We retrospectively studied a real-life population of 1470 women undergoing IVF, with poor/suboptimal/normal ovarian responsiveness to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS), comparing the cumulative live birth rate (cLBR) when COS was performed using rFSH alone or rFSH + rLH in a 2:1 ratio. Overall, we observed significantly higher cLBR in the rFSH alone group than in the rFSH + rLH group (29.3% vs. 22.2%, p < 0.01). However, considering only suboptimal/poor responders (n = 309), we observed comparable cLBR (15.6% vs. 15.2%, p = 0.95) despite the fact that patients receiving rFSH + rLH had significantly higher ages and worse ovarian reserve markers. The equivalent effectiveness of rFSH + rLH and rFSH alone was further confirmed after stratification according to the number of oocytes retrieved: Despite basal characteristics were still in favor of rFSH alone group, the cLBR always resulted comparable. Even subdividing patients according to the POSEIDON classification, irrespective of differences in the baseline clinical characteristics in favor of FSH alone group, the cLBR resulted comparable in all subgroups. Despite the retrospective, real-life analysis, our data suggest that rLH supplementation in COS may represent a reasonable option for patients with predictable or unexpected poor/suboptimal ovarian responsiveness to FSH, those matching the Bologna criteria for poor responsiveness, and those included in the POSEIDON classification.

Effect of rLH Supplementation during Controlled Ovarian Stimulation for IVF: Evidence from a Retrospective Analysis of 1470 Poor/Suboptimal/Normal Responders Receiving Either rFSH plus rLH or rFSH Alone

Canosa S.;Carosso A. R.;Mercaldo N.;Ruffa A.;Evangelista F.;Bongioanni F.;Benedetto C.;Revelli A.;Gennarelli G.
2022

Abstract

We retrospectively studied a real-life population of 1470 women undergoing IVF, with poor/suboptimal/normal ovarian responsiveness to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS), comparing the cumulative live birth rate (cLBR) when COS was performed using rFSH alone or rFSH + rLH in a 2:1 ratio. Overall, we observed significantly higher cLBR in the rFSH alone group than in the rFSH + rLH group (29.3% vs. 22.2%, p < 0.01). However, considering only suboptimal/poor responders (n = 309), we observed comparable cLBR (15.6% vs. 15.2%, p = 0.95) despite the fact that patients receiving rFSH + rLH had significantly higher ages and worse ovarian reserve markers. The equivalent effectiveness of rFSH + rLH and rFSH alone was further confirmed after stratification according to the number of oocytes retrieved: Despite basal characteristics were still in favor of rFSH alone group, the cLBR always resulted comparable. Even subdividing patients according to the POSEIDON classification, irrespective of differences in the baseline clinical characteristics in favor of FSH alone group, the cLBR resulted comparable in all subgroups. Despite the retrospective, real-life analysis, our data suggest that rLH supplementation in COS may represent a reasonable option for patients with predictable or unexpected poor/suboptimal ovarian responsiveness to FSH, those matching the Bologna criteria for poor responsiveness, and those included in the POSEIDON classification.
11
6
1
11
https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/11/6/1575
Bologna criteria; In vitro fertilization; IVF outcome; Live birth rate; Poor responders; POSEIDON classification; Recombinant FSH; Recombinant LH; Suboptimal responders
Canosa S.; Carosso A.R.; Mercaldo N.; Ruffa A.; Evangelista F.; Bongioanni F.; Benedetto C.; Revelli A.; Gennarelli G.
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
2022Benedetto, Revelli. Jcm-11-01575.pdf

Accesso aperto

Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 407.75 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
407.75 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/1858584
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 2
  • Scopus 2
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 3
social impact