Real-world practices of hormone monitoring during ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology: a global online survey

ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to understand the global practice of routine hormonal monitoring (HM) during ovarian stimulation (OS) in the context of assisted reproductive technique (ART) treatment.MethodsAn open-access questionnaire was available to 3,845 members of IVF-Worldwide.com from September 8 to October 13, 2021. The survey comprised 25 multiple-choice questions on when and how ultrasound (US) and hormone tests were conducted during ovarian stimulation OS. For most questions, respondents were required to select a single option. Some questions allowed the selection of multiple options.ResultsIn all, 528 (13.7%) members from 88 countries responded to the questionnaire. Most respondents (98.9%) reported using US to monitor OS cycles. HM was used by 79.5% of respondents during any of the cycle monitoring visits and was most commonly performed on the day of, or a day prior to final oocyte maturation. Overall, 87% of respondents claimed adjusting the dose of gonadotropin during OS, with 61.7% adjusting the dose based on hormonal levels. Oestradiol (E2) was the most frequently monitored hormone during all visits and was used by 74% of respondents for the prediction of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). On or a day prior to ovulation triggering (OT), the number of respondents who measured progesterone increased from 34.3% in the second/third visit to 67.7%. Approximately one-third of respondents measured luteinizing hormone during all visits.ConclusionGlobally, most ART specialists (~80%) use HM, along with US, for monitoring OS, especially for the prevention of OHSS

Obstetric outcomes after treatment of periodontal disease during pregnancy: systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective To examine whether treatment of periodontal disease with scaling and root planing during pregnancy is associated with a reduction in the preterm birth rate

Serum Anti-Müllerian Hormone Is Significantly Altered by Downregulation With Daily Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Agonist: A Prospective Cohort Study

Research Question: What is the effect of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH)-agonist treatment on serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH)?Design: This prospective cohort study conducted in a tertiary university hospital comprised patients (n = 52) who self-administered daily triptorelin (0.1 mg/0.1 mL) subcutaneously for 14 days from menstrual cycle day 21 ± 3, between July 2015 and March 2016. Enrolled women were 18–43 years old, considered normal ovarian responders, with a planned GnRH agonist controlled ovarian stimulation protocol. The primary endpoint was to evaluate the effect of GnRH agonist on serum AMH levels after 7 and 14 days of treatment.Results: Under GnRH agonist treatment, serum AMH was significantly decreased vs. baseline on day 7 (mean change from baseline: −0.265 ng/mL; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.395 to −0.135 ng/mL; p < 0.001). On day 14, serum AMH was significantly increased (mean change from baseline: 0.289 ng/mL; 95% CI, 0.140–0.439 ng/mL; p < 0.001). Although the median change in AMH from baseline was only −14.9% on day 7 and +17.4% on day 14, from day 7 to 14 AMH significantly increased by 0.55 ng/mL (43.8%; p < 0.001), which is of paramount clinical importance. A linear, mixed-effect model demonstrated that GnRH agonist treatment for 7 and 14 days had a highly significant effect on serum AMH concentration after adjustment for confounding factors (age, body mass index, baseline antral follicle count, and visit). AMH assay precision was excellent (four aliquots/sample); coefficient of variation was 1.2–1.4%.Conclusions: GnRH agonist treatment had a clinically significant effect on serum AMH, dependent on treatment duration. The clear V-shaped response of AMH level to daily GnRH agonist treatment has important clinical implications for assessing ovarian reserve and predicting ovarian response, thus AMH measurements under GnRH agonist downregulation should be interpreted with great caution

