Pretreatment with oral contraceptive pills to identify poor responders that may benefit from rLH supplementation during GnRH‑antagonist treatment for IVF: A pilot perspective study proposal

Gizzo,Salvatore; Andrisani,Alessandra; Noventa,Marco; Gangemi,Michele; Nardelli,Giovanni Battista; Ambrosini,Guido

doi:10.3892/etm.2015.2734

Pretreatment with oral contraceptive pills to identify poor responders that may benefit from rLH supplementation during GnRH‑antagonist treatment for IVF: A pilot perspective study proposal

Authors:
- Salvatore Gizzo
- Alessandra Andrisani
- Marco Noventa
- Michele Gangemi
- Giovanni Battista Nardelli
- Guido Ambrosini
View Affiliations

Affiliations: Department of Woman and Child Health, Clinic of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Padua, Padua I-35128, Italy
Published online on: September 8, 2015 https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2015.2734
Pages: 1692-1696
Copyright: © Gizzo et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution License.

Metrics: Total Views: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Metrics: Total PDF Downloads: 0 (Spandidos Publications: | PMC Statistics: )

Cited By (CrossRef): 0 citations Loading Articles...

Abstract

Controlled ovarian stimulation, using a gonadotrophin‑releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol, is a potential treatment option for women with a low response to other fertility treatments as it appears to be at least as effective as GnRH agonists (long protocol). However, previous studies have indicated that the administration of GnRH antagonist may cause an excessive reduction in endogenous luteinizing hormone (LH) levels. The use of recombinant LH (rLH) supplementation during ovarian stimulation is controversial. The present article proposes a future study focused on women aged ≥40 years old, with the aim of identifying patients who are poor responders to GnRH‑antagonist treatment that may benefit from rLH supplementation. We hypothesize that patients with suppressed hypothalamic‑pituitary‑axis activity may benefit from rLH supplementation, as GnRH‑antagonist administration has the potential to induce a marked reduction in LH levels in such patients compared with that in patients that exhibit a regular recovery following the administration of oral contraceptive pills (OCPs). Furthermore, patients with hyper‑responsive hypothalamic‑pituitary‑axis activity may be affected by ‘low‑gonadotropin‑responsiveness’, similar to that observed in patients with any mutation in the follicle‑stimulating hormone (FSH) receptor, who are known to benefit from rLH supplementation. The proposed pilot study would include 120 women who are predicted to be poor responders to GnRH‑antagonist treatment. All subjects will be allocated at random (using 2:1 computerized randomization) into two study groups: Group A (OCP‑treated) and group B (control). For all patients, the serum values of FSH, LH and 17β estradiol (E2) will be detected on day 3 of the menstrual cycle preceding OCP treatment (baseline) and at day 4 following OCP treatment. The Δ‑variation from baseline levels for all markers, the FSH/LH ratio and the E2/FSH ratio will be determined. Δ‑variation from the baseline of the FSH and LH values will be used to further categorize group A patients into subgroups A1‑4, based on respective quartile numbers (Q1‑4). Patients admitted to each of the four subgroups A1‑4, based on their FSH quartile, will be selected at random to receive rLH supplementation (ratio, 1:1) during ovarian stimulation. If the resulting data are able to identify women that may benefit from rLH supplementation during ovarian stimulation, a large part of inconclusive evidence regarding rLH supplementation will be clarified. If patients supplemented with rLH (according to abnormal recovery of hypothalamic‑pituitary‑axis activity after OCP treatment) exhibit an improved ovarian response during in vitro fertilization (IVF) and subsequent pregnancy rate, the pre‑IVF OCP test could be adopted as a useful tool for improving the success rate of assisted reproductive technologies in poorly‑responding patients.

View Figures

View References

1	Kim CH, Jeon GH, Cheon YP, Jeon I, Kim SH, Chae HD and Kang BM: Comparison of GnRH antagonist protocol with or without oral contraceptive pill pretreatment and GnRH agonist low-dose long protocol in low responders undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 92:1758–1760. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
2	Devroey P, Aboulghar M, Garcia-Velasco J, Griesinger G, Humaidan P, Kolibianakis E, Ledger W, Tomás C and Fauser BC: Improving the patient's experience of IVF/ICSI: A proposal for an ovarian stimulation protocol with GnRH antagonist co-treatment. Hum Reprod. 24:764–774. 2009. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
3	Al-Inany HG, Youssef MA, Aboulghar M, Broekmans F, Sterrenburg M, Smit J and Abou-Setta AM: Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 5:CD0017502011.PubMed/NCBI
4	Griesinger G, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis C, Diedrich K and Tarlatzis B: Oral contraceptive pretreatment significantly reduces ongoing pregnancy likelihood in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles: An updated meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 94:2382–2384. 2010. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
5	Kolibianakis EM, Papanikolau EG, Camus M, Tournaye H, Van Steirteghem AC and Devroey P: Effect of oral contraceptive pill pretreatment on ongoing pregnancy rates in patients stimulated with GnRH antagonists and recombinant FSH for IVF. A randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 21:352–357. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
6	Rombauts L, Healy D and Norman RJ: Comparative randomized trial to assess the impact of oral contraceptive pretreatment on follicular growth and hormone profiles in GnRH antagonist-treated patients. Hum Reprod. 21:95–103. 2006. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
7	Gizzo S, Andrisani A, Noventa M, Manfè S, Oliva A, Gangemi M, Nardelli GB and Ambrosini G: Recombinant LH supplementation during IVF cycles with a GnRH-antagonist in estimated poor responders: A cross-matched pilot investigation of the optimal daily dose and timing. Mol Med Rep. 12:4219–4229. 2015.PubMed/NCBI
8	Alviggi C, Clarizia R, Mollo A, Ranieri A and De Placido G: Who needs LH in ovarian stimulation? Reprod Biomed Online. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
9	Gizzo S, Quaranta M, Andrisani A, Bordin L, Vitagliano A, Esposito F, Venturella R, Zicchina C, Gangemi M and Noventa M: Serum stem cell factor assay in elderly poor responder patients undergoing IVF: A new biomarker to customize follicle aspiration cycle by cycle. Reprod Sci. July 7–2015.((Epub ahead of print))
10	Hill MJ, Levens ED, Levy G, Ryan ME, Csokmay JM, DeCherney AH and Whitcomb BW: The use of recombinant luteinizing hormone in patients undergoing assisted reproductive techniques with advanced reproductive age: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. February 24–2012.((Epub ahead of print)). View Article : Google Scholar
11	König TE, van der Houwen LE, Overbeek A, Hendriks ML, Beutler-Beemsterboer SN, Kuchenbecker WK, Renckens CN, Bernardus RE, Schats R, Homburg R, 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. 28:2804–2812. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
12	König TE, van der Houwen LE and Lambalk CB: Recombinant LH supplementation in women of 35 years and older undergoing IVF? Fertil Steril. 98:e10–e11. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar
13	Schmitz C, Bocca S, Beydoun H, Stadtmauer L and Oehninger S: Does the degree of hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian recovery after oral contraceptive pills affect outcomes of IVF/ICSI cycles receiving GnRH-antagonist adjuvant therapy in women over 35 years of age? J Assist Reprod Genet. 29:877–882. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
14	Desai SS, Roy BS and Mahale SD: Mutations and polymorphisms in FSH receptor: functional implications in human reproduction. Reproduction. 146:R235–248. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
15	Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G and 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. 26:1616–1624. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
16	Patrelli TS, Gizzo S, Sianesi N, Levati L, Pezzuto A, Ferrari B and Modena A Bacchi: Anti-Müllerian hormone serum values and ovarian reserve: Can it predict a decrease in fertility after ovarian stimulation by ART cycles? PLoS One. 7:e445712012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
17	Gizzo S, Andrisani A, Esposito F, Oliva A, Zicchina C, Capuzzo D, Gangemi M and Nardelli GB: Ovarian reserve test: An impartial means to resolve the mismatch between chronological and biological age in the assessment of female reproductive chances. Reprod Sci. 21:632–639. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
18	Litta P, D'Agostino G, Conte L, Saccardi C, Cela V, Angioni S and Plebani M: Anti-Müllerian hormone trend after laparoscopic surgery in women with ovarian endometrioma. Gynecol Endocrinol. 29:452–454. 2013. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
19	Patrelli TS, Berretta R, Gizzo S, Pezzuto A, Franchi L, Lukanovic A, Nardelli GB and Modena AB: CA 125 serum values in surgically treated endometriosis patients and its relationships with anatomic sites of endometriosis and pregnancy rate. Fertil Steril. 95:393–396. 2011. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
20	World Health Organization: WHO Laboratory Manual for the Examination of Human Semen and Sperm-Cervical Mucus Interaction. Cambridge University Press; Cambridge, UK: 1999
21	Litta P, Cosmi E, Saccardi C, Esposito C, Rui R and Ambrosini G: Outpatient operative polypectomy using a 5 mm-hysteroscope without anaesthesia and/or analgesia: Advantages and limits. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 139:210–214. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
22	Saccardi C, Conte L, Fabris A, De Marchi F, Borghero A, Gizzo S and Litta P: Hysteroscopic enucleation in toto of submucous type 2 myomas: Long term follow up in women affected by menorrhagia. J Minim Invasive Gynecol. 21:426–430. 2014. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
23	Litta P, Spiller E, Saccardi C, Ambrosini G, Caserta D and Cosmi E: Resectoscope or Versapoint for hysteroscopic metroplasty. Int J Gynaecol Obstet. 101:39–42. 2008. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
24	Schmitz C, Bocca S, Beydoun H, Stadtmauer L and Oehninger S: Does the degree of hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian recovery after oral contraceptive pills affect outcomes of IVF/ICSI cycles receiving GnRH-antagonist adjuvant therapy in women over 35 years of age? J Assist Reprod Genet. 29:877–882. 2012. View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
25	Gizzo S, Andrisani A, Noventa M, Quaranta M, Esposito F, Armanini D, Gangemi M, Nardelli GB, Litta P, D'Antona D and Ambrosini G: Menstrual cycle length: a surrogate measure of reproductive health capable of improving the accuracy of biochemical/sonographical ovarian reserve test in estimating the reproductive chances of women referred to ART. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. April 10–2015.((Epub ahead of print)). View Article : Google Scholar : PubMed/NCBI
26	Gizzo S, Andrisani A, Esposito F, Noventa M, Di Gangi S, Angioni S, Litta P, Gangemi M and Nardelli GB: Which luteal phase support is better for each IVF stimulation protocol to achieve the highest pregnancy rate? A superiority randomized clinical trial. Gynecol Endocrinol. September 30–2014.((Epub ahead of print)). PubMed/NCBI