Current approaches to diagnosing and managing female poor responders to ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins in assisted reproductive technology programs

DOI

https://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2022.8.12-21

Perminova S.G., Belova I.S., Mityurina E.V., Savostina G.V.
Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Center of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russia

Female poor responders to ovarian stimulation (OS) make up a large cohort among all infertile women seeking assisted reproductive technology (ART) programs (9–24%). The Bologna criteria do not fully reflect the diverse group of female poor responders to OS. The novel POSEIDON classification stratifies a large heterogeneous cohort of female poor responders into 4 groups according to the age of patients, the levels of antral follicle and anti-Müllerian hormone, and the prognosis of pregnancy. The paper gives possible mechanisms for the pathogenesis of a poor response to OS. Particular attention is paid to patients with normal ovarian reserve and an unpredictable poor response to OS (1, 2 POSEIDON), which is associated with the lower ovarian sensitivity to gonadotropin stimulation due to the presence of polymorphisms in the genes of gonadotropins and their receptors. The authors discuss whether it is expedient to use new clinical and laboratory poor response predictors (FORT, FOI, and OSI). The use of an ART calculator is shown to be appropriate for predicting the number of oocytes required to obtain at least one euploid blastocyst. The paper presents different approaches to optimizing treatment in female poor responders, depending on whether they belong to a particular POSEIDON group. It considers adjuvant therapy methods aimed at obtaining a larger number of oocytes and increasing the effectiveness of ART programs.
Conclusion: Using the POSEIDON criteria in clinical practice, clarifying the prognostic value of the new diagnostic criteria (FORT, FOI, and OSI) for a poor ovarian response to gonadotropin stimulation, and assessing the feasibility of testing for polymorphisms in the genes of gonadotropins and their receptors in unpredictable poor responders to OS can be a help in better assessing a large heterogeneous group of poor responders to OS and elaborating personalized approaches to OS in the IVF program, which requires further investigations.

poor ovarian response

POSEIDON criteria

embryonic aneuploidies

infertility

diminished ovarian reserve

Full text (in Russian)

