Missed opportunities for improving the effectiveness of in vitro fertilization programs in patients with diminished ovarian reserve

1. Mascarenhas M.N., Flaxman S.R., Boerma T., Vanderpoel S., Stevens G.A. National, regional, and global trends in infertility prevalence since 1990: a systematic analysis of 277 health surveys. PLoS Med. 2012; 9(12): e1001356. https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001356.
2. Carson S.A., Kallen A.N. Diagnosis and management of infertility: a review. JAMA. 2021; 326(1): 65-76. https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.4788.
3. Grisendi V., Mastellari E., La Marca A. Ovarian reserve markers to identify poor responders in the context of Poseidon classification. Front. Endocrinol. (Lausanne). 2019; 8(10): 281. https://dx.doi.org/10. 3389/fendo.2019.00281.
4. Hornstein M.D. State of the ART: Assisted reproductive technologies in the United States. Reprod. Sci. 2016; 23(12): 1630-3. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1933719116667227.
5. Ferraretti A.P., La Marca A., Fauser B.C., Tarlatzis B., Nargund G., Gianaroli L. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum. Reprod. 2011; 26(7): 1616-24. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der092.
6. Laqqan M.M., Yassin M.M. Investigation of the predictive factors of diminished ovarian reserve in women aged less than 40 years and undergoing ICSI cycle. Reprod. Sci. 2023; 30(3): 873-82. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s43032-022-01055-1.
7. Devine K., Mumford S.L., Wu M., DeCherney A.H., Hill M.J., Propst A. Diminished ovarian reserve in the United States assisted reproductive technology population: diagnostic trends among 181,536 cycles from the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcomes Reporting System. Fertil. Steril. 2015; 104(3): 612-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2015.05.017.
8. Harris B.S., Steiner A.Z., Jukic A.M. Ovarian reserve biomarkers and menstrual cycle length in a prospective cohort study. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2021; 106(9): e3748-59. https://dx.doi.org/10.1210/clinem/dgab204.
9. Bosch E., Broer S., Griesinger G., Grynberg M.,Humaidan P., Kolibianakis E. et al.; The ESHRE Guideline Group on Ovarian Stimulation. ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI. Hum. Reprod. Open. 2020; 2020(2): hoaa009. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaa009.
10. Chen Y., Zhang Y., Hu M., Liu X., Qi H. Timing of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) hormone administration in IVF/ICSI protocols using GnRH agonist or antagonists: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol. Endocrinol. 2014; 30(6): 431-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09513590.2014.895984.
11. Lawrenz B., Kalafat E., Ata B., Melado L., Del Gallego R., Elkhatib I. et al. Do women with severely diminished ovarian reserve undergoing modified natural cycles benefit from earlier trigger at smaller follicle size? Ultrasound Obstet. Gynecol. 2024 Feb 13. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/uog.27611.
12. Santoro N., Isaac B., Neal-Perry G., Adel T., Weingart L., Nussbaum A. et al. Impaired folliculogenesis and ovulation in older reproductive aged women. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2003; 88(11): 5502-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1210/jc.2002-021839.
13. Wu Y.G., Barad D.H., Kushnir V.A., Lazzaroni E., Wang Q., Albertini D.F. et al. Aging-related premature luteinization of granulosa cells is avoided by early oocyte retrieval. J. Endocrinol. 2015; 226(3): 167-80. https://dx.doi.org/10.1530/JOE-15-0246.
14. Ectors F.J., Vanderzwalmen P., Van Hoeck J., Nijs M., Verhaegen G., Delvigne A. et al. Relationship of human follicular diameter with oocyte fertilization and development after in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Hum. Reprod. 1997; 12(9): 2002-5. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/12.9.2002.
15. Schneyer A.L., Fujiwara T., Fox J., Welt C.K., Adams J., Messerlian G.M. 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://dx.doi.org/10.1210/jcem.85.9.6767.
