Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-22dnz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T00:07:06.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

47 - The Prediction and Management of Poor Responders in ART

from PART III - ASSISTED REPRODUCTION

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2010

By
Hassan N. Sallam ,
Botros R. M. B. Rizk  and
Juan A. Garcia-Velasco
Edited by
Botros R. M. B. Rizk ,
Juan A. Garcia-Velasco ,
Hassan N. Sallam  and
Antonis Makrigiannakis
Botros R. M. B. Rizk
Affiliation:
University of South Alabama
Juan A. Garcia-Velasco
Affiliation:
Rey Juan Carlos University School of Medicine,
Hassan N. Sallam
Affiliation:
University of Alexandria School of Medicine
Antonis Makrigiannakis
Affiliation:
University of Crete
Get access

Summary

INTRODUCTION

Although the first successful in vitro fertilization (IVF) reported in 1978 resulted from a natural (unstimulated) cycle, it became subsequently clear that ovarian stimulation resulted in a higher number of oocytes retrieved and higher pregnancy rates (1). In the following years, various stimulation protocols were suggested and used in patients treated with IVF and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Today, controlled ovarian stimulation prior to IVF or ICS is the universally accepted practice. However, in some instances, the female partner's response to ovarian stimulation is less than optimal, resulting in the retrieval of a small number of oocytes. These patients have been termed poor responders.

Poor responders have a higher incidence of cycle cancellation, lower fertilization, and lower pregnancy and implantation rates. In a study by Saldeen et al, poor responders, defined as those from whom less than five oocytes were retrieved, and who were above thirty-seven years of age, had a significantly lower pregnancy rate per ovum pick-up (OPU) compared to normal responders in the same age-group (3.0 versus 22.1 percent, p < 0.05). In addition, 43.6 percent of these women did not receive an embryo transfer (ET), compared to 13.2 percent of normal responders in the same age-group (p < 0.05). Poor responders who were thirty-seven years of age or younger had a significantly lower pregnancy rate per OPU compared to normal responders of the same age-group (14.0 versus 34.5 percent, p < 0.05) together with a higher cancellation rate (40.1 versus 10.5 percent) (2).

Keywords

adjuvant therapyassisted reproductive technologyclomiphene citrate challenge testin vitro fertilizationovarian stimulation agentpoor responderspregnancyintracytoplasmic sperm injection
Type
Chapter
Information
Infertility and Assisted Reproduction , pp. 428 - 442
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Jones, HW Jr. IVF: past and future. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;6(3):375–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saldeen, P, Källen, K, Sundström, P. The probability of successful IVF outcome after poor ovarian response. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2007;86(4):457–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Surrey, ES, Schoolcraft, WB. Evaluating strategies for improving ovarian response of the poor responder undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Fertil Steril. 2000;73(4):667–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raga, F, Bonilla-Musoles, F, Casan, EM, et al. 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):1431–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Busacca, M, Fusi, FM, Brigante, C, et al. Use of growth hormone-releasing factor in ovulation induction in poor responders. J Reprod Med. 1996;41(9):699–703.Google ScholarPubMed
Feldberg, D, Farhi, J, Ashkenazi, J, et al. Minidose gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist is the treatment of choice in poor responders with high follicle-stimulating hormone levels. Fertil Steril. 1994;62(2):343–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fridstrom, M, Akerlof, E, Sjoblom, P, et al. Serum levels of luteinizing and follicle-stimulating hormones in normal and poor-responding patients undergoing ovarian stimulation with urofollitropin after pituitary down regulation. Gynecol Endocrinol. 1997;11(1):25–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Serafini, P, Stone, B, Kerin, J, et al. An alternate approach to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in “poor responders”: pretreatment with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog. Fertil Steril. 1988;49(1):90–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Surrey, ES, Bower, J, Hill, DM, et al. 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):419–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindheim, SR, Sauer, MV, Francis, MM, et al. The significance of elevated early follicular-phase follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) levels: observations in unstimulated in vitro fertilization cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1996;13(1):49–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Land, JA, Yarmolinskaya, MI, Dumoulin, JC, et al. High-dose human menopausal gonadotropin stimulation in poor responders does not improve in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril. 1996;65(5):961–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lashen, H, Ledger, W, Lopez-Bernal, A, et al. Poor responders to ovulation induction: is proceeding to in-vitro fertilization worthwhile?Hum Reprod. 1999;14(4):964–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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):826–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karande, V, Morris, R, Rinehart, J, et al. Limited success using the “flare” protocol in poor responders in cycles with low basal follicle-stimulating hormone levels during in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1997;67(5):900–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toth, TL, Awwad, JT, Veeck, LL, et al. Suppression and flare regimens of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist. Use in women with different basal gonadotropin values in an in vitro fertilization program. J Reprod Med. 1996;41(5):321–6.Google Scholar
Brzyski, RG, Muasher, SJ, Droesch, K, et al. Follicular atresia associated with concurrent initiation of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist and follicle-stimulating hormone for oocyte recruitment. Fertil Steril. 1998;50(6):917–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karande, VC, Jones, GS, Veeck, LL, et al. High-dose follicle- stimulating hormone stimulation at the onset of the menstrual cycle does not improve the in vitro fertilization outcome in low-responder patients. Fertil Steril. 1990;53(3):486–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, JH, Wu, MY, Chao, KH, Chen, SU, Ho, HN, Yang, YS. Long GnRH-agonist protocol in an IVF program. Is it appropriate for women with normal FSH levels and high FSH/LH ratios?J Reprod Med. 1997;42(10):663–8.Google Scholar