Drakopoulos P., Blockeel C., Stoop D., Camus M., de Vos M., Tournaye H., Polyzos N.P. 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. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev316.
Esteves S.C., Alviggi C., Humaidan P., Fischer R., Andersen C.Y., Conforti A. et al. The POSEIDON criteria and its measure of success through the eyes of clinicians and embryologists. Front. Endocrinol. (Lausanne). 2019; 10: 814. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2019.00814.
Ata B., Kaplan B., Danzer H., Glassner M., Opsahl M., Tan S.L., Munné S. Array CGH analysis shows that aneuploidy is not related to the number of embryos generated. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2012; 24(6): 614-20. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.02.009.
La Marca A., Grisendi V., Giulini S., Sighinolfi G., Tirelli A., Argento C. et al. Live birth rates in the different combinations of the Bologna criteria poor ovarian responders: a validation study. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2015; 32(6): 931-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10815-015-0476-4.
Humaidan P., Chin W., Rogoff D., D’Hooghe T., Longobardi S., Hubbard J., Schertz J.; ESPART Study Investigators. Efficacy and safety of follitropin alfa/lutropin alfa in ART: a randomized controlled trial in poor ovarian responders. Hum. Reprod. 2017; 32(7): 544-55. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dew360.
La Marca A., Sunkara S.K. Individualization of controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF using ovarian reserve markers: from theory to practice. Hum. Reprod. Update. 2014; 20(1): 124-40. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humupd/ dmt037.
Conforti A., Esteves S.C., Cimadomo D., Vaiarelli A., Di Rella F., Ubaldi F.M. et al. Management of women with an unexpected low ovarian response to gonadotropin. Front. Endocrinol. (Lausanne). 2019; 10: 387. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2019.00387.
Conforti A., Esteves S.C., Picarelli S., Iorio G., Rania E., Zullo F. et al. Novel approaches for diagnosis and management of low prognosis patients in assisted reproductive technology: the POSEIDON concept. Panminerva Med. 2019; 61: 24-9.
La Marca A., Ferraretti A.P., Palermo R., Ubaldi F.M. The use of ovarian reserve markers in IVF clinical practice: a national consensus. Gynecol. Endocrinol. 2016; 32(1): 1-5. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.3109/09513590.2015.1102879.
Humaidan P., Alviggi C., Fischer R., Esteves S.C. The novel POSEIDON stratification of ‘Low prognosis patients in Assisted Reproductive Technology’ and its proposed marker of successful outcome. F1000Research. 2016; 5: 2911.
Alviggi C., Andersen C.Y., Buehler K., Conforti A., Placido G., Esteves S.C. et al.; Poseidon Group (Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing Individualized Oocyte Number). 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(6): 1452-3. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.fertnstert.2016.02.005.
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://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.fertnstert.2018.04.039.
Esteves S.C., Carvalho J.F., Bento F.C., Santos J. A novel predictive model to estimate the number of mature oocytes required for obtaining at least one euploid blastocyst for transfer in couples undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: The ART Calculator. Front. Endocrinol. (Lausanne). 2019; 10: 99. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2019.00099.
Haahr T., Esteves S.C., Humaidan P. Poor definition of poor-ovarian response results in misleading clinical recommendations. Hum. Reprod. 2018; 33(5): 979-80. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey059.
Haahr T., Dosouto C., Alviggi C., Esteves S.C., Humaidan P. Management strategies for POSEIDON groups 3 and 4. Front. Endocrinol. (Lausanne). 2019; 10: 614. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2019.00614.
Conforti A., Alfano S., De Rosa P., Alviggi C., De Placido G. The role of gonadotropin polymorphisms and their receptors in assisted reproductive technologies and controlled ovarian stimulation: a prospective observational study. Ital. J. Gynaecol. Obstet. 2017; 29: 15-21. https://dx.doi.org/10.14660/2385-0868-67.
Alviggi C., Conforti A., Santi D., Esteves S.C., Andersen C.Y., Humaidan P. et al. Clinical relevance of genetic variants of gonadotrophins and their receptors in controlled ovarian stimulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum. Reprod. Update. 2018; 24(5): 599-614. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmy019.
Perez Mayorga M., Gromoll J., Behre H.M., Gassner C., Nieschlag E., Simoni M. Ovarian response to follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) stimulation depends on the FSH receptor genotype. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2000; 85(9): 3365-9. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1210/jcem.85.9.6789.
Lazaros L., Hatzi E., Xita N., Takenaka A., Sofikitis N., Zikopoulos K., Georgiou I. Influence of FSHR diplotypes on ovarian response to standard gonadotropin stimulation for IVF/ICSI. J. Reprod. Med. 2013; 58(9-10): 395-401.
Lledó B., Dapena P., Ortiz J.A., Morales R., Llacer J., Bernabeu R. Clinical efficacy of recombinant versus highly purified follicle-stimulating hormone according to follicle-stimulating hormone receptor genotype. Pharmacogenet Genomics. 2016; 26(6): 288-93. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/FPC.0000000000000215.
Desai S.S., Achrekar S.K., Pathak B.R., Desai S.K., Mangoli V.S., Mangoli R.V., Mahale S.D. Follicle-stimulating hormone receptor polymorphism (G-29A) is associated with altered level of receptor expression in Granulosa cells. J. Clin. Endocrinol. Metab. 2011; 96(9): 2805-12. https://dx.doi.org/10.1210/jc.2011-1064.
Tohlob D., Abo Hashem E., Ghareeb N., Ghanem M., Elfarahaty R., Byers H. et al. Association of a promoter polymorphism in FSHR with ovarian reserve and response to ovarian stimulation in women undergoing assisted reproductive treatment. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2016; 33(3): 391-7.https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2016.06.001.
Dan W., Jing G., Liangbin X., Ting Z., Ying Z. Association of follicle stimulating hormone receptor promoter with ovarian response in IVF-ET patients. Iran. J. Reprod. Med. 2015; 13(11): 715-20.