16. Venetis C.A., Kolibianakis E.M., Bosdou J.K., Tarlatzis B.C. Progesterone elevation and probability of pregnancy after IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis of over 60 000 cycles. Hum. Reprod. Update. 2013; 19(5): 433-57. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmt014.
17. Rosen M.P., Shen S., Dobson A.T., Rinaudo P.F., McCulloch C.E., Cedars M.I. A quantitative assessment of follicle size on oocyte developmental competence. Fertil. Steril. 2008; 90(3): 684-90. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2007.02.011.
18. Di Guardo F., Blockeel C., De Vos M., Palumbo M., Christoforidis N., Tournaye H. et al. Poor ovarian response and the possible role of natural and modified natural cycles. Clin. Med. Insights Reprod. Health. 2022; 16: 263349412110620. https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/26334941211062026.
19. Datta A.K., Maheshwari A., Felix N., Campbell S., Nargund G. Mild versus conventional ovarian stimulation for IVF in poor responders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2020; 41: 225-38. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2020.03.005.
20. Tian T., Li Y., Lv J., Chen L., Wang Y., Yang R. et al. The potential influence of follicle diameter on natural cycle in vitro fertilization among women with diminished ovarian reserve: a retrospective cohort study. J. Ovarian Res. 2023; 16(1): 195. https:/dx./doi.org/10.1186/s13048-023-01281-4.
21. Tang-Pedersen M., Westergaard L.G., Erb K., Mikkelsen A.L. Combination of IVF and IVM in naturally cycling women. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2012; 24: 47-53. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2011.10.005.
22. Lim K.S., Chae SJ., Choo C.W., Ku Y.H., Lee H.J., Hur C.Y. et al. In vitro maturation: clinical applications. Clin. Exp. Reprod. Med. 2013; 40(4): 143-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2013.40.4.143.
23. Son W.Y., Chung J.T., Herrero B., Dean N., Demirtas E., Holzer H. et al. Selection of the optimal day for oocyte retrieval based on the diameter of the dominant follicle in hCG-primed in vitro maturation cycles. Hum. Reprod. 2008; 23: 2680-25. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den332.
24. Соколова Ю.В., Мартиросян Я.О., Назаренко Т.А., Бирюкова А.М., Хубаева Д.Г., Краснова В.Г. Молекулярно-биологические основы внутрияичникового фолликулогенеза, созревания и рекрутинга фолликулов. Акушерство и гинекология. 2022; 1: 22-30. [Sokolova Yu.V., Martirosyan Ya.O., Nazarenko T.A., Biryukova A.M., Khubaeva D.G., Krasnova V.G. Molecular biological bases for intraovarian folliculogenesis, follicular maturation and recruitment. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2022; (1): 22-30. (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2022.1.22-30.
25. Baerwald A.R., Adams G.P., Pierson R.A. Ovarian antral folliculogenesis during the human menstrual cycle: a review. Hum. Reprod. Update. 2012; 18(1): 73-91. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmr039.
26. Vanden Brink H., Chizen D., Hale G., Baerwald A. Age-related changes in major ovarian follicular wave dynamics during the human menstrual cycle. Menopause. 2013; 20(12): 1243-54. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GME.0b013e31828cfb62.
27. von Wolff M., Thaler C.J., Frambach T., Zeeb C., Lawrenz B., Popovici R.M. et al. Ovarian stimulation to cryopreserve fertilized oocytes in cancer patients can be started in the luteal phase. Fertil. Steril. 2009; 92(4): 1360-5. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.08.011.
28. Vaiarelli A., Venturella R., Vizziello D., Bulletti F., Ubaldi F.M. Dual ovarian stimulation and random start in assisted reproductive technologies: from ovarian biology to clinical application. Curr. Opin. Obstet. Gynecol. 2017; 29(3): 153-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/GCO.0000000000000365.
