(5):Cd002811.

92.

Kamthane VP, Goswami SK, Ghosh S, Chattopadhyay R, Chakravarty BN. Does coasting prevent OHSS without compromising pregnancy outcome? Hum Reprod. 2004;19:i121.

93.

Lukaszuk L, Liss J, Jakiel G. Internal Coasting' for prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in IVF/ICSI. Ginekol Pol. 2011;82(11):812–6.PubMed

Title: Dose adjustment of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) during ovarian stimulation as part of medically-assisted reproduction in clinical studies: a systematic review covering 10 years (2007–2017)
Authors: Human Fatemi
Wilma Bilger
Deborah Denis
Georg Griesinger
Antonio La Marca
Salvatore Longobardi
Mary Mahony
Xiaoyan Yin
Thomas D’Hooghe
Publication date: 01-12-2021
Publisher: BioMed Central
Keywords: Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome
Assisted Reproduction
Published in: Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 1477-7827
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12958-021-00744-x

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Dose adjustment of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) during ovarian stimulation as part of medically-assisted reproduction in clinical studies: a systematic review covering 10 years (2007–2017)

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Association of three missense mutations in the homocysteine-related MTHFR and MTRR gene with risk of polycystic ovary syndrome in Southern Chinese women

Comparative effectiveness of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone alfa (r-hFSH-alfa) versus highly purified urinary human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG HP) in assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatments: a non-interventional study in Germany

Correction to: Psychological experience and coping strategies of patients in the Northeast US delaying care for infertility during the COVID-19 pandemic

Effect of somatometric parameters on the prevalence and severity of varicocele: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Serum complement proteomics reveal biomarkers for hypertension disorder of pregnancy and the potential role of Clusterin

Pretreatment with melatonin improves ovarian tissue cryopreservation for transplantation