Alviggi C., Pettersson K., Longobardi S., Andersen C.Y., Conforti A., De Rosa P. et al. A common polymorphic allele of the LH beta-subunit gene is associated with higher exogenous FSH consumption during controlled ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2013; 11: 51. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-11-51.
Esteves S.C., Carvalho J.F., Martinhago C.D., Melo A.A., Bento F.C., Humaidan P. et al. Estimation of age-dependent decrease in blastocyst euploidy by next generation sequencing: development of a novel prediction model. Panminerva Med. 2019; 61: 3-10. https://dx.doi.org/10.23736/S0031-0808.18.03507-3.
Cimadomo D., Fabozzi G., Vaiarelli A., Ubaldi N., Ubaldi F.M., Rienzi L. Impact of maternal age on oocyte and embryo competence. Front. Endocrinol. (Lausanne). 2018; 9: 327. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2018.00327.
Esteves S.C., Yarali H., Vuong L.N., Carvalho J.F., Özbek İ.Y., Polat M. et al. Cumulative delivery rate per aspiration IVF/ICSI cycle in POSEIDON patients: a real-world evidence study of 9073 patients. Hum. Reprod. 2021; 36(8): 2157-69. https://dx.doi.org/ 10.1093/humrep/deab152.
Luo M., Li D., Xia M., Xie H., Liu P., Qin Y. Blastocyst euploidy rates in low-prognosis patients according to the POSEIDON criteria: a retrospective analysis of 3016 embryos. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2022; 44(2): 247-53.https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.09.006.
Alviggi C., Conforti A., Esteves S.C., 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. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2018.00589.
Genro V.K., Grynberg M., Scheffer J.B., Roux I., Frydman R., Fanchin R. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone levels are negatively related to Follicular Output RaTe (FORT) in normo-cycling women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Hum. Reprod. 2011; 26(3): 671-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deq361.
Sunkara S.K., 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(7): 1768-74. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der106.
Biasoni V., Patriarca A., Dalmasso P., Bertagna A., Manieri C., Benedetto C. et al. Ovarian sensitivity index is strongly related to circulating AMH and may be used to predict ovarian response to exogenous gonadotropins in IVF. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2011; 9: 112. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-9-112.
Chen L., Wang H., Zhou H., Bai H., Wang T., Shi W., Shi J. Follicular output rate and follicle-to-oocyte index of low prognosis patients according to POSEIDON criteria: A retrospective cohort study of 32,128 treatment cycles. Front. Endocrinol. (Lausanne). 2020; 11: 181. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2020.00181.
Van Tilborg T.C., Torrance H.L., Oudshoorn S.C., Eijkemans M.J.C., Koks C.A.M., Verhoeve H.R. et al.; OPTIMIST Study Group. Individualized versus standard FSH dosing in women starting IVF/ICSI: an RCT. Part 1: The predicted poor responder. Hum. Reprod. 2017; 32(12): 2496-505. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ humrep/dex318.
Drakopoulos P., Santos-Ribeiro S., Bosch E., Garcia-Velasco J., Blockeel C., Romito A. et al. The effect of dose adjustments in a subsequent cycle of women with suboptimal response following conventional ovarian stimulation. Front. Endocrinol. (Lausanne). 2018; 9: 361. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2018.00361.
Zhang Y., Zhang C., Shu J., Guo J., Chang H.M., Leung P.C.K. et al. Adjuvant treatment strategies in ovarian stimulation for poor responders undergoing IVF: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. Hum. Reprod. Update. 2020; 26(2): 247-63. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmz046.
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: 9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-10-9.
Behre H.M., Greb R.R., Mempel A., Sonntag B., Kiesel L., Kaltwasser P. et al. Significance of a common single nucleotide polymorphism in exon 10 of the follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) receptor gene for the ovarian response to FSH: a pharmacogenetic approach to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Pharm. Genom. 2005; 15(7): 451-6. https://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.fpc.0000167330.92786.5e.
Alviggi C., Conforti A., Esteves S.C., Andersen C.Y., Bosch E., Buhler K. et al. Recombinant luteinizing hormone supplementation in assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review. Fertil. Steril. 2018; 109(4): 644-64.https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2018.01.003.
Hill M.J., Levens E.D., Levy G., Ryan M.E., Csokmay J.M., DeCherney A.H., Whitcomb B.W. The use of recombinant luteinizing hormone in patients undergoing assisted reproductive techniques with advanced reproductive age: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil. Steril. 2012; 97(5): 1108-14.e1. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2012.01.130.
Conforti A., Esteves S.C., Di Rella F., Strina I., De Rosa P., Fiorenza A. et al. The role of recombinant LH in women with hypo-response to controlled ovarian stimulation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2019; 17: 18. https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12958-019-0460-4.
Papaleo E., Vanni V.S., Viganò P., La Marca A., Pagliardini L., Vitrano R. et al. Recombinant LH administration in subsequent cycle after "unexpected" poor response to recombinant FSH monotherapy. Gynecol. Endocrinol. 2014; 30(11): 813-6. https://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09513590.2014.932342.
Canosa S., Carosso A.R., Mercaldo N., Ruffa A., Evangelista F., Bongioanni F. et al. Effect of rLH supplementation during controlled ovarian stimulation for IVF: evidence from a retrospective analysis of 1470 poor/suboptimal/ normal responders receiving either rFSH plus rLH or rFSH alone. J. Clin. Med. 2022; 11(6): 1575. https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcm11061575.
Polyzos N.P., Drakopoulos P. Management strategies for POSEIDON’s Group 1. Front. Endocrinol. ( Lausanne). 2019; 10: 679. https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2019.00679.
Sunkara S.K., Ramaraju G.A., Kamath M.S. Management strategies for POSEIDON Group 2. Front. Endocrinol. ( Lausanne). 2020; 11: 105.https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2020.00105.