29. Назаренко Т.А., Мартиросян Я.О., Бирюкова А.М., Джанашвили Л.Г., Иванец Т.Ю., Сухова Ю.В. Опыт стимуляции яичников в режиме «random-start» протоколов для сохранения репродуктивного материала онкологических больных. Акушерство и гинекология. 2020; 4: 52-8. [Nazarenko T.A., Martirosyan Ya.O., Biryukova A.M., Dzhanashvili L.G., Ivanets T.Yu., Sukhova Yu.V. Experience in random-start ovarian stimulation for preserving reproductive material of cancer patients. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2020; (4): 52-8. (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2020.4.52-58.
30. Bentov Y., Esfandiari N., Gokturk A., Burstein E., Fainaru O., Casper R.F. An ongoing pregnancy from two waves of follicles developing during a long follicular phase of the same cycle. Fertil. Steril. 2010; 94(1): 350.e8-11. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2009.12.033.
31. Kuang Y., Chen Q., Hong Q., Lyu Q., Ai A., Fu Y. et al. Double stimulations during the follicular and luteal phases of poor responders in IVF/ICSI programmes (Shanghai protocol). Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2014, 29(6): 684-91. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.08.009.
32. Kuang Y., Hong Q., Chen Q., Lyu Q., Ai A., Fu Y. et al. Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation is feasible for producing competent oocytes in women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment, with optimal pregnancy outcomes in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Fertil. Steril. 2014; 101(1): 105-11. https:/dx./doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.007.
33. Vaiarelli A., Cimadomo D., Trabucco E., Vallefuoco R., Buffo L., Dusi L. 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. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2018.00317.
34. Liu C., Jiang H., Zhang W., Yin H. Double ovarian stimulation during the follicular and luteal phase in women 38 years: a retrospective case-control study. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2017; 35(6): 678-84. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.08.019.
35. Ubaldi F.M., Capalbo A., Vaiarelli A., Cimadomo D., Colamaria S., Alviggi C. et al. Follicular versus luteal phase ovarian stimulation during the same menstrual cycle (DuoStim) ina reduced ovarian reserve population results in a similar euploid blastocyst formation rate: new insight in ovarian reserve exploitation. Fertil. Steril. 2016; 105(6): 1488-95.e1. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.03.002.
36. Polyzos N.P., Drakopoulos P., Parra J., Pellicer A., Santos-Ribeiro S., Tournaye H. 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 15,000 women. Fertil. Steril. 2018; 110(4): 661-70.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.04.039.
37. Tsampras N., Gould D., Fitzgerald C.T. Double ovarian stimulation (DuoStim) protocol for fertility preservation in female oncology patients. Hum. Fertil. (Camb). 2017; 20(4): 248-53. https://ddx.oi.org/10.1080/14647273.2017.1287433.
38. Subirá J., Alberola-Rubio J., Núñez MJ., Escrivá A.M., Pellicer A., Montañana V. et al. Inter-cycle and inter-observer variability of the antral follicle count in routine clinical practice. Gynecol. Endocrinol. 2017; 33(7): 515-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2017.1291614.
39. Mutlu M.F., Erdem M., Erdem A., Yildiz S., Mutlu I., Arisoy O. et al. Antral follicle count determines poor ovarian response better than anti-Müllerian hormone but age is the only predictor for live birth in in vitro fertilization cycles. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2013; 30: 657-65. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10815-013-9975-3.
40. Zhang Y., Xu Y., Xue Q., Shang J., Yang X., Shan X. et al. Discordance between antral follicle counts and anti-Müllerian hormone levels in women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2019; 17(1): 51. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12958-019-0497-4.
41. Hochberg A., Dahan M.H., Yarali H., Vuong L.N., Esteves S.C. Significance of serum AMH and antral follicle count discrepancy for the prediction of ovarian stimulation response in Poseidon criteria patients. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2024; 41(3): 717-26. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10815-024-03050-8.

Received 24.04.2024

Accepted 04.06.2024