Download PDF
Semin Reprod Med 2015; 33(06): 436-448
DOI: 10.1055/s-0035-1567818
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Strategies for Controlled Ovarian Stimulation in the Setting of Ovarian Aging

Baris Ata
1   Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Koc University School of Medicine, Istanbul, Turkey
,
Emre Seli
2   Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
12 November 2015 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

In the context of assisted reproduction, the term ovarian aging is often used to refer to declining potential of ovaries to produce oocytes in adequate number or quality in response to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS). Different aspects of COS have been modified with the intention to increase the number and quality of oocytes obtained for in vitro fertilization. In the setting of ovarian aging, suppression of the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist or short GnRH agonist protocol and stimulation with a daily gonadotropin dosage of ≤ 300 IU/day seem to be appropriate first choices, and there is a strong need for well-designed randomized controlled trials investigating effects of addition of LH activity, estradiol priming, transdermal testosterone administration, and growth hormone supplementation. Given the lack of high-quality evidence showing effectiveness of one approach over another, other factors such as duration of stimulation, total gonadotropin consumption and cost of medication, patient friendliness, and possible side effect profiles must be considered in tailoring the COS protocol according to each individual's needs and desires.

Keywords

assisted reproductive techniques - ovarian reserve - ovarian stimulation - in vitro fertilization - poor response - decreased ovarian reserve
 

  • References

  • 1 Menken J, Trussell J, Larsen U. Age and infertility. Science 1986; 233 (4771) 1389-1394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Broekmans FJ, Faddy MJ, Scheffer G, te Velde ER. Antral follicle counts are related to age at natural fertility loss and age at menopause. Menopause 2004; 11 (6, Pt 1) 607-614
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Tietze C. Reproductive span and rate of reproduction among Hutterite women. Fertil Steril 1957; 8 (1) 89-97
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Schwartz D, Mayaux MJ. Female fecundity as a function of age: results of artificial insemination in 2193 nulliparous women with azoospermic husbands. Federation CECOS. N Engl J Med 1982; 306 (7) 404-406
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies Clinic Summary Report. 2015 [July 28, 2015]; Available at https://www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx?ClinicPKID=0 . Accessed November 5, 2015
    PubMed
  • 6 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, American Society for Reproductive Medicine, Society for Assisted Reproductive Technologies. 2012 assisted reproductive technology: fertility clinic success rates report. Atlanta 2014 [July 28, 2015]; Available at http://www.cdc.gov/art/pdf/2012-report/slides/art-2012-graphs-charts-figure-40.pdf . Accessed November 5, 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Martin JA, Hamilton BE, Osterman MJ, Curtin SC, Matthews TJ. Births: final data for 2013. Natl Vital Stat Rep 2015; 64 (1) 1-65
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Statistics Canada. The Daily. Ottawa: Statistics Canada; 2015 [July 28, 2015]; Available at http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/cansim/a26?lang=eng&retrLang=eng&id=1024503&paSer=&pattern=&stByVal=1&p1=1&p2=31&tabMode=dataTable&csid= . Accessed November 5, 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Eurostat. Population structure and ageing. 2015 [July 28, 2015]; Available at http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Population_structure_and_ageing-Past_and_future_population_ageing_trends_in_the_EU . Accessed November 5, 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Baker TG. A quantitative and cytological study of germ cells in human ovaries. Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 1963; 158: 417-433
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Faddy MJ, Gosden RG. A model conforming the decline in follicle numbers to the age of menopause in women. Hum Reprod 1996; 11 (7) 1484-1486
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Hansen KR, Knowlton NS, Thyer AC, Charleston JS, Soules MR, Klein NA. A new model of reproductive aging: the decline in ovarian non-growing follicle number from birth to menopause. Hum Reprod 2008; 23 (3) 699-708
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Faddy MJ, Gosden RG, Gougeon A, Richardson SJ, Nelson JF. Accelerated disappearance of ovarian follicles in mid-life: implications for forecasting menopause. Hum Reprod 1992; 7 (10) 1342-1346
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Pellestor F, Andréo B, Arnal F, Humeau C, Demaille J. Maternal aging and chromosomal abnormalities: new data drawn from in vitro unfertilized human oocytes. Hum Genet 2003; 112 (2) 195-203
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Nybo Andersen AM, Wohlfahrt J, Christens P, Olsen J, Melbye M. Maternal age and fetal loss: population based register linkage study. BMJ 2000; 320 (7251) 1708-1712