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.
Eftekhar M., Mohammadi B., Khani P., Lahijani M.M. Dual stimulation in unexpected poor responder POSEIDON classification group 1, sub-group 2a: A cross-sectional study. Int. J. Reprod. Biomed. 2020; 18(6): 465-70.https:dx.doi.org/https://dx.doi.org/10.18502/ijrm.v13i6.7287.
Marci R., Caserta D., Dolo V., Tatone C., Pavan A., Moscarini M. GnRH antagonist in IVF poor-responder patients: results of a randomized trial. Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2005; 11(2): 189-93. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1472-6483(10)60957-1.
Cakmak H., Katz A., Cedars M.I., Rosen M.P. Effective method for emergency fertility preservation: random-start controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil. Steril. 2013; 100(6): 1673-80. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.07.1992.
Li Y., Yang W., Chen X., Li L., Zhang Q., Yang D. Comparison between follicular stimulation and luteal stimulation protocols with clomiphene and HMG in women with poor ovarian response. Gynecol. Endocrinol. 2016; 32(1): 74-7. https://dx.doi.org/10.3109/09513590.2015.1081683.
Kawwass J.F., Monsour M., Crawford S., Kissin D.M., Session D.R., Kulkarni A.D. et al. Trends and outcomes for donor oocyte cycles in the United States, 2000–2010. JAMA. 2013; 310(22): 2426-34. https://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.280924.
Cimadomo D., Vaiarelli A., Colamaria S., Trabucco E., Alviggi C., Venturella R. et al. Luteal phase anovulatory follicles result in the production of competent oocytes: intra-patient paired case-control study comparing follicular versus luteal phase stimulations in the same ovarian cycle. Hum. Reprod. 2018; 33(8): 1442-8. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dey217.
Farquhar C., Rombauts L., Kremer J.A., Lethaby A., Ayeleke R.O. Oral contraceptive pill, progestogen or oestrogen pretreatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2017; 5(5): CD006109. https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/14651858.
Li J., Sun Y., Mo S., Wang S., Luo W. Effects of oral contraceptive for different responder women before GnRH antagonists: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Gynecol. Endocrinol. 2021; 37(11): 977-86. https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09513590.2021.1918664.
Камилова Д.П., Кетиладзе Т.М., Гоголевский П.А. Оценка клинических исходов циклов ЭКО при проведении прайминга эстрогенами перед контролируемой овариальной стимуляцией у пациенток с «бедным» овариальным ответом. Проблемы репродукции. 2018; 24(4): 53-8. [Kamilova D.P., Ketyladze T.M., Gogolevsky P.A. Evaluation of clinical outcomes of ivf after estrogen priming before controlled ovarian stimulation in patients with a poor response. Russian Journal of Human Reproduction. 2018;24(4):53 8. (in Russian)]. https://dx.doi.org/
Reynolds K.A., Omurtag K.R., Jimenez P.T., Rhee J.S., Tuuli M.G., Jungheim E.S. Cycle cancellation and pregnancy after luteal estradiol priming in women defined as poor responders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum. Reprod. (Oxford, England). 2013; 28(11): 2981-9. https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/humrep/det306.
Xu L., Hu C., Liu Q., Li Y. The effect of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) supplementation on IVF or ICSI: A meta-Analysis of randomized controlled trials. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2019; 79(7): 705-12. https//dx.doi.org/10.1055/a-0882-3791.
Neves A.R., Montoya-Botero P., Polyzos N.P. Androgens and diminished ovarian reserve: the long road from basic science to clinical implementation. A comprehensive and systematic review with meta-analysis. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2022; S0002-9378(22)00248-4. https//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2022.03.051.
Noventa M., Vitagliano A., Andrisani A., Blaganje M., Viganò P., Papaelo E. et al. Testosterone therapy for women with poor ovarian response undergoing IVF: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2019; 36(4): 673-83. https//dx.doi.org /10.1007/s10815-018-1383-2.
Subirá J., Algaba A., Vázquez S., Taroncher Dasí R., Mollá Robles G., Monzó Fabuel S. et al. Testosterone does not improve ovarian response in Bologna poor responders: a randomized controlled trial (TESTOPRIM). Reprod. Biomed. Online. 2021; 43(3): 466-74. https//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2021.05.021.
Polyzos N.P., Davis S.R., Drakopoulos P., Humaidan P., De Geyter C., Vega A.G. et al.; T-TRANSPORT Investigators Group. Testosterone for poor ovarian responders: lessons from ovarian physiology. Reprod. Sci. 2018; 25(7): 980-2. https//dx.doi.org/10.1177/1933719116660849.
Yang P., Wu R., Zhang H. The effect of growth hormone supplementation in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF or ICSI: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2020; 18: 76.https//dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12958-020-00632-w.
Liu X., Xu J., Bi L., Liu P., Jiao X. Growth hormone cotreatment for low-prognosis patients according to the POSEIDON criteria. Front. Endocrinol. (Lausanne). 2021; 12: 790160. https//dx.doi.org/10.3389/fendo.2021.790160.
Cozzolino M., Cecchino G.N., Troiano G., Romanelli C. Growth hormone cotreatment for poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization cycles: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil. Steril. 2020; 114(1): 97-109.https//dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2020.03.007.
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(1): 29. https//dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12958-018-0343-0.
Cakiroglu Y., Saltik A., Yuceturk A., Karaosmanoglu O., Kopuk S.Y., Scott R.T.et al. Effects of intraovarian injection of autologous platelet rich plasma on ovarian reserve and IVF outcome parameters in women with primary ovarian insufficiency. Aging (Albany NY). 2020; 12(11): 10211-22.https//dx.doi.org/10.18632/aging.103403.
Farimani M., Nazari A., Mohammadi S., Aliabad R.A. Evaluation of intra-ovarian platelet-rich plasma administration on oocytes-dependent variables in patients with poor ovarian response: A retrospective study according to the POSEIDON criteria. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. 2021; 19(1): 137.https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12958-021-00826-w.