Salat-Baroux, J, Rotten, D, Alvarez, S, et al. Comparison of growth hormone responses to growth hormone-releasing factor and clonidine in women with normal or poor ovarian response to gonadotropin stimulation. Fertil Steril. 1993;60(5):791–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ibrahim, ZH, Matson, PL, Buck, P, et al. The use of biosynthetic human growth hormone to augment ovulation induction with buserelin acetate/human menopausal gonadotropin in women with a poor ovarian response. Fertil Steril. 1991;55(1):202–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Manzi, DL, Thornton, KL, Scott, LB, et al. The value of increasing the dose of human menopausal gonadotropins in women who initially demonstrate a poor response. Fertil Steril. 1994;62(2):251–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofmann, GE, Toner, JP, Muasher, SJ, et al. 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):285–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, SM, Huang, ZH, Morris, ID, et al. A double-blind cross-over controlled study to evaluate the effect of human biosynthetic growth hormone on ovarian stimulation in previous poor responders to in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1994;9(1):13–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shaker, AG, Fleming, R, Jamieson, ME, et al. Absence of effect of adjuvant growth hormone therapy on follicular responses to exogenous gonadotropins in women: normal and poor responders. Fertil Steril. 1992;58(5):919–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chong, AP, Rafael, RW, Forte, CC. Influence of weight in the induction of ovulation with human menopausal gonadotropin and human chorionic gonadotropin. Fertil Steril. 1986;46(4):599–603.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rombauts, L, Suikkari, AM, MacLachlan, V, et al. Recruitment of follicles by recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone commencing in the luteal phase of the ovarian cycle. Fertil Steril. 1998;69(4):665–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sallam, HN, Ezzeldin, F, Agameya, AF, Rahman, AF, El-Garem, Y. Defining poor responders in assisted reproduction. Int J Fertil Womens Med. 2005;50(3):115–20.Google ScholarPubMed
Fasouliotis, SJ, Simon, A, Laufer, N. Evaluation and treatment of low responders in assisted reproductive technology: a challenge to meet. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2000;17(7):357–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology; American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Assisted reproductive technology in the United States: 2001 results generated from the American Society for Reproductive Medicine/Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology registry. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(6):1253–66. Epub 2007 Feb 2.
Tan, SL, Royston, P, Campbell, S, Jacobs, HS, Betts, J, Mason, B, Edwards, RG. Cumulative conception and livebirth rates after in-vitro fertilisation. Lancet. 1992;339(8806):1390–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Toner, JP, Philput, CB, Jones, GS, et al. Basal follicle-stimulating hormone level is a better predictor of in vitro fertilization performance than age. Fertil Steril. 1991;55(4):784–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Check, JH, Lurie, D, Callan, C, Baker, A, Benfer, K. Comparison of the cumulative probability of pregnancy after in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer by infertility factor and age. Fertil Steril. 1994;61(2):257–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Engmann, L, Maconochie, N, Bekir, JS, Jacobs, HS, Tan, SL. Cumulative probability of clinical pregnancy and live birth after a multiple cycle IVF package: a more realistic assessment of overall and age-specific success rates?Br J Obstet Gynaecol. 1999;106(2):165–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ulug, U, Ben-Shlomo, I, Turan, E, Erden, HF, Akman, MA, Bahceci, M. Conception rates following assisted reproduction in poor responder patients: a retrospective study in 300 consecutive cycles. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;6(4):439–43.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Galey-Fontaine, J, Cédrin-Durnerin, I, Chaïbi, R, Massin, N, Hugues, JN. Age and ovarian reserve are distinct predictive factors of cycle outcome in low responders. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10(1):94–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beckers, NG, Macklon, NS, Eijkemans, MJ, Fauser, BC. Women with regular menstrual cycles and a poor response to ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization exhibit follicular phase characteristics suggestive of ovarian aging. Fertil Steril. 2002;78(2):291–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nikolaou, D, Lavery, S, Turner, C, Margara, R, Trew, G. Is there a link between an extremely poor response to ovarian hyperstimulation and early ovarian failure?Hum Reprod. 2002;17(4):1106–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawson, R, El-Toukhy, T, Kassab, A, Taylor, A, Braude, P, Parsons, J, Seed, P. Poor response to ovulation induction is a stronger predictor of early menopause than elevated basal FSH: a life table analysis. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(3):527–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owen, EJ, Torresani, T, West, C, Mason, BA, Jacobs, HS. Serum and follicular fluid insulin like growth factors I and II during growth hormone co-treatment for in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 1991;35(4):327–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bahceci, M, Ulug, U, Turan, E, Akman, MA. Comparisons of follicular levels of sex steroids, gonadotropins and insulin like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) and epidermal growth factor (EGF) in poor responder and normoresponder patients undergoing ovarian stimulation with GnRH antagonist. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2007;130(1):93–8. Epub 2006 May 23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamori, M, Blum, WF, Török, A, Stehle, R, Waibel, E, Cledon, P, Ranke, MB. Insulin-like growth factors and their binding proteins in human follicular fluid. Hum Reprod. 1991;6(3):313–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nishimura, K, Tanaka, N, Kawano, T, Matsuura, K, Okamura, H. Changes in macrophage colony-stimulating factor concentration in serum and follicular fluid in in-vitro fertilization and embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril. 1998;69(1):53–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Battaglia, C, Genazzani, AD, Regnani, G, Primavera, MR, Petraglia, F, Volpe, A. Perifollicular Doppler flow and follicular fluid vascular endothelial growth factor concentrations in poor responders. Fertil Steril. 2000;74(4):809–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luisi, S, Palumbo, M, Calonaci, G, Leo, V, Razzi, S, Inaudi, P, Cobellis, G, Petraglia, F. Serum inhibin B correlates with successful ovulation in infertile women. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2003;20(6):241–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Onalan, G, Selam, B, Onalan, R, Ceyhan, T, Cincik, M, Pabuccu, R. Serum and follicular fluid levels of soluble Fas and soluble Fas ligand in IVF cycles. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2006;125(1):85–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cai, J, Lou, HY, Dong, MY, Lu, XE, Zhu, YM, Gao, HJ, Huang, HF. Poor ovarian response to gonadotropin stimulation is associated with low expression of follicle-stimulating hormone receptor in granulosa cells. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(6):1350–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Luborsky, JL, Thiruppathi, P, Rivnay, B, Roussev, R, Coulam, C, Radwanska, E. Evidence for different aetiologies of low estradiol response to FSH: age-related accelerated luteinization of follicles or presence of ovarian autoantibodies. Hum Reprod. 2002;17(10):2641–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bancsi, LF, Broekmans, FJ, Eijkemans, MJ, Jong, FH, Habbema, JD, te Velde, ER. Predictors of poor ovarian response in in vitro fertilization: a prospective study comparing basal markers of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril. 2002;77(2):328–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kligman, I, Rosenwaks, Z. Differentiating clinical profiles: predicting good responders, poor responders, and hyperresponders. Fertil Steril. 2001;76(6):1185–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klein, NA, Illingworth, PJ, Groome, NP, McNeilly, AS, Battaglia, , Soules, MR. Decreased inhibin B secretion is associated with the monotropic FSH rise in older, ovulatory women: a study of serum and follicular fluid levels of dimeric inhibin A and B in spontaneous menstrual cycles. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1996;81(7):2742–5.Google Scholar
Burger, HG, Groome, NP, Robertson, DM. Both inhibin A and B respond to exogenous follicle-stimulating hormone in the follicular phase of the human menstrual cycle. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1998;83(11):4167–9.Google Scholar
Welt, CK, Adams, JM, Sluss, PM, Hall, JE. Inhibin A and inhibin B responses to gonadotropin withdrawal depends on stage of follicle development. J Clin Endocrinol Metab. 1999;84(6):2163–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Licciardi, FL, Liu, HC, Rosenwaks, Z. Day 3 estradiol serum concentrations as prognosticators of ovarian stimulation response and pregnancy outcome in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1995;64(5):991–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smotrich, DB, Widra, EA, Gindoff, PR, et al. Prognostic value of day 3 estradiol on in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril. 1995;64(6):1136–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vet, A, Laven, JS, Jong, FH, Themmen, AP, Fauser, BC. Antimüllerian hormone serum levels: a putative marker for ovarian aging. Fertil Steril. 2002;77(2):357–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pellicer, A, Ardiles, G, Neuspiller, F, Remohí, J, Simón, C, Bonilla-Musoles, F. Evaluation of the ovarian reserve in young low responders with normal basal levels of follicle-stimulating hormone using three-dimensional ultrasonography. Fertil Steril. 1998;70(4):671–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lass, A, Skull, J, McVeigh, E, et al. Measurement of ovarian volume by transvaginal sonography before ovulation induction with human menopausal gonadotrophin for in-vitro fertilization can predict poor response. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(2):294–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kwee, J, Elting, ME, Schats, R, McDonnell, J, Lambalk, CB. Ovarian volume and antral follicle count for the prediction of low and hyper responders with in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2007;5:9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kan, A, Ng, EH, Yeung, WS, Ho, PC. Perifollicular vascularity in poor ovarian responders during IVF. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(6):1539–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, RT, Toner, JP, Muasher, SJ, Oehninger, S, Robinson, S, Rosenwaks, Z. Follicle-stimulating hormone levels on cycle day 3 are predictive of in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril. 1989;51(4):651–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bassil, S, Godin, PA, Gillerot, S, Verougstraete, JC, Donnez, J. In vitro fertilization outcome according to age and follicle-stimulating hormone levels on cycle day 3. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1999;16(5):236–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barroso, G, Oehninger, S, Monzo, A, Kolm, P, Gibbons, WE, Muasher, SJ. High FSH:LH ratio and low LH levels in basal cycle day 3: impact on follicular development and IVF outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2001;18(9):499–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muttukrishna, S, Suharjono, H, McGarrigle, H, Sathanandan, M. Inhibin B and anti-Mullerian hormone: markers of ovarian response in IVF/ICSI patients?BJOG 2004;111(11):1248–53.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Erdem, M, Erdem, A, Gursoy, R, Biberoglu, K. Comparison of basal and clomiphene citrate induced FSH and inhibin B, ovarian volume and antral follicle counts as ovarian reserve tests and predictors of poor ovarian response in IVF. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2004;21(2):37–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Onagawa, T, Shibahara, H, Ayustawati, Machida S, Hirano, Y, Hirashima, C, Takamizawa, S, Suzuki, M. Prediction of ovarian reserve based on day-3 serum follicle stimulating hormone concentrations during the pituitary suppression cycle using a gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2004; 18(6):335–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rooij, IA, Bancsi, LF, Broekmans, FJ, Looman, CW, Habbema, JD, te Velde, ER. Women older than 40 years of age and those with elevated follicle-stimulating hormone levels differ in poor response rate and embryo quality in in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2003;79(3):482–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Abdalla, H, Thum, MY. Repeated testing of basal FSH levels has no predictive value for IVF outcome in women with elevated basal FSH. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(1):171–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bancsi, LF, Broekmans, FJ, Mol, BW, Habbema, JD, te Velde, ER. Performance of basal follicle-stimulating hormone in the prediction of poor ovarian response and failure to become pregnant after in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2003; 79(5):1091–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mukherjee, T, Copperman, AB, Lapinski, R, Sandler, B, Bustillo, M, Grunfeld, L. An elevated day three follicle-stimulating hormone:luteinizing hormone ratio (FSH:LH) in the presence of a normal day 3 FSH predicts a poor response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Fertil Steril. 