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hook EB. Rates of chromosome abnormalities at different maternal ages. Obstet Gynecol 1981; 58 (3) 282-285
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Reed BG, Babayev SN, Bukulmez O. Shifting paradigms in diminished ovarian reserve and advanced reproductive age in assisted reproduction: customization instead of conformity. Semin Reprod Med 2015; 33 (3) 169-178
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Alviggi C, Humaidan P, Howles CM, Tredway D, Hillier SG. Biological versus chronological ovarian age: implications for assisted reproductive technology. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2009; 7: 101
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, 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 (7) 1616-1624
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Broekmans FJ, Soules MR, Fauser BC. Ovarian aging: mechanisms and clinical consequences. Endocr Rev 2009; 30 (5) 465-493
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Faber BM, Mayer J, Cox B , et al. Cessation of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist therapy combined with high-dose gonadotropin stimulation yields favorable pregnancy results in low responders. Fertil Steril 1998; 69 (5) 826-830
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Dirnfeld M, Gonen Y, Lissak A , et al. A randomized prospective study on the effect of short and long buserelin treatment in women with repeated unsuccessful in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles due to inadequate ovarian response. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 1991; 8 (6) 339-343
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Surrey ES, Bower J, Hill DM, Ramsey J, Surrey MW. Clinical and endocrine effects of a microdose GnRH agonist flare regimen administered to poor responders who are undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 1998; 69 (3) 419-424
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 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
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Xiao J, Chang S, Chen S. The effectiveness of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist in poor ovarian responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2013; 100 (6) 1594-601.e1 , 9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Pu D, Wu J, Liu J. Comparisons of GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (10) 2742-2749
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Sunkara SK, Coomarasamy A, Faris R, Braude P, Khalaf Y. Long gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus short agonist versus antagonist regimens in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril 2014; 101 (1) 147-153
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 van Wely M, Kwan I, Burt AL , et al. Recombinant versus urinary gonadotrophin for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; (2) CD005354
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Raga F, Bonilla-Musoles F, Casañ EM, Bonilla F. Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone stimulation in poor responders with normal basal concentrations of follicle stimulating hormone and oestradiol: improved reproductive outcome. Hum Reprod 1999; 14 (6) 1431-1434
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Seyhan A, Ata B. The role of corifollitropin alfa in controlled ovarian stimulation for IVF in combination with GnRH antagonist. Int J Womens Health 2011; 3: 243-255
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Polyzos NP, Devos M, Humaidan P , et al. Corifollitropin alfa followed by rFSH in a GnRH antagonist protocol for poor ovarian responder patients: an observational pilot study. Fertil Steril 2013; 99 (2) 422-426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Polyzos NP, De Vos M, Corona R , et al. Addition of highly purified HMG after corifollitropin alfa in antagonist-treated poor ovarian responders: a pilot study. Hum Reprod 2013; 28 (5) 1254-1260
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Polyzos NP, Corona R, Van De Vijver A , et al. Corifollitropin alfa followed by hpHMG in GnRH agonist protocols. Two prospective feasibility studies in poor ovarian responders. Gynecol Endocrinol 2015; 1-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Bosdou JK , et al. Corifollitropin alfa compared with follitropin beta in poor responders undergoing ICSI: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2015; 30 (2) 432-440
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Lehert P, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA , et al. Recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (r-hFSH) plus recombinant luteinizing hormone versus r-hFSH alone for ovarian stimulation during assisted reproductive technology: systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2014; 12: 17
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Demirol A, Gurgan T, Girgin B. Supplementation of rec-LH for poor responder patients in ART. Hum Reprod 2005; 20 (Suppl. 01) i74
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Motta E, Massaguer A, Serafini P, Beltrame A, Yadid I, Coslowsky M. Supplementation with rec-FSh or rec-LH is equally effective to modulate suboptimal response for IVF cycles. A prospective randomized trial. Hum Reprod 2005; 20 (Suppl. 01) i25
