Best Protocol for Controlled Ovarian Hyperstimulation in Assisted Reproductive Technologies: Fact or Opinion?

 

 Buy Article Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

From the early ages of assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs), different protocols have been developed with different gonadotropin preparations at different dosages with or without gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist or antagonist cotreatment. Various adjuvants have also been incorporated in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) protocols in an attempt to increase the efficacy and safety. The “best” protocol for COH should minimize stimulation burden while maintain the highest healthy, singleton, term live birth rates. Understandably, the one that meets all these expectations may not exist and COH should be individualized. Currently, there are worldwide differences in COH protocols and gonadotropin dose algorithms used depending on the country, demographics, funding stream, and existing guidelines/legislations. In 2014, despite efforts to individualize COH, currently, many of the protocols employ lack of high-quality evidence-based data. The aim of this review is to overview the efficacy and safety of available COH protocols, in normal responders, poor responders, and hyperresponders from evidence-based medicine perspective.

• References

• 1 Nardo LG, Fleming R, Howles CM , et al. Conventional ovarian stimulation no longer exists: welcome to the age of individualized ovarian stimulation. Reprod Biomed Online 2011; 23 (2) 141-148
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 2 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
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 3 Humaidan P, Polyzos NP. (Meta)analyze this: systematic reviews might lose credibility. Nat Med 2012; 18 (9) 1321
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 4 Daya S, Gunby J. Luteal phase support in assisted reproduction cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2004; (3) CD004830
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 5 van der Linden M, Buckingham K, Farquhar C, Kremer JA, Metwally M. Luteal phase support for assisted reproduction cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011; (10) CD009154
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 6 Hill MJ, Levens ED, Levy G , et al. 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) 1108-1114 , e1
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 7 König TE, van der Houwen LE, Lambalk CB. Recombinant LH supplementation in women of 35 years and older undergoing IVF?. Fertil Steril 2012; 98 (1) e10-e11 , author reply e12
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 8 Steptoe PC, Edwards RG. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet 1978; 2 (8085) 366
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 9 2011 Assisted Reproductive Technology National Summary Report Available at: http://www.cdc.gov/art/ART2011/NationalSummary_index.htm . Accessed on May 16, 2014
  PubMed
• 10 La Marca A, Sunkara SK. Individualization of controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF using ovarian reserve markers: from theory to practice. Hum Reprod Update 2014; 20 (1) 124-140
  Google Scholar
• 11 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
• 12 Ji J, Liu Y, Tong XH, Luo L, Ma J, Chen Z. The optimum number of oocytes in IVF treatment: an analysis of 2455 cycles in China. Hum Reprod 2013; 28 (10) 2728-2734
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 13 Bourgain C, Devroey P. The endometrium in stimulated cycles for IVF. Hum Reprod Update 2003; 9 (6) 515-522
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 14 Kalra SK, Ratcliffe SJ, Dokras A. Is the fertile window extended in women with polycystic ovary syndrome? Utilizing the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology registry to assess the impact of reproductive aging on live-birth rate. Fertil Steril 2013; 100 (1) 208-213
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 15 Broer SL, van Disseldorp J, Broeze KA , et al; IMPORT study group. Added value of ovarian reserve testing on patient characteristics in the prediction of ovarian response and ongoing pregnancy: an individual patient data approach. Hum Reprod Update 2013; 19 (1) 26-36
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 16 Verhagen TE, Hendriks DJ, Bancsi LF, Mol BW, Broekmans FJ. The accuracy of multivariate models predicting ovarian reserve and pregnancy after in vitro fertilization: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2008; 14 (2) 95-100
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 17 Broer SL, Dólleman M, van Disseldorp J , et al; IPD-EXPORT Study Group. Prediction of an excessive response in in vitro fertilization from patient characteristics and ovarian reserve tests and comparison in subgroups: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2013; 100 (2) 420-429 , e7
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 18 Al-Azemi M, Killick SR, Duffy S , et al. Multi-marker assessment of ovarian reserve predicts oocyte yield after ovulation induction. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (2) 414-422
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 19 Nelson SM, Yates RW, Fleming R. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone and FSH: prediction of live birth and extremes of response in stimulated cycles—implications for individualization of therapy. Hum Reprod 2007; 22 (9) 2414-2421
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 20 Arce JC, La Marca A, Mirner Klein B, Nyboe Andersen A, Fleming R. Antimüllerian hormone in gonadotropin releasing-hormone antagonist cycles: prediction of ovarian response and cumulative treatment outcome in good-prognosis patients. Fertil Steril 2013; 99 (6) 1644-1653
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 21 Polyzos NP, Tournaye H, Guzman L, Camus M, Nelson SM. Predictors of ovarian response in women treated with corifollitropin alfa for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril 2013; 100 (2) 430-437
