• Medical advantages of controlled ovarian stimulation in poor responders patients with corifolitropin-alpha and antagonists of gonadotropine-rilising-hormon s in ART clinic

Medical advantages of controlled ovarian stimulation in poor responders patients with corifolitropin-alpha and antagonists of gonadotropine-rilising-hormon s in ART clinic

HEALTH OF WOMAN. 2018.3(129):39–45; doi 10.15574/HW.2018.129.39

Strelko Galyna
Medical Center «Rodynne dzherelo»

The objective: study of the effectiveness of coriophyllotropin alpha in controlled ovarian stimulation regimens with gonadotropin-rilising hormone antagonists in poor responders.
Materials and methods. The study of the effectiveness of the controlled ovarian stimulation regimen using long acting FSH in the protocol with GnRH antagonists was compared with the daily administration of recombinant FSH by the number of oocytes received, embryo digestion, pregnancy and implantation.
Results. It has been shown that ovarian stimulation with the use of coriophyllotropin alfa is as effective as a daily injection of recombinant FSH for the treatment of patients with a poor response to stimulation. In addition, the perception of patients with protocols with corifolithopropin alfa results in better tolerability than traditional protocols due to fewer injections, which reduces the likelihood of early termination of treatment.
Conclusion. The presented results of the study prove the effectiveness of using corifolotropin alpha in combination with additional FSH daly doses and gonadotropin-rilising hormone antagonists. The effectiveness of this regimen is comparable with standard daily FSH injections for poor responders patients. The study regimen simplify the design of the stimulation scheme, minimize the number of injections, and shorten the duration of the cycle.
Key words: controlled ovarian stimulation, poor responders, coriophyllotropin alpha.

REFERENCES

1. Polyzos NP and Devroey P. 2011. A systematic review of randomized trials for the treatment of poor ovarian responders: is there any light at the end of the tunnel? Fertility and Sterility 96;5:1058.e7–1061.e7. View at Publisher View at Google Scholar·View at Scopus https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2011.09.048; PMid:22036048

2. Keay SD, Liversedge NH, Mathur RS and Jenkins JM. 1997. Assisted conception following poor ovarian response to gonadotrophin stimulation. The British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology 104;5:521–527. View at Publisher·View at Google Scholar·View at Scopus https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb11525.x; PMid:9166190

3. Ben-Rafael Z, Bider D, Dan U, Zolti M, Levran D and Mashiach S. 1991. Combined gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist/human menopausal gonadotropin therapy (GnRH-a/hMG) in normal, high, and poor responders to hMG. Journal of In Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer. 8;1:33–36. View at Publisher·View at Google Scholar·View at Scopus https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01131588; PMid:1826724

4. Jenkins JM, Davies DW, Devonport H, Anthony FW, Gadd SC and R.H. G.M. Watson Masson. 1991. «Comparison of «poor» responders with «good» responders using a standard buserelin/human menopausal gonadotrophin regime for in-vitro fertilization». Human Reproduction. 6;7:918–921. View at Google Scholar·View at Scopus https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137459

5. Surrey ES and Schoolcraft WB. 2000. Evaluating strategies for improving ovarian response of the poor responder undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Fertility and Sterility 73;4:667–676. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00630-5

6. Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Diedrich K, Tarlatzis BC and Griesinger G. 2009. Addition of growth hormone to gonadotrophins in ovarian stimulation of poor responders treated by in-vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Human Reproduction Update. 15;6:613–622. View at Publisher·View at Google Scholar·View at Scopus https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmp026; PMid:19561136

7. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BCJM, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G and Gianaroli L. 2011. ESHRE consensus on the definition of «poor response» to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Human Reproduction 26;7:1616–1624. View at Publisher ·View at Google Scholar·View at Scopus https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der092; PMid:21505041

8. Faddy MJ, Gosden RG, Gougeon A, Richardson SJ and Nelson JF. 1992. Accelerated disappearance of ovarian follicles in mid-life: implications for forecasting menopause. Human Reproduction 7;10:1342–1346. View at Google Scholar·View at Scopus https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137570

9. de Ziegler D, Borghese B and Chapron C. 2010. Endometriosis and infertility: pathophysiology and management. The Lancet. 376;9742:730–738. View at Publisher·View at Google Scholar·View at Scopus https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60490-4

10. Benaglia L, Somigliana E, Vighi V, Ragni G, Vercellini P and Fedele L. 2010. Rate of severe ovarian damage following surgery for endometriomas. Human Reproduction 25;3:678–682. View at Publisher·View at Google Scholar·View at Scopus https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dep464; PMid:20083485