Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: review and new classification criteria for reporting in clinical trials

STUDY QUESTION What is an objective approach that employs measurable and reproducible physiologic changes as the basis for the classification of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in order to facilitate more accurate reporting of incidence rates within and across clinical trials? SUMMARY ANSWER The OHSS flow diagram is an objective approach that will facilitate consistent capture, classification and reporting of OHSS within and across clinical trials. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY OHSS is a potentially life-threatening iatrogenic complication of the early luteal phase and/or early pregnancy after ovulation induction (OI) or ovarian stimulation (OS). The clinical picture of OHSS (the constellation of symptoms associated with each stage of the disease) is highly variable, hampering its appropriate classification in clinical trials. Although some degree of ovarian hyperstimulation is normal after stimulation, the point at which symptoms transition from those anticipated to those of a disease state is nebulous. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION An OHSS working group, comprised of subject matter experts and clinical researchers who have significantly contributed to the field of fertility, was convened in April and November 2014. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS The OHSS working group was tasked with reaching a consensus on the definition and the classification of OHSS for reporting in clinical trials. The group engaged in targeted discussion regarding the scientific background of OHSS, the criteria proposed for the definition and the rationale for universal adoption. An agreement was reached after discussion with all members. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE One of the following conditions must be met prior to making the diagnosis of OHSS in the context of a clinical trial: (i) the subject has undergone OS (either controlled OS or OI) AND has received a trigger shot for final oocyte maturation (e.g. hCG, GnRH agonist [GnRHa] or kisspeptin) followed by either fresh transfer or segmentation (cryopreservation of embryos) or (ii) the subject has undergone OS or OI AND has a positive pregnancy test. All study patients who develop symptoms of OHSS should undergo a thorough examination. An OHSS flow diagram was designed to be implemented for all subjects with pelvic or abdominal complaints, such as lower abdominal discomfort or distention, nausea, vomiting and diarrhea, and/or for subjects suspected of having OHSS. The diagnosis of OHSS should be based on the flow diagram. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION This classification system is primarily intended to address the needs of the clinical investigator undertaking clinical trials in the field of OS and may not be applicable for the use in clinical practice or with OHSS occurring under natural circumstances. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The proposed OHSS classification system will enable an accurate estimate of the incidence and severity of OHSS within and across clinical trials performed in women with infertility. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS Financial support for the advisory group meetings was provided by Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA. P.H. reports unrestricted research grants from MSD, Merck and Ferring, and honoraria for lectures from MSD, Merck and IBSA. S.M.N. reports that he has received fees and grant support from the following companies (in alphabetic order): Beckman Coulter, Besins, EMD Serono, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Finox, MSD and Roche Diagnostics over the previous 5 years. P.D., C.C.C., J.L.F., H.M.F., and P.L. report no relationships that present a potential conflict of interest. B.C.T. reports: grants and honorarium from Merck Serono; unrestricted research grants, travel grants and honorarium, and participation in a company-sponsored speaker's bureau from Merck Sharp & Dohme; grants, travel grants, honoraria and advisory board membership from IBSA; travel grants from Ferring; and advisory board membership from Ovascience. L.B.S. reports current employment with Merck & Co, Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, and owns stock in the company. K.G. and B.J.S. report prior employment with Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA, and own stock in the company. All reported that competing interests are outside the submitted work. No other relationships or activities exist that could appear to have influenced the submitted work

Future perspectives of PoseidOn stratification for clinical practice and research

A total of 50% of patients undergoing IVF treatment has previously been estimated to fulfill the POSEIDON classification criteria; importantly, although the reproductive prognosis differs between patients, POSEIDON patients share the same characteristic of a low ovarian response to exogenous gonadotropin stimulation\u2014independent of age. POSEIDON patients require focused attention as regards ovarian stimulation in order to increase the chances of having at least one euploid blastocyst for transfer\u2014the success criterion for stimulation set forth by the POSEIDON Group. The key to success seems to be individualization in all steps of treatment. In this perspective article we discuss the future impact of the POSEIDON stratification for daily clinical practice as well as for research

Aromatase inhibitors in stimulated IVF cycles

Aromatase inhibitors have been introduced as a new treatment modality that could challenge clomiphene citrate as an ovulation induction regiment in patients with PCOS. Although several randomized trials have been conducted regarding their use as ovulation induction agents, only few trials are available regarding their efficacy in IVF stimulated cycles. Current available evidence support that letrozole may have a promising role in stimulated IVF cycles, either when administered during the follicular phase for ovarian stimulation. Especially for women with poor ovarian response, letrozole appears to have the potential to increase clinical pregnancy rates when combined with gonadotropins, whereas at the same time reduces the total gonadotropin dose required for ovarian stimulation. However, given that in all of the trials letrozole has been administered in GnRH antagonist cycles, it is intriguing to test in the future how it may perform when used in GnRH agonist cycles. Finally administration of letrozole during luteal phase in IVF cycles offers another treatment modality for patients at high risk for OHSS taking into account that it drastically reduces estradiol level