Received 02.06.2022

Accepted 14.06.2022

Svetlana G. Perminova, MD, PhD, Leading Researcher at Reproductology Department, Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics,
Gynecology and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia, perisvet@list.ru, 117997, Russia, Moscow, Ac. Oparin str., 4.
Irina S. Belova, graduate student, Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology,
Ministry of Health of Russia, irina-belova00@mail.ru, 117997, Russia, Moscow, Ac. Oparin str., 4.
Elena V. Mityurina, PhD, Senior Researcher at Reproductology Department, V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics,
Gynecology and Perinatology, Ministry of Health of Russia, e_mityurina@oparina4.ru, 117997, Russia, Moscow, Ac. Oparin str., 4.
Guzel V. Savostina, graduate student, Academician V.I. Kulakov National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology,
Ministry of Health of Russia, +7(925)633-35-16, savostina2324@gmail.com, 117997, Russia, Moscow, Ac. Oparin str., 4.

Authors' contributions: Perminova S.G., Mityurina E.V., Savostina G.V. – editing and final approval of the manuscript;
Belova I.S. – search and analysis of literature, processing the source material, writing the text of the manuscript.
Conflicts of interest: The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
Funding: The article has been prepared without financial support.
For citation: Perminova S.G., Belova I.S., Mityurina E.V., Savostina G.V.
Current approaches to diagnosing and managing female poor responders to ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins in assisted reproductive technology programs.
Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya/Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2022; 8: 12-21 (in Russian)
http://dx.doi.org/10.18565/aig.2022.8.12-21

Current approaches to diagnosing and managing female poor responders to ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins in assisted reproductive technology programs

Perminova S.G., Belova I.S., Mityurina E.V., Savostina G.V.

Keywords

References

About the Authors

Similar Articles