1996;65(3):588–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Seifer, DB, Lambert-Messerlian, G, Hogan, JW, et al. Day 3 serum inhibin-B is predictive of assisted reproductive technologies outcome. Fertil Steril. 1997;67(1):110–1104.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hofmann, GE, Danforth, DR, Seifer, DB. Inhibin-B: the physiologic basis of the clomiphene citrate challenge test for ovarian reserve screening. Fertil Steril. 1998;69(3):474–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Urbancsek, J, Hauzman, EE, Murber, A, Lagarde, AR, Rabe, T, Papp, Z, Strowitzki, T. Serum CA-125 and inhibin B levels in the prediction of ovarian response to gonadotropin stimulation in in vitro fertilization cycles. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2005;21(1):38–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corson, SL, Gutmann, J, Batzer, FR, Wallace, H, Klein, N, Soules, MR. Inhibin-B as a test of ovarian reserve for infertile women. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(11):2818–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Evers, JL, Slaats, P, Land, JA, Dumoulin, JC, Dunselman, GA. Elevated levels of basal estradiol-17-beta predict poor response in patients with normal basal levels of follicle-stimulating hormone undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1998;69:1010–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costello, MF, Hughes, GJ, Garrett, DK, Steigrad, SJ, Ekangaki, A. Prognostic value of baseline serum oestradiol in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation of women with unexplained infertility. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol. 2001;41(1):69–74.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vázquez, ME, Verez, JR, Stern, JJ, Gutierrez Najar, A, Asch, RH. Elevated basal estradiol levels have no negative prognosis in young women undergoing ART cycles. Gynecol Endocrinol. 1998;12(3):155–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Phophong, P, Ranieri, DM, Khadum, I, Meo, F, Serhal, P. Basal 17beta-estradiol did not correlate with ovarian response and in vitro fertilization treatment outcome. Fertil Steril. 2000;74(6):1133–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fanchin, R, Schonauer, LM, Righini, C, Guibourdenche, J, Frydman, R, Taieb, J. Serum anti-Mullerian hormone is more strongly related to ovarian follicular status than serum inhibin B, estradiol, FSH and LH on day 3. Hum Reprod. 2003;18(2):323–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hazout, A, Bouchard, P, Seifer, DB, Aussage, P, Junca, AM, Cohen-Bacrie, P. Serum antimullerian hormone/mullerian-inhibiting substance appears to be a more discriminatory marker of assisted reproductive technology outcome than follicle-stimulating hormone, inhibin B, or estradiol. Fertil Steril. 2004;82(5):1323–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elgindy, EA, El-Haieg, , El-Sebaey, A. Anti-Müllerian hormone: correlation of early follicular, ovulatory and midluteal levels with ovarian response and cycle outcome in intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients. Fertil Steril. 2007. Epub ahead of print.Google ScholarPubMed
Broekmans, FJ, Kwee, J, Hendriks, DJ, Mol, BW, Lambalk, CB. A systematic review of tests predicting ovarian reserve and IVF outcome. Hum Reprod Update. 2006;12(6):685–718.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomas, C, Nuojua-Huttunen, S, Martikainen, H. Pretreatment transvaginal ultrasound examination predicts ovarian responsiveness to gonadotrophins in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1997;12(2):220–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chang, MY, Chiang, CH, Hsieh, TT, Soong, YK, Hsu, KH. Use of the antral follicle count to predict the outcome of assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril. 1998;69(3):505–10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eldar-Geva, T, Ben-Chetrit, A, Spitz, IM, Rabinowitz, R, Markowitz, E, Mimoni, T, Gal, M, Zylber-Haran, E, Margalioth, EJ. Dynamic assays of inhibin B, anti-Mullerian hormone and estradiol following FSH stimulation and ovarian ultrasonography as predictors of IVF outcome. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(11):3178–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Vladimirov, IK, Tacheva, DM, Kalinov, KB, Ivanova, AV, Blagoeva, VD. Prognostic value of some ovarian reserve tests in poor responders. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2005;272(1):74–9. Epub 2005 Jan 20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hendriks, DJ, Broekmans, FJ, Bancsi, LF, Looman, CW, de Jong FH, te Velde ER. Single and repeated GnRH agonist stimulation tests compared with basal markers of ovarian reserve in the prediction of outcome in IVF. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2005;22(2):65–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haadsma, ML, Bukman, A, Groen, H, Roeloffzen, EM, Groenewoud, ER, Heineman, MJ, Hoek, A. The number of small antral follicles (2-6 mm) determines the outcome of endocrine ovarian reserve tests in a subfertile population. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(7):1925–31. Epub 2007 Apr 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bancsi, LF, Broekmans, FJ, Looman, CW, Habbema, JD, te Velde, ER. Impact of repeated antral follicle counts on the prediction of poor ovarian response in women undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(1):35–41.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Durmusoglu, F, Elter, K, Yoruk, P, Erenus, M. Combining cycle day 7 follicle count with the basal antral follicle count improves the prediction of ovarian response. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(4):1073–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kwee, J, Elting, ME, Schats, R, McDonnell, J, Lambalk, CB. Ovarian volume and antral follicle count for the prediction of low and hyper responders with in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2007;5:9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hendriks, DJ, Kwee, J, Mol, BW, te Velde, ER, Broekmans, FJ. Ultrasonography as a tool for the prediction of outcome in IVF patients: a comparative meta-analysis of ovarian volume and antral follicle count. Fertil Steril. 2007;87(4):764–75. Epub 2007 Jan 18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Navot, D, Rosenwaks, Z, Margalioth, EJ. Prognostic assessment of female fecundity. Lancet. 1987;2(8560):645–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fanchin, R, Ziegler, D, Olivennes, F, Taieb, J, Dzik, A, Frydman, R. Exogenous follicle stimulating hormone ovarian reserve test (EFORT) (a simple and reliable screening test for detecting “poor responders” in in-vitro fertilization). Hum Reprod. 1994;9:1607–1611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fábregues, F, Balasch, J, Creus, M, Carmona, F, Puerto, B, Quintó, L, Casamitjana, R, Vanrell, JA. Ovarian reserve test with human menopausal gonadotropin as a predictor of in vitro fertilization outcome. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2000;17(1):13–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Padilla, SL, Smith, RD, Garcia, JE. The Lupron screening test (tailoring the use of leuprolide acetate in ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization). Fertil Steril. 1991;56:79–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karande, V, Gleicher, N. A rational approach to the management of low responders in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(7):1744–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Loumaye, E, Billion, JM, Mine, JM, et al. Prediction of individual response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation by means of a clomiphene citrate challenge test. Fertil Steril. 1990;53(2):295–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, RT Jr, Illions, EH, Kost, ER, et al. Evaluation of the significance of the estradiol response during the clomiphene citrate challenge test. Fertil Steril. 1993;60(2):242–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kwee, J, Schats, R, McDonnell, J, Schoemaker, J, Lambalk, CB. The clomiphene citrate challenge test versus the exogenous follicle-stimulating hormone ovarian reserve test as a single test for identification of low responders and hyperresponders to in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(6):1714–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hendriks, DJ, Broekmans, FJ, Bancsi, LF, Jong, FH, Looman, CW, Te Velde, ER. Repeated clomiphene citrate challenge testing in the prediction of outcome in IVF: a comparison with basal markers for ovarian reserve. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(1):163–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hendriks, DJ, Mol, BW, Bancsi, LF, te Velde, ER, Broekmans, FJ. The clomiphene citrate challenge test for the prediction of poor ovarian response and nonpregnancy in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review. Fertil Steril. 2006;86(4):807–18. Epub 2006 Sep 7. Review.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fanchin, R, Ziegler, D, Olivennes, F, et al. Exogenous follicle stimulating hormone ovarian reserve test (EFORT): a simple and reliable screening test for detecting poor responders in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1994;9(9):1607–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Iwase, A, Ando, H, Kuno, K, Mizutani, S. Use of follicle- stimulating hormone test to predict poor response in in vitro fertilization. Obstet Gynecol. 2005;105(3):645–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kwee, J, Schats, R, McDonnell, J, Lambalk, CB, Schoemaker, J. Intercycle variability of ovarian reserve tests: results of a prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(3):590–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dzik, A, Lambert-Messerlian, G, Izzo, VM, Soares, JB, Pinotti, JA, Seifer, DB. Inhibin B response to EFORT is associated with the outcome of oocyte retrieval in the subsequent in vitro fertilization cycle. Fertil Steril. 2000;74(6):1114–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Winslow, KL, Toner, JP, Brzyski, RG, Oehninger, SC, Acosta, AA, Muasher, SJ. The gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist stimulation test—a sensitive predictor of performance in the flare-up in vitro fertilization cycle. Fertil Steril. 1991;56(4):711–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hendriks, DJ, Broekmans, FJ, Bancsi, LF, Looman, CW, de Jong FH, te Velde ER. Single and repeated GnRH agonist stimulation tests compared with basal markers of ovarian reserve in the prediction of outcome in IVF. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2005;22(2): 65–73.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hendriks, DJ, Mol, BW, Bancsi, LF, Te Velde, ER, Broekmans, FJ. Antral follicle count in the prediction of poor ovarian response and pregnancy after in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis and comparison with basal follicle-stimulating hormone level. Fertil Steril. 2005;83(2):291–301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Muttukrishna, S, McGarrigle, H, Wakim, R, Khadum, I, Ranieri, DM, Serhal, P. Antral follicle count, anti-mullerian hormone and inhibin B: predictors of ovarian response in assisted reproductive technology?BJOG 2005;112(10):1384–90.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McIlveen, M, Skull, JD, Ledger, WL. Evaluation of the utility of multiple endocrine and ultrasound measures of ovarian reserve in the prediction of cycle cancellation in a high-risk IVF population. Hum Reprod. 2007;22(3):778–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bukulmez, O, Arici, A. Assessment of ovarian reserve. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2004;16(3):231–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Klinkert, ER, Broekmans, FJ, Looman, CW, Te Velde, ER. A poor response in the first in vitro fertilization cycle is not necessarily related to a poor prognosis in subsequent cycles. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(5):1247–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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):285–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Pantos, C, Thornton, SJ, Speirs, AL, Johnston, I. Increasing the human menopausal gonadotropin dose—does the response really improve?Fertil Steril. 1990;53(3):436–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karande, VC, Jones, GS, Veeck, LL, Muasher, SJ. High-dose follicle-stimulating hormone stimulation at the onset of the menstrual cycle does not improve the in vitro fertilization outcome in low-responder patients. Fertil Steril. 1990;53(3):486–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzi, DL, Thornton, KL, Scott, LB, Nulsen, JC. The value of increasing the dose of human menopausal gonadotropins in women who initially demonstrate a poor response. Fertil Steril. 1994;62(2):251–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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):961–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hershlag, A, Asis, MC, Diamond, MP, DeCherney, AH, Lavy, G. The predictive value and the management of cycles with low initial estradiol levels. Fertil Steril. 1990;53(6):1064–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khalaf, Y, El-Toukhy, T, Taylor, A, Braude, P. Increasing the gonadotrophin dose in the course of an in vitro fertilization cycle does not rectify an initial poor response. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2002;103(2):146–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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. Epub 2004 Dec 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Placido, G, Alviggi, C, Mollo, A, Strina, I, Varricchio, MT, Molis, M. Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone is effective in poor responders to highly purified follicle stimulating hormone. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(1):17–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lisi, F, Rinaldi, L, Fishel, S, Lisi, R, Pepe, G, Picconeri, MG, Campbell, A, Rowe, P. Use of recombinant FSH and recombinant LH in multiple follicular stimulation for IVF: a preliminary study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2001;3(3):190–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eskandar, M, Jaroudi, K, Jambi, A, Archibong, EI, Coskun, S, Sobande, AA. Is recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone more effective in IVF poor responders than human menopausal gonadotrophins?Med Sci Monit. 2004;10(1):PI6–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Berkkanoglu, M, Isikoglu, M, Aydin, D, Ozgur, K. Clinical effects of ovulation induction with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone supplemented with recombinant luteinizing hormone or low-dose recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin in the midfollicular phase in microdose cycles in poor responders. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(3):665–9. Epub 2007 Feb 12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Belaisch-Allart, J, Testart, J, Frydman, R. Utilization of GnRH agonists for poor responders in an IVF programme. Hum Reprod. 1989;4(1):33–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldberg, D, Farhi, J, Ashkenazi, J, Dicker, D, Shalev, J, Ben-Rafael, Z. Minidose gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist is the treatment of choice in poor responders with high follicle-stimulating hormone levels. Fertil Steril. 1994;62(2):343–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scott, RT, Navot, D. Enhancement of ovarian responsiveness with microdoses of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist during ovulation induction for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1994;61(5):880–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olivennes, F, Righini, C, Fanchin, R, et al. A protocol using a low dose of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist might be the best protocol for patients with high follicle-stimulating hormone concentrations on day 3. Hum Reprod. 1996;11(6):1169–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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):419–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Weissman, A, Farhi, J, Royburt, M, Nahum, H, Glezerman, M, Levran, D. Prospective evaluation of two stimulation protocols for low responders who were undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril. 2003;79(4):886–92.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Howles, CM, Macnamee, MC, Edwards, RG. Short term use of an LHRH agonist to treat poor responders entering an in-vitro fertilization programme. Hum Reprod. 1987;2(8):655–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Padilla, SL, Dugan, K, Maruschak, V, Shalika, S, Smith, RD. Use of the flare-up protocol with high dose human follicle stimulating hormone and human menopausal gonadotropins for in vitro fertilization in poor responders. Fertil Steril. 1996;65(4):796–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karande, V, Morris, R, Rinehart, J, Miller, C, Rao, R, Gleicher, N. Limited success using the “flare” protocol in poor responders in cycles with low basal follicle-stimulating hormone levels during in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1997;67(5):900–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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):419–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Karacan, M, Erkan, H, Karabulut, O, Sarikamiş, B, Camlibel, T, Benhabib, M. Clinical pregnancy rates in an IVF program. Use of the flare-up protocol after failure with long regimens of GnRH-a. J Reprod Med. 2001 May;46(5):485–9.Google Scholar
Confino, E, Zhang, X, Kazer, RR. GnRHa flare and IVF pregnancy rates. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 2004;85(1):36–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orvieto, R, Kruchkovich, J, Rabinson, J, Zohav, E, Anteby, EY, Meltcer, S. Ultrashort gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist combined with flexible multidose gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist for poor responders in in vitro fertilization/embryo transfer programs. Fertil Steril. 2007. Epub ahead of print.Google ScholarPubMed
Rizk, B (Ed.). Ultrasonography in reproductive medicine and infertility. Cambridge: United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press (in press).CrossRef
Faber, BM, Mayer, J, Cox, B, Jones, D, Toner, JP, Oehninger, S, Muasher, SJ. 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):826–30.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dirnfeld, M, Fruchter, O, Yshai, D, Lissak, A, Ahdut, A, Abramovici, H. Cessation of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue (GnRH-a) upon down-regulation versus conventional long GnRH-a protocol in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1999;72(3):406–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schachter, M, Friedler, S, Raziel, A, Strassburger, D, Bern, O, Ron-el, R. Improvement of IVF outcome in poor responders by discontinuation of GnRH analogue during the gonadotropin stimulation phase—a function of improved embryo quality. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2001;18(4):197–204.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wang, PT, Lee, RK, Su, JT, Hou, JW, Lin, MH, Hu, YM. Cessation of low-dose gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist therapy followed by high-dose gonadotropin stimulation yields a favorable ovarian response in poor responders. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2002;19(1):1–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craft, I, Gorgy, A, Hill, J, Menon, D, Podsiadly, B. Will GnRH antagonists provide new hope for patients considered ‘difficult responders’ to GnRH agonist protocols?Hum Reprod. 1999; 14(12):2959–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nikolettos, N, Al-Hasani, S, Felberbaum, R, Demirel, LC, Kupker, W, Montzka, P, Xia, YX, Schopper, B, Sturm, R, Diedrich, K. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol: a novel method of ovarian stimulation in poor responders. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001;97(2):202–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fasouliotis, SJ, Laufer, N, Sabbagh-Ehrlich, S, Lewin, A, Hurwitz, A, Simon, A. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH)-antagonist versus GnRH-agonist in ovarian stimulation of poor responders undergoing IVF. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2003; 20(11):455–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mahutte, NG, Arici, A. Role of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists in poor responders. Fertil Steril. 2007; 87(2):241–9. Epub 2006 Nov 16.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Akman, MA, Erden, HF, Tosun, SB, Bayazit, N, Aksoy, E, Bahceci, M. Addition of GnRH antagonist in cycles of poor responders undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(10):2145–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheung, LP, Lam, PM, Lok, IH, Chiu, TT, Yeung, SY, Tjer, CC, Haines, CJ. GnRH antagonist versus long GnRH agonist protocol in poor responders undergoing IVF: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2005;20(3):616–21. Epub 2004 Dec 17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Malmusi, S, Marca, A, Giulini, S, Xella, S, Tagliasacchi, D, Marsella, T, Volpe, A. Comparison of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist and GnRH agonist flare-up regimen in poor responders undergoing ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(2):402–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Placido, G, Mollo, A, Clarizia, R, Strina, I, Conforti, S, Alviggi, C. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist plus recombinant luteinizing hormone vs. a standard GnRH agonist short protocol in patients at risk for poor ovarian response. Fertil Steril. 2006;85(1):247–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Griesinger, G, Diedrich, K, Tarlatzis, BC, Kolibianakis, EM. GnRH-antagonists in ovarian stimulation for IVF in patients with poor response to gonadotrophins, polycystic ovary syndrome, and risk of ovarian hyperstimulation: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13(5):628–38.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Franco, JG Jr, Baruffi, RL, Mauri, AL, Petersen, CG, Felipe, V, Cornicelli, J, Cavagna, M, Oliveira, JB. GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in poor ovarian responders: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13(5):618–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frankfurter, D, Dayal, M, Dubey, A, Peak, D, Gindoff, P. Novel follicular-phase gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist stimulation protocol for in vitro fertilization in the poor responder. Fertil Steril. 2007. Epub ahead of print.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D'Amato, G, Caroppo, E, Pasquadibisceglie, A, Carone, D, Vitti, A, Vizziello, GM. A novel protocol of ovulation induction with delayed gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist administration combined with high-dose recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and clomiphene citrate for poor responders and women over 35 years. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(6):1572–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisch, JD, Keskintepe, L, Sher, G. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist/antagonist conversion with estrogen priming in low responders with prior in vitro fertilization failure. Fertil Steril. 2007. Epub ahead of print.Google ScholarPubMed
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):1023–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bassil, S, Godin, PA, Donnez, J. Outcome of in-vitro fertilization through natural cycles in poor responders. Hum Reprod. 1999;14(5):1262–5. CCT – Our findings demonstrate that an encouraging number of pregnancies can be achieved by IVF during natural cycles in poor responders to ovarian stimulation.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldman, B, Seidman, DS, Levron, J, Bider, D, Shulman, A, Shine, S, Dor, J. In vitro fertilization following natural cycles in poor responders. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2001;15(5):328–34. CCT—We conclude that poor responders are a unique group of patients who may benefit from natural-cycle IVF treatment.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgia, F, Sbracia, M, Schimberni, M, Giallonardo, A, Piscitelli, C, Giannini, P, Aragona, C. A controlled trial of natural cycle versus microdose gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog flare cycles in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(6):1542–7. (RCT) In poor responders.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Elizur, SE, Aslan, D, Shulman, A, Weisz, B, Bider, D, Dor, J. Modified natural cycle using GnRH antagonist can be an optional treatment in poor responders undergoing IVF. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2005;22(2):75–9. Retrospective study.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frydman, R. [GnRH antagonists in natural cycles]. [Article in French]. J Gynecol Obstet Biol Reprod (Paris). 2004;33(6 Pt. 2):3S46–9.Google Scholar
Kolibianakis, E, Zikopoulos, K, Camus, M, Tournaye, H, Steirteghem, A, Devroey, P. Modified natural cycle for IVF does not offer a realistic chance of parenthood in poor responders with high day 3 FSH levels, as a last resort prior to oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(11):2545–9. Epub 2004 Oct 7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gonen, Y, Jacobson, W, Casper, RF. Gonadotropin suppression with oral contraceptives before in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1990;53(2):282–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lindheim, SR, Barad, DH, Witt, B, Ditkoff, E, Sauer, MV. Short-term gonadotropin suppression with oral contraceptives benefits poor responders prior to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1996;13(9):745–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisch, B, Royburt, M, Pinkas, H, Avrech, OM, Goldman, GA, Bar, J, Tadir, Y, Ovadia, J. Augmentation of low ovarian response to superovulation before in vitro fertilization following priming with contraceptive pills. Isr J Med Sci. 1996;32(12): 1172–6.Google ScholarPubMed
al-Mizyen, E, Sabatini, L, Lower, AM, Wilson, CM, al-Shawaf, T, Grudzinskas, JG. Does pretreatment with progestrogen or oral contraceptive pills in low responders followed by the GnRHa flare protocol improve the outcome of IVF-ET?J Assist Reprod Genet. 2000;17(3):140–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kovacs, P, Barg, PE, Witt, BR. Hypothalamic-pituitary suppression with oral contraceptive pills does not improve outcome in poor responder patients undergoing in vitro fertilization- embryo transfer cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2001;18(7):391–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendikson, K, Milki, AA, Speck-Zulak, A, Westphal, LM. Comparison of GnRH antagonist cycles with and without oral contraceptive pretreatment in potential poor prognosis patients. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2006;33(3):145–7.Google ScholarPubMed
Keltz, MD, Gera, PS, Skorupski, J, Stein, . Comparison of FSH flare with and without pretreatment with oral contraceptive pills in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 2007;88(2):350–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barmat LI, Chantilis SJ, Hurst BS, Dickey RP. A randomized prospective trial comparing gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist/recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) versus GnRH-agonist/rFSH in women pretreated with oral contraceptives before in vitro fertilization.