Recombinant human luteinizing hormone co-treatment in ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology in women of advanced reproductive age: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Introduction: Several studies suggest that luteinizing hormone (LH) could improve IVF outcome in women of advanced reproductive age by optimizing androgen production. In this review, we assessed the role of recombinant-human LH (r-hLH) and recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (r-hFSH) co-treatment in ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology in women of advanced reproductive age candidates for assisted reproduction. Material and methods: Using a preregistered protocol we systematically searched Medline/PubMed, Scopus and the ISI Web of Science databases to identify randomized controlled trials in which r-hFSH monotherapy protocols were compared with r-hFSH/r-hLH co-treatment in women ≥35 years undergoing fresh IVF cycles. We calculated the pooled odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous data and the weight mean difference (WMD) for continuous data with an associated 95% confidence interval (CI). The meta-analyses were conducted using the random-effect model. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Subgroup analyses of all primary and secondary outcomes were performed only in women aged 35–40 years. Results: Twelve studies were identified. In women aged between 35 and 40 years, r-hFSH/r-hLH co-treatment was associated with higher clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.45, CI 95% 1.05–2.00, I2 = 0%, P = 0.03) and implantation rates (OR 1.49, CI 95% 1.10–2.01, I2 = 13%, P = 0.01) versus r-hFSH monotherapy. Fewer oocytes were retrieved in r-hFSH/r-hLH-treated patients than in r-hFSH-treated patients both in women aged ≥35 years (WMD -0.82 CI 95% -1.40 to − 0.24, I2 = 88%, P = 0.005) and in those aged between 35 and 40 years (WMD -1.03, CI − 1.89 to − 0.17, I2 = 0%, P = 0.02). The number of metaphase II oocytes, miscarriage rates and live birth rates did not differ between the two groups of women overall or in subgroup analysis. Conclusion: Although more oocytes were retrieved in patients who underwent r-hFSH monotherapy, this meta-analysis suggests that r-hFSH/r-hLH co-treatment improves clinical pregnancy and implantation rates in women between 35 and 40 years of age undergoing ovarian stimulation for assisted reproduction technology. However, more RCTs using narrower age ranges in advanced age women are warranted to corroborate these findings

Effects of recombinant LH supplementation to recombinant FSH during induced ovarian stimulation in the GnRH-agonist protocol: a matched case-control study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Some studies have suggested that the suppression of endogenous LH secretion does not seem to affect the majority of patients who are undergoing assisted reproduction and stimulation with recombinant FSH (r-FSH). Other studies have indicated that a group of normogonadotrophic women down-regulated and stimulated with pure FSH preparations may experience low LH concentrations that compromise the IVF parameters. The present study aimed to compare the efficacy of recombinant LH (r-LH) supplementation for controlled ovarian stimulation in r-FSH and GnRH-agonist (GnRH-a) protocol in ICSI cycles.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A total of 244 patients without ovulatory dysfunction, aged <40 years and at the first ICSI cycle were divided into two groups matched by age according to an ovarian stimulation scheme: Group I (n = 122): Down-regulation with GnRH-a + r-FSH and Group II (n = 122): Down-regulation with GnRH-a + r-FSH and r-LH (beginning simultaneously).</p> <p>Result(s)</p> <p>The number of oocytes collected, the number of oocytes in metaphase II and fertilization rate were significantly lower in the Group I than in Group II (<it>P </it>= 0.036, <it>P </it>= 0.0014 and <it>P </it>= 0.017, respectively). In addition, the mean number of embryos produced per cycle and the mean number of frozen embryos per cycle were statistically lower (<it>P </it>= 0.0092 and <it>P </it>= 0.0008, respectively) in Group I than in Group II. Finally the cumulative implantation rate (fresh+thaw ed embryos) was significantly lower (<it>P </it>= 0.04) in Group I than in Group II. The other clinical and laboratory results analyzed did not show difference between groups.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These data support r-LH supplementation in ovarian stimulation protocols with r-FSH and GnRH-a for assisted reproduction treatment.</p

The influence of the team in conducting a systematic review

There is an increasing body of research documenting flaws in many published systematic reviews' methodological and reporting conduct. When good systematic review practice is questioned, attention is rarely turned to the composition of the team that conducted the systematic review. This commentary highlights a number of relevant articles indicating how the composition of the review team could jeopardise the integrity of the systematic review study and its conclusions. Key biases require closer attention such as sponsorship bias and researcher allegiance, but there may also be less obvious affiliations in teams conducting secondary evidence-syntheses. The importance of transparency and disclosure are now firmly on the agenda for clinical trials and primary research, but the meta-biases that systematic reviews may be at risk from now require further scrutiny