Randomized trial comparing luteinizing hormone supplementation timing strategies in older women undergoing ovarian stimulation

n/

Biological versus chronological ovarian age:implications for assisted reproductive technology

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Women have been able to delay childbearing since effective contraception became available in the 1960s. However, fertility decreases with increasing maternal age. A slow but steady decrease in fertility is observed in women aged between 30 and 35 years, which is followed by an accelerated decline among women aged over 35 years. A combination of delayed childbearing and reduced fecundity with increasing age has resulted in an increased number and proportion of women of greater than or equal to 35 years of age seeking assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Literature searches supplemented with the authors' knowledge.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Despite major advances in medical technology, there is currently no ART treatment strategy that can fully compensate for the natural decline in fertility with increasing female age. Although chronological age is the most important predictor of ovarian response to follicle-stimulating hormone, the rate of reproductive ageing and ovarian sensitivity to gonadotrophins varies considerably among individuals. Both environmental and genetic factors contribute to depletion of the ovarian oocyte pool and reduction in oocyte quality. Thus, biological and chronological ovarian age are not always equivalent. Furthermore, biological age is more important than chronological age in predicting the outcome of ART. As older patients present increasingly for ART treatment, it will become more important to critically assess prognosis, counsel appropriately and optimize treatment strategies. Several genetic markers and biomarkers (such as anti-Müllerian hormone and the antral follicle count) are emerging that can identify women with accelerated biological ovarian ageing. Potential strategies for improving ovarian response include the use of luteinizing hormone (LH) and growth hormone (GH). When endogenous LH levels are heavily suppressed by gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogues, LH supplementation may help to optimize treatment outcomes for women with biologically older ovaries. Exogenous GH may improve oocyte development and counteract the age-related decline of oocyte quality. The effects of GH may be mediated by insulin-like growth factor-I, which works synergistically with follicle-stimulating hormone on granulosa and theca cells.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Patients with biologically older ovaries may benefit from a tailored approach based on individual patient characteristics. Among the most promising adjuvant therapies for improving ART outcomes in women of advanced reproductive age are the administration of exogenous LH or GH.</p

Overlapping biosimilar and originator follitropin alfa preparations : How much closer can they get?

Altres ajuts: acord transformatiu CRUE-CSICUnfounded skepticism relating to biosimilars, arising from the assertion that they are not molecularly identical to their original counterpart, fails to acknowledge that no biological medicine, including Gonal-f® (from Merck Serono) is identical to itself. Molecular differences between the biosimilar and the reference medicines are irrelevant and clinically undetectable as long as they are contained within the accepted variability for the original medicine. Accordingly, the minor differences in 'ongoing pregnancy rate' and 'live birth' rate reported in a recent meta-analysis of biosimilars of Gonal-f® from Chua et al. are probably driven by product-unrelated factors, notwithstanding the fact that of the four products under analysis, only Ovaleap® (from Theramex UK Ltd) and Bemfola® (from Gedeon Richter Plc) can unambiguously be considered to be biosimilars. The EU Biosimilars model has proven successful, but some healthcare professionals, building on highly arguable premises, voice a distrust in biosimilars. Only if such scientifically unfounded distrust is reverted, the full promise of rFSH alfa biosimilars for reproductive medicine patients is likely to be fulfilled

Randomized trial comparing luteinizing hormone supplementation timing strategies in older women undergoing ovarian stimulation

In this open-label study, women aged 36-40 years undergoing ovarian stimulation were randomized to recombinant human FSH (rhFSH) plus recombinant human luteinizing hormone (rhLH) from stimulation day 1 (group A; n = 103), or rhFSH alone (days 1-5) followed by rhFSH plus rhLH from day 6 (group B; n = 99). The primary objective was equivalence in number of oocytes retrieved per patient. The mean (\ub1SD) number of oocytes retrieved was 9.7 (\ub16.9) in group A and 10.9 (\ub16.5) in group B; the estimated difference between groups (-1.28 oocytes [95% confidence interval: -3.15 to 0.59]) did not reach the predefined limit of equivalence (\ub13 oocytes). The study's primary objective was therefore not met. In both groups, a mean (\ub1SD) of 1.9 (\ub10.6) embryos were transferred per patient. Implantation rates were 24.7% in group A and 13.3% in group B. Clinical pregnancy rates per started cycle and per embryo transfer were 31.6% and 34.4% in Group A, 17.2% and 18.9% in Group B. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome was reported in four (group A) and five (group B) patients. The potential benefit of initiating LH supplementation earlier during ovarian stimulation in older women is of interest, warranting further exploration

A multi-centre international study of salivary hormone oestradiol and progesterone measurements in ART monitoring

Research question: Ovarian stimulation during IVF cycles involves close monitoring of oestradiol, progesterone and ultrasound measurements of follicle growth. In contrast to blood draws, sampling saliva is less invasive. Here, a blind validation is presented of a novel saliva-based oestradiol and progesterone assay carried out in samples collected in independent IVF clinics. Design: Concurrent serum and saliva samples were collected from 324 patients at six large independent IVF laboratories. Saliva samples were frozen and run blinded. A further 18 patients had samples collected more frequently around the time of HCG trigger. Saliva samples were analysed using an immunoassay developed with Salimetrics LLC. Results: In total, 652 pairs of saliva and serum oestradiol were evaluated, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.68 to 0.91. In the European clinics, a further 237 of saliva and serum progesterone samples were evaluated; however, the correlations were generally poorer, ranging from -0.02 to 0.22. In the patients collected more frequently, five out of 18 patients (27.8%) showed an immediate decrease in oestradiol after trigger. When progesterone samples were assessed after trigger, eight out of 18 (44.4%) showed a continued rise. Conclusions: Salivary oestradiol hormone testing correlates well to serum-based assessment, whereas progesterone values, around the time of trigger, are not consistent from patient to patient. ABSTRACT Research question: Ovarian stimulation during IVF cycles involves close monitoring of oestradiol, progesterone and ultrasound measurements of follicle growth. In contrast to blood draws, sampling saliva is less invasive. Here, a blind validation is presented of a novel saliva-based oestradiol and progesterone assay carried out in samples collected in independent IVF clinics. Design: Concurrent serum and saliva samples were collected from 324 patients at six large independent IVF laboratories. Saliva samples were frozen and run blinded. A further 18 patients had samples collected more frequently around the time of HCG trigger. Saliva samples were analysed using an immunoassay developed with Salimetrics LLC. Results: In total, 652 pairs of saliva and serum oestradiol were evaluated, with correlation coefficients ranging from 0.68 to 0.91. In the European clinics, a further 237 of saliva and serum progesterone samples were evaluated; however, the correlations were generally poorer, ranging from -0.02 to 0.22. In the patients collected more frequently, five out of 18 patients (27.8%) showed an immediate decrease in oestradiol after trigger. When progesterone samples were assessed after trigger, eight out of 18 (44.4%) showed a continued rise. Conclusions: Salivary oestradiol hormone testing correlates well to serum-based assessment, whereas progesterone values, around the time of trigger, are not consistent from patient to patient