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

Aromatase inhibitors in post-menopausal endometriosis

Postmenopausal endometriosis is a rare clinical condition. The diagnosis and treatment of an endometriotic lesion in postmenopausal women is complicated. First line treatment choice should be surgical, given that there is a potential risk of malignancy. Medical treatment may be considered as second line or as an alternate first line treatment whenever surgery is contradicted and aims to alter the hormonal pathway leading to endometriosis progress. Different hormonal regimens have been administered to these patients, with conflicting however results. Aromatase inhibitors (AIs) represent one of the most recently used drugs for postmenopausal endometriosis. Clinical data for the use of (AIs) in postmenopausal patients is scarce. Up to date only 5 case reports are available regarding the use of these agents in postmenopausal women. Although definite conclusions may be premature, AIs appear to considerably improve patients' symptoms and reduce endometriotic lesions size. Nonetheless the subsequent induced reduction in estrogen production, leads to certain short-term and long-term adverse effects. Despite the limited available data, AIs appear to represent a new promising method which may improve symptoms and treat these patients, either as first line treatment, when surgery is contraindicated or as a second line for recurrences following surgical treatment. However, careful monitoring of patients' risk profile and further research regarding long-term effects and side-effects of these agents is essential prior implementing them in everyday clinical practice

Treatment algorithms for high responders: What we can learn from randomized controlled trials, real-world data and models

A high ovarian response to conventional ovarian stimulation (OS) is characterized by an increased number of follicles and/or oocytes compared with a normal response (10-15 oocytes retrieved). Ac-cording to current definitions, a high response can be diagnosed before oocyte pick-up when >18-20 follicles >= 11-12 mm are observed on the day of ovulation triggering; high response can be diagnosed after oocyte pick-up when >18-20 oocytes have been retrieved. Women with a high response are also at high risk of early ovarian hyper-stimulation syndrome (OHSS)/or late OHSS after fresh embryo transfers. Women at risk of high response can be diagnosed before stimulation based on several indices, including ovarian reserve markers (anti-Mullerian hormone [AMH] and antral follicle count [AFC], with cutoff values indicative of a high response in patients with PCOS of >3.4 ng/mL for AMH and >24 for AFC). Owing to the high proportion of high responders who are at the risk of developing OHSS (up to 30%), this educational article provides a framework for the identification and management of patients who fall into this category. The risk of high response can be greatly reduced through appropriate management, such as individualized choice of the gonadotropin starting dose, dose adjustment based on hormonal and ultrasound monitoring during OS, the choice of down-regulation protocol and ovulation trigger, and the choice between fresh or elective frozen embryo transfer. Appropriate management strategies still need to be defined for women who are predicted to have a high response and those who have an unex-pected high response after starting treatment.(c) 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons. org/licenses/by/4.0/)

Guidelines on Chemotherapy in Advanced Stage Gynecological Malignancies: An Evaluation of 224 Professional Societies and Organizations

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines are important for guiding practice, but it is unclear if they are commensurate with the available evidence. METHODS: We examined guidelines produced by cancer and gynecological societies and organizations and evaluated their coverage of and stance towards chemotherapy for advanced stage disease among 4 gynecological malignancies (breast, ovarian, cervical, endometrial cancer) where the evidence for the use of chemotherapy is very different (substantial and conclusive for breast and ovarian cancer, limited and suggesting no major benefit for cervical and endometrial cancer). Eligible societies and organizations were identified through systematic internet searches (last update June 2009). Pertinent websites were scrutinized for presence of clinical practice guidelines, and relative guidelines were analyzed. RESULTS: Among 224 identified eligible societies and organizations, 69 (31%) provided any sort of guidelines, while recommendations for chemotherapy on advanced stage gynecological malignancies were available in 20 of them. Only 14 had developed their own guideline, and only 5 had developed guidelines for all 4 malignancies. Use of levels of evidence and grades of recommendations, and aspects of the production, implementation, and timeliness of the guidelines did not differ significantly across malignancies. Guidelines on breast and ovarian cancer utilized significantly more randomized trials and meta-analyses. Guidelines differed across malignancies on their coverage of disease-free survival (p = 0.033), response rates (p = 0.024), symptoms relief (p = 0.005), quality of life (p = 0.001) and toxicity (p = 0.039), with breast and ovarian cancer guidelines typically covering more frequently these outcomes. All guidelines explicitly or implicitly endorsed the use of chemotherapy. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical practice guidelines are provided by the minority of professional societies and organizations. Available guidelines tend to recommend chemotherapy even for diseases where the effect of chemotherapy is controversial and recommendations are based on scant evidence