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 22 Wallace AM, Faye SA, Fleming R, Nelson SM. A multicentre evaluation of the new Beckman Coulter anti-Mullerian hormone immunoassay (AMH Gen II). Ann Clin Biochem 2011; 48 (Pt 4) 370-373
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 23 Kumar A, Kalra B, Patel A, McDavid L, Roudebush WE. Development of a second generation anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) ELISA. J Immunol Methods 2010; 362 (1-2) 51-59
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 24 Rustamov O, Smith A, Roberts SA , et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone: poor assay reproducibility in a large cohort of subjects suggests sample instability. Hum Reprod 2012; 27 (10) 3085-3091
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 25 Nelson SM, Yates RW, Lyall H , et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone-based approach to controlled ovarian stimulation for assisted conception. Hum Reprod 2009; 24 (4) 867-875
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 26 Frattarelli JL, Levi AJ, Miller BT, Segars JH. A prospective assessment of the predictive value of basal antral follicles in in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril 2003; 80 (2) 350-355
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 27 Jayaprakasan K, Deb S, Batcha M , et al. The cohort of antral follicles measuring 2-6.  mm reflects the quantitative status of ovarian reserve as assessed by serum levels of anti-Müllerian hormone and response to controlled ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (5) 1775-1781
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 28 Aflatoonian A, Oskouian H, Ahmadi S, Oskouian L. Prediction of high ovarian response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: anti-Müllerian hormone versus small antral follicle count (2-6 mm). J Assist Reprod Genet 2009; 26 (6) 319-325
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 29 Broekmans FJ, de Ziegler D, Howles CM, Gougeon A, Trew G, Olivennes F. The antral follicle count: practical recommendations for better standardization. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (3) 1044-1051
  Google Scholar
• 30 van Disseldorp J, Lambalk CB, Kwee J , et al. Comparison of inter- and intra-cycle variability of anti-Mullerian hormone and antral follicle counts. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 (1) 221-227
  Google Scholar
• 31 Scheffer GJ, Broekmans FJ, Bancsi LF, Habbema JD, Looman CW, Te Velde ER. Quantitative transvaginal two- and three-dimensional sonography of the ovaries: reproducibility of antral follicle counts. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2002; 20 (3) 270-275
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 32 Jayaprakasan K, Campbell BK, Clewes JS, Johnson IR, Raine-Fenning NJ. Three-dimensional ultrasound improves the interobserver reliability of antral follicle counts and facilitates increased clinical work flow. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2008; 31 (4) 439-444
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 33 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
• 34 Garcia-Velasco JA, Isaza V, Requena A , et al. High doses of gonadotrophins combined with stop versus non-stop protocol of GnRH analogue administration in low responder IVF patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2000; 15 (11) 2292-2296
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 35 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) 406-411
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 36 Kyrou D, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Papanikolaou EG, Bontis J, Tarlatzis BC. How to improve the probability of pregnancy in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2009; 91 (3) 749-766
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 37 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) 886-892
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 38 Kenigsberg D, Littman BA, Hodgen GD. Medical hypophysectomy: I. Dose-response using a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist. Fertil Steril 1984; 42 (1) 112-115
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 39 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
• 40 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
• 41 Nargund G, Fauser BC, Macklon NS, Ombelet W, Nygren K, Frydman R ; Rotterdam ISMAAR Consensus Group on Terminology for Ovarian Stimulation for IVF. The ISMAAR proposal on terminology for ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum Reprod 2007; 22 (11) 2801-2804
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 42 Zhang J, Chang L, Sone Y, Silber S. Minimal ovarian stimulation (mini-IVF) for IVF utilizing vitrification and cryopreserved embryo transfer. Reprod Biomed Online 2010; 21 (4) 485-495
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 43 Gleicher N, Weghofer A, Barad DH. Low-intensity IVF: real progress?. Reprod Biomed Online 2011; 23 (3) 274-278
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 44 Ragni G, Levi-Setti PE, Fadini R , et al. Clomiphene citrate versus high doses of gonadotropins for in vitro fertilisation in women with compromised ovarian reserve: a randomised controlled non-inferiority trial. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2012; 10: 114
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 45 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
• 46 Yoo JH, Cha SH, Park CW , et al. Comparison of mild ovarian stimulation with conventional ovarian stimulation in poor responders. Clin Exp Reprod Med 2011; 38 (3) 159-163
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 47 Morgia F, Sbracia M, Schimberni M , et al. 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) 1542-1547
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 48 Cohen J, Grudzinskas G, Johnson M. Welcome to the '100% club'!. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 24 (4) 375-376
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 49 Cobo A, Garrido N, Crespo J, José R, Pellicer A. Accumulation of oocytes: a new strategy for managing low-responder patients. Reprod Biomed Online 2012; 24 (4) 424-432