Balasch, J, Fábregues, F, Peñarrubia, J, Carmona, F, Casamitjana, R, Creus, M, Manau, D, Casals, G, Vanrell, JA. Pretreatment with transdermal testosterone may improve ovarian response to gonadotrophins in poor-responder IVF patients with normal basal concentrations of FSH. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(7):1884–93. Epub 2006 Mar 3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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):1204–11. Epub 2006 Feb 13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Casson, PR, Lindsay, MS, Pisarska, MD, Carson, SA, Buster, JE. Dehydroepiandrosterone supplementation augments ovarian stimulation in poor responders: a case series. Hum Reprod. 2000;15(10):2129–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barad, D, Gleicher, N. Effect of dehydroepiandrosterone on oocyte and embryo yields, embryo grade and cell number in IVF. Hum Reprod. 2006;21(11):2845–9.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Awonuga, AO, Nabi, A. In vitro fertilization with low-dose clomiphene citrate stimulation in women who respond poorly to superovulation. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1997;14(9):503–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benadiva, CA, Davis, O, Kligman, I, Liu, HC, Rosenwaks, Z. Clomiphene citrate and hMG: an alternative stimulation protocol for selected failed in vitro fertilization patients. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1995;12(1):8–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
D'Amato, G, Caroppo, E, Pasquadibisceglie, A, Carone, D, Vitti, A, Vizziello, GM. A novel protocol of ovulation induction with delayed gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist administration combined with high-dose recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and clomiphene citrate for poor responders and women over 35 years. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(6):1572–7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ashrafi, M, Ashtiani, SK, Zafarani, F, Samani, RO, Eshrati, B. Evaluation of ovulation induction protocols for poor responders undergoing assisted reproduction techniques. Saudi Med J. 2005;26(4):593–6.Google ScholarPubMed
Homburg, R, West, C, Torresani, T, Jacobs, HS. Co-treatment with human growth hormone and gonadotropins for induction of ovulation: a controlled clinical trial. Fertil Steril. 1990;53(2):254–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bergh, C, Carlstrom, K, Selleskog, U, Hillensjo, T. Effect of growth hormone on follicular fluid androgen levels in patients treated with gonadotropins before in vitro fertilization. Eur J Endocrinol. 1996;134(2):190–6.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Orvieto, R, Homburg, R, Farhi, J, Bar-Hava, I, Ben-Rafael, Z. A new concept of cotreatment with human growth hormone and menotropins in ovulation induction protocols. Med Hypotheses. 1997;49(5):413–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ibrahim, ZH, Matson, PL, Buck, P, Lieberman, BA. The use of biosynthetic human growth hormone to augment ovulation induction with buserelin acetate/human menopausal gonadotropin in women with a poor ovarian response. Fertil Steril. 1991;55(1):202–4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wu, MY, Chen, HF, Ho, HN, Chen, SU, Chao, KH, Huang, SC, Lee, TY, Yang, YS. The value of human growth hormone as an adjuvant for ovarian stimulation in a human in vitro fertilization program. J Obstet Gynaecol Res. 1996;22(5):443–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shaker, AG, Fleming, R, Jamieson, ME, Yates, RW, Coutts, JR. Absence of effect of adjuvant growth hormone therapy on follicular responses to exogenous gonadotropins in women: normal and poor responders. Fertil Steril. 1992;58(5):919–23.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levy, T, Limor, R, Villa, Y, Eshel, A, Eckstein, N, Vagman, I, Lidor, A, Ayalon, D. Another look at co-treatment with growth hormone and human menopausal gonadotrophins in poor ovarian responders. Hum Reprod. 1993;8(6):834–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
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):113–20.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hughes, SM, Huang, ZH, Morris, ID, Matson, PL, Buck, P, Lieberman, BA. A double-blind cross-over controlled study to evaluate the effect of human biosynthetic growth hormone on ovarian stimulation in previous poor responders to in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1994;9(1):13–8.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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):40–3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Suikkari, A, MacLachlan, V, Koistinen, R, Seppala, M, Healy, D. Double-blind placebo controlled study: human biosynthetic growth hormone for assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril. 1996;65(4):800–5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harper, K, Proctor, M, Hughes, E. Growth hormone for in vitro fertilization. Coch Database Syst Rev. 2003;(3):CD000099.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guan, Q, Ma, HG, Wang, YY, Zhang, F. [Effects of co-administration of growth hormone(GH) and aspirin to women during in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) cycles]. [Article in Chinese]. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue. 2007;13(9):798–800.Google ScholarPubMed
Lok, IH, Yip, SK, Cheung, LP, Yin Leung, PH, Haines, CJ. Adjuvant low-dose aspirin therapy in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2004;81(3):556–61.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Frattarelli, JL, McWilliams, GD, Hill, MJ, Miller, KA, Scott, RT Jr. Low-dose aspirin use does not improve in vitro fertilization outcomes in poor responders. Fertil Steril. 2007. Epub ahead of print.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mitwally, MF, Casper, RF. Aromatase inhibition improves ovarian response to follicle-stimulating hormone in poor responders. Fertil Steril. 2002;77(4):776–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Goswami, SK, Das, T, Chattopadhyay, R, Sawhney, V, Kumar, J, Chaudhury, K, Chakravarty, BN, Kabir, SN. A randomized single-blind controlled trial of letrozole as a low-cost IVF protocol in women with poor ovarian response: a preliminary report. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(9):2031–5. Epub 2004 Jun 24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schoolcraft, WB, Surrey, ES, Minjarez, DA, Stevens, JM, Gardner, DK. Management of poor responders: can outcomes be improved with a novel gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist/letrozole protocol?Fertil Steril. 2007; Epub ahead of print.Google ScholarPubMed
Keay, SD. Poor ovarian response to gonadotrophin stimulation the role of adjuvant treatments. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2002;5(1 Suppl.):S46–52.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tarlatzis, BC, Zepiridis, L, Grimbizis, G, Bontis, J. Clinical management of low ovarian response to stimulation for IVF: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2003;9(1):61–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shanbhag, S, Aucott, L, Bhattacharya, S, Hamilton, MA, McTavish, AR. Interventions for ‘poor responders’ to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in in-vitro fertilisation IVF). Coch Database Syst Rev. 2007;(1):CD004379. Review.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Devroey, P, Wisanto, A, Camus, M, Waesberghe, L, Bourgain, C, Liebaers, I, Steirteghem, AC. Oocyte donation in patients without ovarian function. Hum Reprod. 1988;3(6):699–704.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kolibianakis, E, Zikopoulos, K, Camus, M, Tournaye, H, Steirteghem, A, Devroey, P. Modified natural cycle for IVF does not offer a realistic chance of parenthood in poor responders with high day 3 FSH levels, as a last resort prior to oocyte donation. Hum Reprod. 2004;19(11):2545–9. Epub 2004 Oct 7.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×