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Ramirez M, Monzo A, Garcia-Gimeno T , et al. Role of LH administration during the follicular phase in women with risk of low response in ovarian stimulation with FSH and cetrorelix for IVF. Rev Iberoamer de Fertil 2006; 23: 281
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Vuong TN, Phung HT, Ho MT. Recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and recombinant luteinizing hormone versus recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone alone during GnRH antagonist ovarian stimulation in patients aged ≥35 years: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2015; 30 (5) 1188-1195
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 König TE, van der Houwen LE, Overbeek A , et al. Recombinant LH supplementation to a standard GnRH antagonist protocol in women of 35 years or older undergoing IVF/ICSI: a randomized controlled multicentre study. Hum Reprod 2013; 28 (10) 2804-2812
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Bosch E, Labarta E, Crespo J, Simón C, Remohí J, Pellicer A. Impact of luteinizing hormone administration on gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles: an age-adjusted analysis. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (3) 1031-1036
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Bosch E. Comment on ‘Recombinant LH supplementation to a standard GnRH antagonist protocol in women of 35 years old or older undergoing IVF/ICSI: a randomized controlled multicentre study’. Hum Reprod 2014; 29 (3) 636-637
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Dahan MH, Agdi M, Shehata F, Son W, Tan SL. A comparison of outcomes from in vitro fertilization cycles stimulated with either recombinant luteinizing hormone (LH) or human chorionic gonadotropin acting as an LH analogue delivered as human menopausal gonadotropins, in subjects with good or poor ovarian reserve: a retrospective analysis. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014; 172: 70-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Madani T, Mohammadi Yeganeh L, Khodabakhshi S, Akhoond MR, Hasani F. Efficacy of low dose hCG on oocyte maturity for ovarian stimulation in poor responder women undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle: a randomized controlled trial. J Assist Reprod Genet 2012; 29 (11) 1213-1220
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 van Weissenbruch MM, Schoemaker HC, Drexhage HA, Schoemaker J. Pharmaco-dynamics of human menopausal gonadotrophin (HMG) and follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). The importance of the FSH concentration in initiating follicular growth in polycystic ovary-like disease. Hum Reprod 1993; 8 (6) 813-821
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Hugues J-N, Cedrin-Durnerin I. Endocrine characteristics of ART cycles. In: Gardner DK, Weissman A, Howles CM, Shoham Z, ed. Textbook of Assisted Reproductive Technologies. United Kingdom: Informa; 2009: 511-527
    Google Scholar
  • 47 Out HJ, Braat DD, Lintsen BM , et al. Increasing the daily dose of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon) does not compensate for the age-related decline in retrievable oocytes after ovarian stimulation. Hum Reprod 2000; 15 (1) 29-35
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Yong PY, Brett S, Baird DT, Thong KJ. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing 150 IU and 225 IU of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (Gonal-F*) in a fixed-dose regimen for controlled ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil Steril 2003; 79 (2) 308-315
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Hofmann GE, Toner JP, Muasher SJ, Jones GS. High-dose follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) ovarian stimulation in low-responder patients for in vitro fertilization. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 1989; 6 (5) 285-289
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Land JA, Yarmolinskaya MI, Dumoulin JC, Evers JL. High-dose human menopausal gonadotropin stimulation in poor responders does not improve in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 1996; 65 (5) 961-965
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Haas J, Zilberberg E, Machtinger R, Kedem A, Hourvitz A, Orvieto R. Do poor-responder patients benefit from increasing the daily gonadotropin dose during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for IVF?. Gynecol Endocrinol 2015; 31 (1) 79-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 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) 611-615
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Berkkanoglu M, Ozgur K. What is the optimum maximal gonadotropin dosage used in microdose flare-up cycles in poor responders?. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (2) 662-665
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Baart EB, Martini E, Eijkemans MJ , et al. Milder ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization reduces aneuploidy in the human preimplantation embryo: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2007; 22 (4) 980-988
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Dragisic KG, Davis OK, Fasouliotis SJ, Rosenwaks Z. Use of a luteal estradiol patch and a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist suppression protocol before gonadotropin stimulation for in vitro fertilization in poor responders. Fertil Steril 2005; 84 (4) 1023-1026
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Ata B, Zeng X, Son WY, Holzer H, Tan SL. Follicular synchronization using transdermal estradiol patch and GnRH antagonists in the luteal phase; does it increase oocyte yield in poor responders to gonadotropin stimulation for in vitro fertilization (IVF)? A comparative study with microdose flare-up protocol. Gynecol Endocrinol 2011; 27 (11) 876-879
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 DiLuigi AJ, Engmann L, Schmidt DW, Benadiva CA, Nulsen JC. A randomized trial of microdose leuprolide acetate protocol versus luteal phase ganirelix protocol in predicted poor responders. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (8) 2531-2533
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 Reynolds KA, Omurtag KR, Jimenez PT, Rhee JS, Tuuli MG, Jungheim ES. Cycle cancellation and pregnancy after luteal estradiol priming in women defined as poor responders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod 2013; 28 (11) 2981-2989
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Aslan K, Avci B, Uncu G, Saribal S, Ata B. Scheduling GnRH antagonist cycles by a short course of oral estradiol administration during early follicular phase: a comparative study with non-scheduled cycles. Gynecol Endocrinol 2015; 31 (6) 465-468
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Vendola KA, Zhou J, Adesanya OO, Weil SJ, Bondy CA. Androgens stimulate early stages of follicular growth in the primate ovary. J Clin Invest 1998; 101 (12) 2622-2629
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Weil S, Vendola K, Zhou J, Bondy CA. Androgen and follicle-stimulating hormone interactions in primate ovarian follicle development. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 1999; 84 (8) 2951-2956
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Nielsen ME, Rasmussen IA, Kristensen SG , et al. In human granulosa cells from small antral follicles, androgen receptor mRNA and androgen levels in follicular fluid correlate with FSH receptor mRNA. Mol Hum Reprod 2011; 17 (1) 63-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Meldrum DR, Chang RJ, Giudice LC, Balasch J, Barbieri RL. Role of decreased androgens in the ovarian response to stimulation in older women. Fertil Steril 2013; 99 (1) 5-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Massin N, Cedrin-Durnerin I, Coussieu C, Galey-Fontaine J, Wolf JP, Hugues JN. Effects of transdermal testosterone application on the ovarian response to FSH in poor responders undergoing assisted reproduction technique—a prospective, randomized, double-blind study. Hum Reprod 2006; 21 (5) 1204-1211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 Fábregues F, Peñarrubia J, Creus M , et al. Transdermal testosterone may improve ovarian response to gonadotrophins in low-responder IVF patients: a randomized, clinical trial. Hum Reprod 2009; 24 (2) 349-359
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Kim CH, Howles CM, Lee HA. The effect of transdermal testosterone gel pretreatment on controlled ovarian stimulation and IVF outcome in low responders. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (2) 679-683
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Kim CH, Ahn JW, Moon JW, Kim SH, Chae HD, Kang BM. Ovarian features after 2 weeks, 3 weeks and 4 weeks transdermal testosterone gel treatment and their associated effect on IVF outcomes in poor responders. Balsaeng'gwa Saengsig 2014; 18 (3) 145-152
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Narkwichean A, Maalouf W, Campbell BK, Jayaprakasan K. Efficacy of dehydroepiandrosterone to improve ovarian response in women with diminished ovarian reserve: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2013; 11: 44
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Wiser A, Gonen O, Ghetler Y, Shavit T, Berkovitz A, Shulman A. Addition of dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) for poor-responder patients before and during IVF treatment improves the pregnancy rate: a randomized prospective study. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 (10) 2496-2500
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Kara M, Aydin T, Aran T, Turktekin N, Ozdemir B. Does dehydroepiandrosterone supplementation really affect IVF-ICSI outcome in women with poor ovarian reserve?. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2014; 173: 63-65
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Yeung TW, Chai J, Li RH, Lee VC, Ho PC, Ng EH. A randomized, controlled, pilot trial on the effect of dehydroepiandrosterone on ovarian response markers, ovarian response, and in vitro fertilization outcomes in poor responders. Fertil Steril 2014; 102 (1) 108-115.e1
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Tartagni M, Cicinelli MV, Baldini D , et al. Dehydroepiandrosterone decreases the age-related decline of the in vitro fertilization outcome in women younger than 40 years old. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2015; 13: 18
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Tarlatzis BC. DHEA administration in poor responders. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (3) 730-731 , author reply 731
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Akhtar M, Njar VC, Wright JN. Mechanistic studies on aromatase and related C-C bond cleaving P-450 enzymes. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 1993; 44 (4–6) 375-387
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Mitwally MF, Casper RF. Aromatase inhibition improves ovarian response to follicle-stimulating hormone in poor responders. Fertil Steril 2002; 77 (4) 776-780
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Kashyap S, Wells G, Davis O, Williams-Pittman MA, Rosenwaks Z. Aromatase inhibitors improve IVF outcomes in poor responders: a Randomized controlled pilot study. J Soc Gynecol Investig 2005; 12 (2, Suppl): 709
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Ozmen B, Sönmezer M, Atabekoglu CS, Olmus H. Use of aromatase inhibitors in poor-responder patients receiving GnRH antagonist protocols. Reprod Biomed Online 2009; 19 (4) 478-485
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Davar R, Oskouian H, Ahmadi S, Firouzabadi RD. GnRH antagonist/letrozole versus microdose GnRH agonist flare protocol in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2010; 49 (3) 297-301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Mohsen IA, El Din RE. Minimal stimulation protocol using letrozole versus microdose flare up GnRH agonist protocol in women with poor ovarian response undergoing ICSI. Gynecol Endocrinol 2013; 29 (2) 105-108
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Regan S, Stanger J, Yovich JL, Almahbobi G. Growth hormone increase gonadotropin receptor in poor prognosis patients. Hum Reprod 2012; 27 (Suppl. 02) 525
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Weall BM, Al-Samerria S, Conceicao J, Yovich JL, Almahbobi G. A direct action for GH in improvement of oocyte quality in poor-responder patients. Reproduction 2015; 149 (2) 147-154
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Duffy JM, Ahmad G, Mohiyiddeen L, Nardo LG, Watson A. Growth hormone for in vitro fertilization. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010; (1) CD000099
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Diedrich K, Tarlatzis BC, Griesinger G. Addition of growth hormone to gonadotrophins in ovarian stimulation of poor responders treated by in-vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2009; 15 (6) 613-622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Tesarik J, Hazout A, Mendoza C. Improvement of delivery and live birth rates after ICSI in women aged >40 years by ovarian co-stimulation with growth hormone. Hum Reprod 2005; 20 (9) 2536-2541
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Owen EJ, Shoham Z, Mason BA, Ostergaard H, Jacobs HS. Cotreatment with growth hormone, after pituitary suppression, for ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-control trial. Fertil Steril 1991; 56 (6) 1104-1110
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Kucuk T, Kozinoglu H, Kaba A. Growth hormone co-treatment within a GnRH agonist long protocol in patients with poor ovarian response: a prospective, randomized, clinical trial. J Assist Reprod Genet 2008; 25 (4) 123-127
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Zhuang GL, Wong SX, Zhou CQ. [The effect of co-administration of low dosage growth hormone and gonadotropin for ovarian hyperstimulation in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer]. Zhonghua Fu Chan Ke Za Zhi 1994; 29 (8) 471-474 , 510
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Bergh C, Hillensjö T, Wikland M, Nilsson L, Borg G, Hamberger L. Adjuvant growth hormone treatment during in vitro fertilization: a randomized, placebo-controlled study. Fertil Steril 1994; 62 (1) 113-120
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Dor J, Seidman DS, Amudai E, Bider D, Levran D, Mashiach S. Adjuvant growth hormone therapy in poor responders to in-vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized placebo-controlled double-blind study. Hum Reprod 1995; 10 (1) 40-43
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Suikkari A, MacLachlan V, Koistinen R, Seppälä M, Healy D. Double-blind placebo controlled study: human biosynthetic growth hormone for assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 1996; 65 (4) 800-805
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Eftekhar M, Aflatoonian A, Mohammadian F, Eftekhar T. Adjuvant growth hormone therapy in antagonist protocol in poor responders undergoing assisted reproductive technology. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2013; 287 (5) 1017-1021
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Polyzos NP, Devroey P. A systematic review of randomized trials for the treatment of poor ovarian responders: is there any light at the end of the tunnel?. Fertil Steril 2011; 96 (5) 1058-61.e7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 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 (7) 1768-1774
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 94 Patrizio P, Vaiarelli A, Levi Setti PE , et al. How to define, diagnose and treat poor responders? Responses from a worldwide survey of IVF clinics. Reprod Biomed Online 2015; 30 (6) 581-592
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 95 Grootegoed JA, Themmen PN. Use of AMH and/or AMH agonists and/or AMH antagonists for long-term control of female fertility. 2001 [cited August 14, 2015]; Available at http://www.google.com/patents/EP1074265A1?cl=en . Accessed November 5, 2015
    PubMedGoogle Scholar