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 50 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) 1247-1253
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 51 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
• 52 Cedrin-Durnerin I, Bständig B, Hervé F, Wolf J, Uzan M, Hugues J. A comparative study of high fixed-dose and decremental-dose regimens of gonadotropins in a minidose gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist flare protocol for poor responders. Fertil Steril 2000; 73 (5) 1055-1056
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 53 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) 146-149
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 54 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
• 55 van Tilborg TC, Eijkemans MJ, Laven JS , et al. The OPTIMIST study: optimisation of cost effectiveness through individualised FSH stimulation dosages for IVF treatment. A randomised controlled trial. BMC Womens Health 2012; 12: 29
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 56 Chang X, Wu J. Effects of luteal estradiol pre-treatment on the outcome of IVF in poor ovarian responders. Gynecol Endocrinol 2013; 29 (3) 196-200
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 57 Marrs R, Meldrum D, Muasher S, Schoolcraft W, Werlin L, Kelly E. Randomized trial to compare the effect of recombinant human FSH (follitropin alfa) with or without recombinant human LH in women undergoing assisted reproduction treatment. Reprod Biomed Online 2004; 8 (2) 175-182
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 58 Nyboeandersen A, Humaidan P, Fried G , et al; Nordic LH study group. Recombinant LH supplementation to recombinant FSH during the final days of controlled ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization. A multicentre, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Hum Reprod 2008; 23 (2) 427-434
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 59 Matorras R, Prieto B, Exposito A , et al. Mid-follicular LH supplementation in women aged 35-39 years undergoing ICSI cycles: a randomized controlled study. Reprod Biomed Online 2009; 19 (6) 879-887
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 60 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
• 61 De Placido G, Alviggi C, Mollo A , et al. Effects of recombinant LH (rLH) supplementation during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in normogonadotrophic women with an initial inadequate response to recombinant FSH (rFSH) after pituitary downregulation. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 2004; 60 (5) 637-643
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 62 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
• 63 Bosdou JK, Venetis CA, Kolibianakis EM , et al. The use of androgens or androgen-modulating agents in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2012; 18 (2) 127-145
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 64 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
• 65 Braat DD, Schutte JM, Bernardus RE, Mooij TM, van Leeuwen FE. Maternal death related to IVF in the Netherlands 1984-2008. Hum Reprod 2010; 25 (7) 1782-1786
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 66 Ertzeid G, Storeng R. The impact of ovarian stimulation on implantation and fetal development in mice. Hum Reprod 2001; 16 (2) 221-225
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 67 Humaidan P, Quartarolo J, Papanikolaou EG. Preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: guidance for the clinician. Fertil Steril 2010; 94 (2) 389-400
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 68 Navot D, Bergh PA, Laufer N. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in novel reproductive technologies: prevention and treatment. Fertil Steril 1992; 58 (2) 249-261
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 69 Kwee J, Schats R, McDonnell J, Themmen A, de Jong F, Lambalk C. Evaluation of anti-Müllerian hormone as a test for the prediction of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril 2008; 90 (3) 737-743
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 70 Lee TH, Liu CH, Huang CC , et al. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone and estradiol levels as predictors of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in assisted reproduction technology cycles. Hum Reprod 2008; 23 (1) 160-167
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 71 Altmäe S, Hovatta O, Stavreus-Evers A, Salumets A. Genetic predictors of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: where do we stand today?. Hum Reprod Update 2011; 17 (6) 813-828
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 72 Al-Inany HG, Youssef MA, Aboulghar M , et al. GnRH antagonists are safer than agonists: an update of a Cochrane review. Hum Reprod Update 2011; 17 (4) 435
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 73 Kol S, Humaidan P. GnRH agonist triggering: recent developments. Reprod Biomed Online 2013; 26 (3) 226-230
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 74 Engmann L, DiLuigi A, Schmidt D, Benadiva C, Maier D, Nulsen J. The effect of luteal phase vaginal estradiol supplementation on the success of in vitro fertilization treatment: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril 2008; 89 (3) 554-561
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 75 Humaidan P, Ejdrup Bredkjaer H, Westergaard LG, Yding Andersen C. 1,500 IU human chorionic gonadotropin administered at oocyte retrieval rescues the luteal phase when gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist is used for ovulation induction: a prospective, randomized, controlled study. Fertil Steril 2010; 93 (3) 847-854
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 76 Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Thomas S. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist combined with a reduced dose of human chorionic gonadotropin for final oocyte maturation in fresh autologous cycles of in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 2008; 90 (1) 231-233
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 77 Papanikolaou EG, Verpoest W, Fatemi H, Tarlatzis B, Devroey P, Tournaye H. A novel method of luteal supplementation with recombinant luteinizing hormone when a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist is used instead of human chorionic gonadotropin for ovulation triggering: a randomized prospective proof of concept study. Fertil Steril 2011; 95 (3) 1174-1177
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 78 Humaidan P, Polyzos NP, Alsbjerg B , et al. GnRHa trigger and individualized luteal phase hCG support according to ovarian response to stimulation: two prospective randomized controlled multi-centre studies in IVF patients. Hum Reprod 2013; 28 (9) 2511-2521
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 79 Seyhan A, Ata B, Polat M, Son WY, Yarali H, Dahan MH. Severe early ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome following GnRH agonist trigger with the addition of 1500 IU hCG. Hum Reprod 2013; 28 (9) 2522-2528
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 80 Palomba S, Falbo A, La Sala GB. Effects of metformin in women with polycystic ovary syndrome treated with gonadotrophins for in vitro fertilisation and intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BJOG 2013; 120 (3) 267-276
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 81 Gomez R, Gonzalez-Izquierdo M, Zimmermann RC , et al. Low-dose dopamine agonist administration blocks vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)-mediated vascular hyperpermeability without altering VEGF receptor 2-dependent luteal angiogenesis in a rat ovarian hyperstimulation model. Endocrinology 2006; 147 (11) 5400-5411
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 82 Leitao VM, Moroni RM, Seko LM, Nastri CO, Martins WP. Cabergoline for the prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Fertil Steril 2014; 101 (3) 664-675
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 83 D'Angelo A, Amso N. “Coasting” (withholding gonadotrophins) for preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002; (3) CD002811
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 84 Devroey P, Aboulghar M, Garcia-Velasco J , et al. Improving the patient's experience of IVF/ICSI: a proposal for an ovarian stimulation protocol with GnRH antagonist co-treatment. Hum Reprod 2009; 24 (4) 764-774
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 85 Heijnen EM, Eijkemans MJ, De Klerk C , et al. A mild treatment strategy for in-vitro fertilisation: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2007; 369 (9563) 743-749
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 86 Hohmann FP, Macklon NS, Fauser BC. A randomized comparison of two ovarian stimulation protocols with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist cotreatment for in vitro fertilization commencing recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone on cycle day 2 or 5 with the standard long GnRH agonist protocol. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2003; 88 (1) 166-173
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 87 Verberg MF, Eijkemans MJ, Macklon NS , et al. The clinical significance of the retrieval of a low number of oocytes following mild ovarian stimulation for IVF: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2009; 15 (1) 5-12
  PubMedGoogle Scholar
• 88 Sterrenburg MD, Veltman-Verhulst SM, Eijkemans MJ , et al. Clinical outcomes in relation to the daily dose of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone for ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization in presumed normal responders younger than 39 years: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 2011; 17 (2) 184-196
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 89 Popovic-Todorovic B, Loft A, Bredkjaeer HE, Bangsbøll S, Nielsen IK, Andersen AN. A prospective randomized clinical trial comparing an individual dose of recombinant FSH based on predictive factors versus a 'standard' dose of 150 IU/day in 'standard' patients undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. Hum Reprod 2003; 18 (11) 2275-2282
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 90 Olivennes F, Howles CM, Borini A , et al; CONSORT study group. Individualizing FSH dose for assisted reproduction using a novel algorithm: the CONSORT study. Reprod Biomed Online 2009; 18 (2) 195-204
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 91 La Marca A, Grisendi V, Giulini S , et al. Individualization of the FSH starting dose in IVF/ICSI cycles using the antral follicle count. J Ovarian Res 2013; 6 (1) 11
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 92 La Marca A, Nelson SM, Sighinolfi G , et al. Anti-Müllerian hormone-based prediction model for a live birth in assisted reproduction. Reprod Biomed Online 2011; 22 (4) 341-349
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 93 Yates AP, Rustamov O, Roberts SA , et al. Anti-Mullerian hormone-tailored stimulation protocols improve outcomes whilst reducing adverse effects and costs of IVF. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (9) 2353-2362
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 94 Devroey P, Polyzos NP, Blockeel C. An OHSS-Free Clinic by segmentation of IVF treatment. Hum Reprod 2011; 26 (10) 2593-2597
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 95 Shapiro BS, Daneshmand ST, Garner FC, Aguirre M, Hudson C, Thomas S. Evidence of impaired endometrial receptivity after ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a prospective randomized trial comparing fresh and frozen-thawed embryo transfer in normal responders. Fertil Steril 2011; 96 (2) 344-348
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
• 96 Maheshwari A, Pandey S, Shetty A, Hamilton M, Bhattacharya S. Obstetric and perinatal outcomes in singleton pregnancies resulting from the transfer of frozen thawed versus fresh embryos generated through in vitro fertilization treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 2012; 98 (2) 368-377 , e1–e9
  CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar