Reproductive System & Sexual Disorders: Current Research

Reproductive System & Sexual Disorders: Current Research
Open Access

ISSN: 2161-038X

+44 1300 500008

Review Article - (2013) Volume 0, Issue 0

Fertility Management of Patients with Reduced Ovarian Reserve

Paolo Giovanni Artini, Maria Ruggiero, Alessia Uccelli*, Maria Elena Obino and Vito Cela
Center of Infertility and Assisted Reproduction, Division of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Pisa, Via Roma, n° 56 56100 Pisa, Italy
*Corresponding Author: Alessia Uccelli, Center of Infertility and Assisted Reproduction, Division of Gynecology and Obstetrics, University of Pisa, Via Roma, N° 56 56100 Pisa, Italy Email:

Abstract

Reduced ovarian reserve is a condition characterized by a reduced competence of the ovary to produce oocyte due to advanced age or congenital, medical surgical and idiopathic causes. Age is considered to be the principal factor in determining the reduction of ovarian reserve, especially in woman over 40 years of age, but it’s well known that a premature reduction of ovarian reserve can also occur in young patients. Management of patients with diminished ovarian reserve is challenging for fertility experts and frequently the only option to conceive is represented by assisted reproduction technologies. Here we review the aetiology, presentation and diagnosis of reduced ovarian reserve both in advanced and in young age and we discuss recent advances in the management of infertility of these women.

<

Keywords: Reduced ovarian reserve; Diminished ovarian reserve; Premature ovarian failure

Introduction

Reduced ovarian reserve is a condition of reduced ability of the ovary to produce oocytes due to advanced age or congenital, medical, surgical and idiopathic causes. This condition, also known as Diminished Ovarian Reserve (DOR) is often used to characterize women at risk for poor performance with Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) due to egg factor [1-4]. The most extreme phenotype of DOR in young age is represented by Premature Ovarian Failure (POF), a disorder characterized by amenorrhoea, hypooestrogenism and high gonadotrophin levels in young patients under 40 years of age. Spontaneous POF affects the 1% of women under 40 years, 0.1% of patients younger than 30 years and 0.01% of patients under the age of 20 years [5,6]. However, with the increasing of cancer cures in children and in young women the incidence of POF is quickly increasing [7,8] . Analyses performed by the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study show that the 6.3% of women who received cure for cancer suffered of acute ovarian failure [9]. In this manuscript we review the aetiology, presentation and evaluation of old and young woman with reduced ovarian reserve and we discuss recent advances in the management of infertility of these patients.

Aetiology

The reduction of ovarian reserve may be the consequence of various mechanisms.

Age is considered to be the principal factor in determining quality and quantity of ovarian reserve. It’s well known that either the quantity and quality of ovarian follicles decrease with age. Different trials showed that biological capability to conceive of a woman, after an acme of competence in the early 20s, decreases in a universal way among all mammalian species [10]. The progressive reduction of fertility increases in the late 30s, ending on average age of 50-51 [11]. The crucial role of the ovary in regulating reproductive aging, it’s well known [11], and this is accredited by the evidences that age-related decrease in women fertility can be surmounted by oocyte donation from younger patients [12]. The reduction of ovarian function with aging has been widely defined in term of progressive reduction of ovarian follicles and diminished capability to generate competent oocytes [13,14]. Age is considered to be the main cause of reduced ovarian reserve in woman over 40 years of age, but as it is known, a premature reduction of ovarian reserve can also occur in young age. This condition known as Premature Ovarian Failure (POF) can occur spontaneously, primary POF, or can be a consequence of chemotherapy, radiation or surgery, secondary POF. Primary POF is in 90% of cases idiopathic. Nevertheless, a lot of conditions predisposing to POF have been described. Possible causes of POF can be principally divided in two main groups: chomosomic and non chromosomic anomalies. In about 50% of women with POF who have primary amenorrhoea, chromosomic anomalies are observed [15], while in women with secondary amenorrhoea these are much less common. Identifying chromosomal anomalies may have a limited effect on women managing, but can be helpful for other family members in programming a family. X chromosome abnormalities such as deletions and translocations within X chromosome, X monosomy and FMR1 gene mutation, are identified most commonly in patients with familiarity for POF. Deletions and translocations within X chromosome that have been related to POF are frequently located in the Xq13-26 region which probably plays an important role in ovarian growth and physiology. Turner syndrome, X monosomy, is connected to the accelerated decline of follicles that starts from birth and leads to POF frequently before menarche.

FMR1 gene is the gene responsible of fragile X syndrome (FXS), the main cause of intellectual deficit. FXS is generally due to an expansion of a repetitive CGG triplet sequence placed in the 5’-untranslated region (5’-UTR) of the FMR1 gene on the X chromosome (Xq27.3) [16], but rarely it results from point mutations or deletions within the FMR1 gene [17].

The allele becomes unsteady in the transmissions when the expansion repeat numbers is in order of 50 to 200, premutation [18]. Reports suggest that approximately 13-26% of patients with FMR1 gene premutation will evolve in POF and a growing number of CGG repeats is a related to younger age at menopause [19]. The relationship between FRAXA premutations and POF is undiscovered, therefore FRAXA screening could be especially helpful in the discovery of families at risk of transmitting fragile X syndrome and so in predicting POF [20].

Galactosemia is an autosomal recessive defect of galactose assimilation pathway due to the lack of the enzyme galactose-1- phosphate uridyltransferase (GALT). Long-term complications of this disorder, include hypergonadotrophic hypogonadism in 60-70% of patients affected [21]. The mechanism of ovarian toxicity induced by galactose is undefined, but probable mechanisms are represented by direct toxicity of galactose and metabolites, defective galactosylation of glycoproteins and glycolipids, oxidative stress and activation of apoptosis [22].

Another syndrome associated with POF is Pseudohypoparathyroidism type Ia (PHP-Ia). This disorder results from heterozygous inactivating mutations of the alpha subunit of the heterotrimeric stimulatory G-protein (Gs), due to mutations of the GNAS1 gene. Reproductive dysfunction is common in affected women and probably represents partial resistance of theca and granulosa cells of the ovary to gonadotropins due to deficient Gs alpha activity [23].

Additional relevant genetic defects include those coding for enzymes essential to reproduction such as Follicle-Stimulating Hormone (FSH) and Luteinising Hormone (LH) receptor mutations, 17α-hydroxylase deficiency and others as Gut-Associated Lymphoid Tissue (GALT), eukaryotic translation initiation factor 2B (EIF2B) and forkhead box protein L2 (FOXL2). A missense mutation in the inhibin α subunit gene, INHA G769A , is related to POF in various populations, nevertheless evidence recommends that this mutation may represent a susceptibility factor that increases the probability to develop POF [24]. Recently, Bonomi et al. studied mtDNA content in blood cells of patients with POF [25]. They proved the correlation between blood and ovarian mtDNA content in peripheral blood cells of patients affected by POF or with anticipated reduction of ovarian reserve and in two control groups constituted by women with normal ovarian reserve and by women in physiological menopause. They noted a significant association between ovarian reserve and blood mtDNA content and observed diminished mtDNA copies number in peripheral blood cells of women with compromised ovarian reserve in comparison to controls. The Italian researchers concluded that among patients affected by POF, blood cells mtDNA depletion is frequently identified. This suggests that a generalized mitochondrial defect, still undefined, may frequently predispose to POF. The measurement of mtDNA content in blood may be an helpful device for POF risk prediction [25].

Non-chromosomic causes of POF can be divided in three different groups: iatrogenic (surgery, chemotherapy and radiations), autoimmune (susceptibility mediated by AIRE gene mutation), infective (herpes virus, cytomegalovirus, mumps) and idiopathic.

It’s well established that many patients could evolve in POF after medical therapy. The main causes of iatrogenic POF are represented by chemotherapy, pelvic radiation or surgery for cancer. It has been demonstrated that older age at the moment of treatment, abdominal pelvic and spinal radiotherapy and some chemotherapeutic drugs as alkylating agents, increase the percentage of ovarian failure in women cancer survivors [9,26].

The relationship between POF and autoimmune disorders is well known. POF is commonly observed in the 25% of cases of hypothyroidism , in the 3% of Addison’s disease and in the 2.5% of diabetes mellitus [27]. POF it is also associated with autoimmune polyendocrine syndromes, APS types 1 and 2, pernicious anaemia, systemic lupus erythematosus , rheumatoid arthritis and vitiligo. Around 50% of patients with POF have ovarian antibodies, but the clinical relevance of these is undefined because of their high prevalence (31%) in patients with normal ovarian reserve [28].

Some infections such as mumps, malaria, varicella, tuberculosis, cytomegalovirus, herpes simplex and shigella have been associated with POF. It is estimated that the 2-8% of women with mumps oophoritis develop a commonly transitory ovarian failure [29].

The risk of idiopathic POF varies by ethnicity [6]. Luborsky et al. [6] observed that Caucasian, African-American and Hispanic women have a significantly augmented risk of develop this affection in comparison to Japanese women. Chang observed that cigarette smoking was related to an augmented risk of idiopathic POF, while oral contraceptive use reduce the risk of early menopause [30]. Later menarche, irregular menstruation and longer breast feeding, are all factors that cumulatively reduces the risk of premature reduction of ovarian reserve.

Initial Evaluation

For the majority of women, the cessation of periods is asymptomatic [31] and a lot of them have a normal menstrual and fertility history at the time of diagnosis. In some women a frequent symptom is the lack of restarting normal menstrual cycle after a pregnancy or after discontinuation of oral contraceptive. This diagnosis can be, abrupt and stressful, with unsightly symptoms, and worsened by the discovery of infertility [32,33]. Primary POF typically presents with secondary amenorrhoea or oligomenorrhoea in a young woman under 40 years of age, accompanied or not by flushing [27]. In the few women who experience primary amenorrhoea there is frequently an underlying chromosomal abnormality. Various conditions may influence the appearance of different symptoms in these women. Women with a diagnosis of POF before of 20 years old are considerably less inclined to exhibit symptoms of flushing and sweats, depressive mood and vaginal dryness [34], on the contrary patients with iatrogenic POF, due to surgery or cancer therapy are frequently symptomatic. The criteria to make diagnosis of POF are not always standardized [35]. Many clinicians make the diagnosis on the basis of the presence of amenorrhoea for 3-6 months, the finding of FSH values above 40 mIU/ ml on at least two different moments at a distance, and low estrogen levels [31]. In order to make a diagnosis, it’s important to exclude other causes of amenorrhoea, such as pregnancy and polycystic ovarian syndrome. Evaluation of thyroid function and prolactin levels is also necessary to eliminate the hypothesis of other endocrine disorders. When the diagnosis has been established, further specific investigations are necessary to understand the cause. Karyotype analysis is important in order to exclude genetic causes. If genetic abnormalities are identified, implications for future pregnancies should be discussed. Autoantibody screening for antiovarian, antithyroid and antiadrenal antibodies, is also suggested.

The assessment of Ovarian Reserve (OR) it’s critical for the management of infertility in these patients. Total Ovarian Reserve (TOR) comprises of all largely primordial follicles (NGFs) and to a minor extent of maturing Growing Follicles (GFs) after recruitment. So, GFs usually evaluated in clinical practice, and usually referred as OR, in reality reflects only a small portion of the totality of follicles. So, OR represents only a part of total ovarian reserve. Because most GFs are undergoing to degeneration and apoptosis, TOR really consists of only the still not recruited primordial follicles (NGFs) [36,37], but unfortunately a clinical device to evaluate NGFs does not exist.

Age and menstrual pattern are considered the most important clinical markers in determining quality and quantity of OR . Menstrual cycle Length (MCL) is suggested to be mainly due to the proportion and quality of follicular development and to the duration of the follicular phase. Commonly a gradual shortening in cycle length starts in the late 40s, but in some cases may occur in the late 30s. Brodin et al. has demonstrated an association between MCL and the Antral Follicle Count (AFC) during ultrasonographic evaluation [38] and the possibility of pregnancy after assisted reproduction was approximately doubled for women with a MCL less than 34 days compared with women with a MCL less than 26 days; mean MCL is strictly associated to success rates in assisted reproduction irrespective of age. The age related shortening of MCL is probably linked with the shortened follicular phases and it is in part due to the reduced production of inhibin-B by a little number of antral follicles and to the subsequent premature rise of FSH secretion [39,40]. Day 3 levels of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) are the most widely used test for ovarian screening [41]. FSH should be measured various times in order to rule out discontinuous ovarian activity as cause of increased gonadotrophins [42]. On the other hand, it has been described that the rise of FSH values is delayed respect to the events related to ovarian ageing [43]. Hence, if the aim to the assessment of ovarian reserve is the management of infertility, the only increase of FSH is of limited utility as a mark [44]. For what concern oestradiol (E2) values, in women with reduced ovarian reserve, they are generally reduced, with values of 50 pg/ml in patients with poorly functioning follicles [45].

Several studies show that antral follicle count (AFC) and ovarian volume are very effective in estimating the response to ovarian stimulation [46]. Ovarian antral follicles are evaluated by transvaginal ultrasound at the beginning of the follicular phase of menstrual cycle and the total number of 2-10 mm follicles in both the ovaries represents the AFC [47,48]. AFC with diameter larger than 2 mm are described as “recruitable” and they are highly sensitive and responsive to gonadotropins. Another endocrine marker that has been identified as growth index of small antral follicle cohort [49] is represented by inhibin B. Inhibins are glycoprotein hormones produced by by granulosa and theca cells, that belong to the superfamily of transforming growth factors β (TGF-β) [50] and their activities include suppression of FSH production [51,52]. As demonstrated by investigation on infertile patients aged between 24 and 40, there is a significant negative association among basal inhibin-B and FSH, and significant positive association among basal inhibin-B and AFC [53]. When the size of follicular pool decreases, inhibin B values decrease and FSH levels increase. Inhibin B values vary with the menstrual cycle, and they have two principal peaks: one at the beginning of the midfollicular phase ad one the time of ovulation [54]. In order to give the highest information, inhibin B values should be measured at the beginning of the follicular phase of menstrual cycle [55]. Although the association between diminished basal serum concentrations of inhibin-B, poor response to ovarian stimulation in ART is well established, several reports, did not recommend the only use of inhibin B as a trustworthy marker of ovarian reserve [56].

Anti-Mullerian Hormone (AMH), is an hormone secreted by growing antral follicles. This hormone, that can be measured anytime in the menstrual cycle, is actually considered to be the most trustworthy marker of diminished ovarian reserve and might be able to predict age at menopause [57]. AMH is secreted by fetal Sertoli cells during testicular differentiation, and promotes the involution of the Müllerian ducts. Lacking of AMH, leads to the development of uterus, fallopian tubes and upper part of vagina from Mülleian ducts [58]. In female AMH is secreted in the ovary by granulosa cells [59,60] and its presence in ovaries has been identified since 36 weeks of pregnancy [61], becomes scarcely measurable at birth and increases after puberty [61,62]. AMH expression decreases with the advancing of age and becomes unmeasurable again at menopause [63].

The correlation between AMH levels and AFC evaluated by ultrasound, it’s well known [64-66]. AMH is now considered to be the best marker of the progressive decline in reproductive capacity in women [67,68] and an accurate predictor of the occurrence of poor response to ovarian stimulation in IVF [65,69-71].

AMH and AFC are nowadays considered two markers with similar diagnostic performance in the assessment of ovarian reserve [72,73].

Management of Infertility

Management of women with compromised ovarian reserve is challenging for fertility experts and generally the only option to conceive is represented by Assisted Reproduction Technologies (ART). Women with reduced ovarian reserve retrieve less oocytes, have less embryos for transfer and their chances of pregnancy are obviously lower. Frequently, their cycles have to be cancelled because of the absence of follicular development, the lack of oocytes retrieved or the failure to develop embryos [74-77]. In accordance with ESHRE consensus [77] patients with reduced ovarian reserve should be defined as “expected poor responder” to ovarian stimulation during ART cycles. These patients can be treated in various ways and the different protocols used include both the stimulation protocols with high doses of gonadotropins with the addition of various dosages and timing of GnRH analogs or antagonists, IVF in a natural cycle and IVF with minimal stimulation. Several studies finally suggest the benefit of the supplementation of some hormones like dehydroepiandrosterone, growth hormone, estradiol and androgens. Oocyte cryopreservation provides a potential tool to preserve fertility in patients at high risk to develop POF who are not trying to get pregnant [78]. In women with a greatly reduced ovarian reserve, the strategy that provides the greatest chance of pregnancy is represents by egg donation [79].

IVF Stimulation Protocols

Gonadotropins

The most commonly used approach to enhance oocyte production in patients with compromised ovarian reserve includes an augmented daily intake of gonadotropins, from 300 to 450 IU per day, associated with GnRH agonist with long, stop or microdose flare protocols or GnRH antagonist protocols.

Several years ago, it was reported that the administration of high doses of gonadotropins, more than 300 IU per day, in poor responders could potentially enhance follicular growth and minimize cycle cancellation rates [80,81], however further reports did not approve this scheme because to the high costs and side effects of treatment [82]. The starting dose that seem to be universally accepted ranges from 300 IU per day, up to a maximal dosage of 450 IU per day [83].

The administration of high purified hMG in aged women and in those with poor ovarian response, give a better performance than rFSH. This is probably due to the action of exogenous LH and/or to greater acidic isoforms of FSH protein secreted when estrogens are low [84].

Some authors suggest that LH supplementation may confer a benefit in poor ovarian responders [85,86], however other authors observed that this is real only for young patients, because in older poor responder patients recombinant LH (rLH) supplementation provides no further benefit [87].

Natural cycle IVF

The first report that investigated the natural cycle as a first strategy in women with low prognosis related to age and diminished ovarian reserve was performed by Papaleo et al. Papaleo et al. found a similar pregnancy rate to that of conventional IVF in older women and not, reduced by a single embryo transferred [88]. Schimberni et al. evaluated 500 Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) natural cycles in poor responders women. He observed that natural cycle IVF is an efficacious protocol for poor responder patients, especially in younger women [89].

Natural cycles IVF is a relatively easy procedure, especially for patients, that minimizes physical and emotional stress, the costs of treatment and laboratory tests [90]. Natural cycle IVF allows an oocytes natural selection, an improved embryo quality [91] and an higher endometrium receptivity [92]. However the use of natural cycles presents some disadvantages mainly due to the frequent spontaneous luteinizing hormone surge(LH), the resulting high cancellation rate (up to 30%), the difficulties in programming oocytes retrievals, the high incidence of failure to recover oocytes during oocyte pick-up (16.7-71.4%) and low pregnancy rate per embryo transfer (ET) cycle (0-23.5%) [93]. Hence, natural cycles could not be used as first choice in IVF, but should be regarded as an option after repeated ovarian response failures with classical protocols of stimulation [94].

Modified natural cycle/mild stimulation with Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone (GnRH) antagonist Cycle IVF

Modified natural protocol means GnRH antagonist administration when a follicle of 13 mm is viewed on ultrasound, and the daily addition of Follicle Stimulation Hormone (FSH) or Human Menopausal Gonadotropin (hMG), during antagonist administration so as to support the additional follicular growth. Mild ovarian stimulation is a patient-friendly procedure that decreases the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, minimizes unessential patients discomfort and as using low doses of gonadotropin, decreases treatment costs [95]. Recently Yoo et al. compared IVF outcomes of mild ovarian stimulation with conventional ovarian stimulation in poor responders; they observed an higher pregnancy rate in women over 37 years old and they recommended the use of mild ovarian stimulation protocol in poor responders women over 37 years old [96]. The literature is lacking of studies that compare natural cycles and minimal stimulation in poor responder; as a consequence no conclusions can be drawn about the cost-effectiveness of the two approach.

GnRH Agonist versus Antagonist

The underlying mechanism of Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone (GnRH) agonist/antagonist is to inhibit pituitary gonadotrophins production and then to increase follicular development by administration of exogenous gonadotrophins, facilitating cycle control.

The combination of exogenous gonadotropin plus GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) for the suppression of pituitary FSH and LH secretion, is associated with higher pregnancy rates in IVF-ET as compared to protocols without GnRH-a. However, two prospective randomized trials which compared the use of flare protocol and the traditional long GnRH agonist protocol in poor responders, did not observe any significant differences in pregnancy rate [97,98]. Nevertheless, Weissman et al. observed a favorable trend for a better result in the long GnRH agonist protocol group [99]. The use of long GnRH agonist protocol was related to a lower cancellation rate even if not related to better overall outcomes, even when pregnancy rates are calculated for embryo transfer, probably because of the overall poor embryo quality in these women [100]. The logic principle for the administration of a flare up protocol in poor responders is the ideal improvement of follicular development which may experience with the flare effect that occurs with the start of GnRH agonist. The drawback is that there may occur an early LH surge which causes cycle cancellation [101].

In these patients, the protocol with GnRH antagonist can control the premature LH surge without causing any suppression in the early follicular phase [102].

Some reports showed that the use of GnRH antagonist may reduce the duration of stimulation, reduce the total gonadotropin necessity, decrease patient’s expense, lower cycle cancellation, and give to greater ongoing pregnancy and delivery rate [103,104].

Two meta analyses [105,106] and several studies [107,108] that compared GnRH antagonist protocol to GnRH agonist flare protocol with long GnRH agonist protocol reported no variation in pregnancy rate. Recently a randomized controlled trial performed by Prapas et al., compared the efficacy of the long GnRH agonist and the fixed GnRH antagonist protocols in IVF poor responders; even if they observed similar pregnancy rates using the two protocols, the occurrence of higher cancellation rate in the antagonist group, gives them to suggests the long GnRH agonist protocol as the first choice for ovarian stimulation in poor responder patients [109].

Other Strategies

Dhea supplementation

Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) is a steroid hormone produced by the adrenal glands, theca cells of the ovarian follicle, and central nervous system. In the ovarian follicle DHEA is converted to androstenedione and estrone, the source of testosterone and estradiol in accordance to the two-cell theory.

The clinical advantage of DHEA supplementation in women with reduced ovarian reserve was firstly described by Casson et al. [110] and now about one third of all IVF centers all over the world use DHEA supplementation in women with reduced ovarian reserve. Recent trial reported that DHEA promotes ovarian function, enhances pregnancy possibilities and, by decreasing aneuploidy, decreases the percentage of miscarriage. DHEA supplementation seems objectively enhances ovarian reserve [111]. The beneficial effects are maximized after two to four month of administration of 75 mg of micronized DHEA per day [112]. Our recent study shows that Dehydroepiandrosteronesulfate (DHEAS) administration for three months in poor responders patients improve both the follicular microenvironment and oxygen levels in follicular fluid that is crucial to the development of oocytes and embryo of good quality. The best reproductive outcomes after DHEA supplementation in poor responders are probably due to the effect that this prohormone exerts on follicular microenvironment [113].

Growth Hormone (GH) supplementation

The positive correlation between growth hormone supplementation and exogenous gonadotropins administration in facilitating ovulation it’s well known [114]. GH modulates the activity of FSH on granulosa cells through adjustment of the local synthesis of insulin-like growth factor-I (IGF-I) that magnifies gonadotropin activity on both the granulosa and theca cells [115]. Actually, data about GH supplementation come from limited studies in various patient subgroups [116] and as such remains outside routine clinical application. Kolibianakis in a systematic review and meta-analysis showed that GH addition increases the possibility of pregnancy and live birth [117]. Yovich and Stanger [118] has evaluated in a sequential crossover report of IVF performed from 2002 to 2006, the effect of GH administration in poor-prognosis patients, evaluated on the basis of previous failure to conceive (mean 3.05 cycles) due to poor response to ovarian stimulation (<3 metaphase II oocytes) or poor-quality embryos.

Yovich and Stanger [118] reported that GH supplementation significantly improved the clinical pregnancy rate both per fresh transfer (P<0.001) and per frozen-thawed embryo (P<0.05) with a greatly significant productivity rate (P<0.001). The effect was relievable in all age groups, in particular in younger patients, and was not related to stimulation protocol or number of transfers [118]. However, before recommending GH supplementation in IVF, further studies are needed to completely characterize its role [119].

Estradiol (E2)

Estradiol administration in the luteal phase prior to IVF hyperstimulation it’s a new option for the treatment of poor responder; estradiol in fact may inhibit FSH in the early luteal phase and result in more coordinated cohort of follicles responding to the hormonal stimulation. Even if some studies reports that E2 supplementation in the luteal phase could enhance embryo quality and pregnancy rates [120,121], recently some authors observed that adding E2 as luteal support did not increase the clinical pregnancy rate or reduce the miscarriage rate and that the routine use of a combination of E2 and progesterone as luteal support in GnRHa long protocol IVF/ICSI cycles is not recommended [122,123].

Androgens and androgen modulating agents

It is well known that testosterone enhances follicular FSH receptor expression in granulosa cells [124], facilitates the initial development of primordial follicle and increases the number of developing pre-antral and small antral follicles [125]. Fabregues et al. reports that transdermal testosterone supplementation could enhance FSH ovarian sensitivity and follicular response to exogenous gonadotrophin in previous poor responder patients and that strategy leads to a better follicular response compared with an high-dose gonadotrophin and minidose GnRH agonist protocol [126].

Oocyte cryopreservation

Oocyte cryopreservation allows to preserve fertility in patients with an high risk to develop ovarian failure that require chemotherapy or radiotherapy. This technique should no longer be considered experimental and should be recommended with appropriate counseling [78].

In women at high risk of POF for family history of early menopause or for genetic disorders associated with POF [127], oocyte cryopreservation provides a potential tool to preserve fertility if they have no partner or they do not try to become pregnant at the time of the diagnosis.

Oocyte donation

Despite the enormous progress in ART for many older women or young women with POF, in countries in which is allowed, the only option its egg donation [128].

Psychological and psychosexual support

The psychological distress of women with infertility has been well-documented in the literature. The inability to conceive creates a profound psychological distress in women and this condition affects their self-esteem and relationships with others [33]. Patients with POF have an elevated incidence of anxiety, depression, somatization and decreased self-esteem and comprehensive satisfaction with life in comparison to control groups [32,129,130]. Loss of reproductive capacity appears to be a dominant disconcerting factor, and this does not seems to be related to the fact that women have or not already children. Psychological support therefore play a crucial role in the management of these patients.

Sexual disturbances, with diminished sexual well-being, decreased arousal, lower frequency of sexual intercourse and augmented pain, are other common problems in women with POF [129]. Psychosexual counseling and estrogen and potentially androgen supplementation represent a strategy in the management of sexual dysfunction.

Conclusion

The management of patients with reduced ovarian reserve should ideally be multidisciplinary [131] and include professionals from various specialties in order to provide proper treatment and to comply the various necessity of these patients. Management of infertility is a challenge for IVF experts and these patients must be approached as “expected poor responder” for ovarian stimulation. Current evidence suggests that DHEA administration appears to objectively improve ovarian reserve. Oocyte cryopreservation is a device that allows women at high risk of developing premature ovarian failure to preserve their reproductive potential. Despite the enormous advances in IVF protocol for many women the only option it’s represented by egg donation. In patients with compromised ovarian reserve it’s also recommended an adequate counseling and emotional support [35].

References

  1. Butts S, Riethman H, Ratcliffe S, Shaunik A, Coutifaris C, et al. (2009) Correlation of telomere length and telomerase activity with occult ovarian insufficiency. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 94: 4835-4843.
  2. Muasher SJ, Oehninger S, Simonetti S, Matta J, Ellis LM, et al. (1988) The value of basal and/or stimulated serum gonadotropin levels in prediction of stimulation response and in vitro fertilization outcome. Fertil Steril 50: 298-307.
  3. Toner JP, Philput CB, Jones GS, Muasher SJ (1991) Basal follicle-stimulating hormone level is a better predictor of in vitro fertilization performance than age. Fertil Steril 55: 784-791.
  4. Esposito MA, Coutifaris C, Barnhart KT (2002) A moderately elevated day 3 FSH concentration has limited predictive value, especially in younger women. Hum Reprod 17:118-123.
  5. Coulam CB, Adamson SC, Annegers JF (1986) Incidence of premature ovarian failure. Obstet Gynecol 67: 604-606.
  6. Luborsky JL, Meyer P, Sowers MF, Gold EB, Santoro N (2003) Premature menopause in a multi-ethnic population study of the menopause transition. Hum Reprod 18: 199-206.
  7. Sklar CA, Mertens AC, Mitby P, Whitton J, Stovall M, et al. (2006) Premature menopause in survivors of childhood cancer: a report from the childhood cancer survivor study. J Natl Cancer Inst 98: 890-896.
  8. Panay N, Fenton A (2008) Premature ovarian failure: a growing concern. Climacteric 11: 1-3.
  9. Chemaitilly W, Mertens AC, Mitby P, Whitton J, Stovall M, et al. (2006) Acute ovarian failure in the childhood cancer survivor study. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 91: 1723-1728.
  10. Wood JW (1989) Fecundity and natural fertility in humans. Oxf Rev Reprod Biol 11: 61-109.
  11. te Velde ER, Pearson PL (2002) The variability of female reproductive ageing. Hum Reprod Update 8: 141-154.
  12. Sauer MV, Paulson RJ, Lobo RA (1990) A preliminary report on oocyte donation extending reproductive potential to women over 40. N Engl J Med 323: 1157-1160.
  13. Ottolenghi C, Uda M, Hamatani T, Crisponi L, Garcia JE, et al. (2004) Aging of oocyte, ovary, and human reproduction. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1034: 117-131.
  14. Broekmans FJ, Knauff EA, te Velde ER, Macklon NS, Fauser BC (2007) Female reproductive ageing: current knowledge and future trends. Trends Endocrinol Metab 18: 58-65.
  15. Rebar RW, Erickson GF, Yen SS (1982) Idiopathic premature ovarian failure: clinical and endocrine characteristics. Fertil Steril 37: 35-41.
  16. Brown WT, Nolin S, Houck G Jr, Ding X, Glicksman A, et al. (1996) Prenatal diagnosis and carrier screening for fragile X by PCR. Am J Med Genet 64: 191-195.
  17. Castellví-Bel S, Sánchez A, Badenas C, Mallolas J, Barceló A, et al. (1999) Single-strand conformation polymorphism analysis in the FMR1 gene. Am J Med Genet 84: 262-265.
  18. Willemsen R, Oostra BA (2000) FMRP detection assay for the diagnosis of the fragile X syndrome. Am J Med Genet 97: 183-188.
  19. Schlessinger D, Herrera L, Crisponi L, Mumm S, Percesepe A, et al. (2002) Genes and translocations involved in POF. Am J Med Genet 111: 328-333.
  20. Conway GS, Payne NN, Webb J, Murray A, Jacobs PA (1998) Fragile X premutation screening in women with premature ovarian failure. Hum Reprod 13: 1184-1187.
  21. Laml T, Preyer O, Umek W, Hengstschlager M, Hanzal H (2002) Genetic disorders in premature ovarian failure. Hum Reprod Update 8: 483-491.
  22. Forges T, Monnier-Barbarino P, Leheup B, Jouvet P (2006) Pathophysiology of impaired ovarian function in galactosaemia. Hum Reprod Update 12: 573-584.
  23. de Sanctis C, Lala R, Matarazzo P, Andreo M, de Sanctis L (2003) Pubertal development in patients with McCune-Albright syndrome or pseudohypoparathyroidism. J Pediatr Endocrinol Metab 16: 293-296.
  24. Chand AL, Harrison CA, Shelling AN (2010) Inhibin and premature ovarian failure. Hum Reprod Update 16: 39-50.
  25. Bonomi M, Somigliana E, Cacciatore C, Busnelli M, Rossetti R, et al. (2012) Blood cell mitochondrial DNA content and premature ovarian aging. PLoS One 7: e42423.
  26. Green DM, Sklar CA, Boice JD Jr, Mulvihill JJ, Whitton JA, et al. (2009) Ovarian failure and reproductive outcomes after childhood cancer treatment: results from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study. J Clin Oncol 27: 2374-2381.
  27. Rees M, Purdie D (2006) Premature Menopause. In: Management of the Menopause: The Handbook (4thedn), London, UK: royal Society of Medicine Press Ltd, 142-149.
  28. Novosad JA, Kalantaridou SN, Tong ZB, Nelson LM (2003) Ovarian antibodies as detected by indirect immunofluorescence are unreliable in the diagnosis of autoimmune premature ovarian failure: a controlled evaluation. BMC Womens Health 3: 2.
  29. Morrison JC, Givens JR, Wiser WL, Fish SA (1975) Mumps oophoritis: a cause of premature menopause. Fertil Steril 26: 655-659.
  30. Chang SH, Kim CS, Lee KS, Kim H, Yim SV, et al. (2007) Premenopausal factors influencing premature ovarian failure and early menopause. Maturitas 58: 19-30.
  31. Woad KJ, Watkins WJ, Prendergast D, Shelling AN (2006) The genetic basis of premature ovarian failure. Aust N Z J Obstet Gynaecol 46: 242-244.
  32. Liao KL, Wood N, Conway GS (2000) Premature menopause and psychological well-being. J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol 21: 167-174.
  33. Groff AA, Covington SN, Halverson LR, Fitzgerald OR, Vanderhoof V, et al. (2005) Assessing the emotional needs of women with spontaneous premature ovarian failure. Fertil Steril 83: 1734-1741.
  34. Panay N, Maclaran K, Nicopollous J, Horner E, Domoney C (2010) Findings from the West London Menopause and PMS Centre POF Database. In: Proceedings of the 32nd British International Congress of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK 20-23.
  35. Panay N, Kalu E (2009) Management of premature ovarian failure. Best Pract Res Clin Obstet Gynaecol 23: 129-140.
  36. Hansen KR, Knowlton NS, Thyer AC, Charleston JS, Soules MR, et al. (2008) A new model of reproductive aging: the decline in ovarian non-growing follicle number from birth to menopause. Hum Reprod 23:699-708.
  37. Wallace WHB, Kelsey TW (2010) Human ovarian reserve from conception to the menopause. PLoS One 5- e8772.
  38. Brodin T, Bergh T, Berglund L, Hadziosmanovic N, Holte J (2008) Menstrual cycle length is an age-independent marker of female fertility: results from 6271 treatment cycles of in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 90: 1656-1661.
  39. Speroff L, Fritz MA (2005) Female infertility. In: Clinical Gynecologic Endocrinology and Infertility. (7thedn), Philadelphia, Pa, USA, Lippincott Williams &Wilkins 1015-1022.
  40. van Zonneveld P, Scheffer GJ, Broekmans FJ, Blankenstein MA, de Jong FH, et al. (2003) Do cycle disturbances explain the age-related decline of female fertility? Cycle characteristics of women aged over 40 years compared with a reference population of young women. Hum Reprod 18: 495-501.
  41. Loverro G, Nappi L, Mei L, Giacomoantonio L, Carriero C, et al. (2003) Evaluation of functional ovarian reserve in 60 patients. Reprod Biomed Online 7: 200-204.
  42. Shelling AN (2010) Premature ovarian failure. Reproduction 140: 633-641.
  43. Klein NA, Battaglia DE, Fujimoto VY, Davis GS, Bremner WJ, et al. (1996) Reproductive aging: accelerated ovarian follicular development associated with a monotropic follicle-stimulating hormone rise in normal older women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 81: 1038-1045.
  44. Bancsi LF, Huijs AM, den Ouden CT, Broekmans FJ, Looman CW, et al. (2000) Basal follicle-stimulating hormone levels are of limited value in predicting ongoing pregnancy rates after in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 73: 552-557.
  45. Rebar RW (2009) Premature ovarian failure. Obstet Gynecol 113: 1355-1363.
  46. Bancsi LF, Broekmans FJ, Eijkemans MJ, de Jong FH, Habbema JD, et al. (2002) Predictors of poor ovarian response in in vitro fertilization: a prospective study comparing basal markers of ovarian reserve. Fertil Steril 77: 328-336.
  47. Broekmans FJ, de Ziegler D, Howles CM, Gougeon A, Trew G, et al. (2010) The antral follicle count: practical recommendations for better standardization. Fertil Steril 94: 1044-1051.
  48. La Marca A, Spada E, Sighinolfi G, Argento C, Tirelli A, et al. (2011) Age-specific nomogram for the decline in antral follicle count throughout the reproductive period. Fertil Steril 95: 684-688.
  49. Welt CK (2004) Regulation and function of inhibins in the normal menstrual cycle. Semin Reprod Med 22: 187-193.
  50. Hayes FJ, Hall JE, Boepple PA, Crowley WF Jr (1998) Clinical review 96: Differential control of gonadotropin secretion in the human: endocrine role of inhibin. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 83: 1835-1841.
  51. Pierson TM, Wang Y, DeMayo FJ, Matzuk MM, Tsai SY, et al. (2000) Regulable expression of inhibin A in wild-type and inhibin alpha null mice. Mol Endocrinol 14: 1075-1085.
  52. Welt C, Sidis Y, Keutmann H, Schneyer A (2002) Activins, inhibins, and follistatins: from endocrinology to signaling. A paradigm for the new millennium. Exp Biol Med (Maywood) 227: 724-752.
  53. Tinkanen H, Bläuer M, Laippala P, Tuohimaa P, Kujansuu E (2001) Correlation between serum inhibin B and other indicators of the ovarian function. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 94: 109-113.
  54. McLachlan RI, Robertson DM, Healy DL, Burger HG, de Kretser DM (1987) Circulating immunoreactive inhibin levels during the normal human menstrual cycle. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 65: 954-961.
  55. Sowers MR, Eyvazzadeh AD, McConnell D, Yosef M, Jannausch ML, et al. (2008) Anti-mullerian hormone and inhibin B in the definition of ovarian aging and the menopause transition. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 93: 3478-3483.
  56. Kunt C, Ozaksit G, Keskin Kurt R, Cakir Gungor AN, Kanat-Pektas M, et al. (2011) Anti-Mullerian hormone is a better marker than inhibin B, follicle stimulating hormone, estradiol or antral follicle count in predicting the outcome of in vitro fertilization. Arch Gynecol Obstet 283: 1415-1421.
  57. Tehrani FR, Shakeri N, Solaymani-Dodaran M, Azizi F (2011) Predicting age at menopause from serum antimüllerian hormone concentration. Menopause 18: 766-770.
  58. Münsterberg A, Lovell-Badge R (1991) Expression of the mouse anti-müllerian hormone gene suggests a role in both male and female sexual differentiation. Development 113: 613-624.
  59. Durlinger AL, Visser JA, Themmen AP (2002) Regulation of ovarian function: the role of anti-Müllerian hormone. Reproduction 124: 601-609.
  60. Weenen C, Laven JS, Von Bergh AR, Cranfield M, Groome NP, et al. (2004) Anti-Müllerian hormone expression pattern in the human ovary: potential implications for initial and cyclic follicle recruitment. Mol Hum Reprod 10: 77-83.
  61. Rajpert-De Meyts E, Jørgensen N, Graem N, Müller J, Cate RL, et al. (1999) Expression of anti-Müllerian hormone during normal and pathological gonadal development: association with differentiation of Sertoli and granulosa cells. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 84: 3836-3844.
  62. Guibourdenche J, Lucidarme N, Chevenne D, Rigal O, Nicolas M, et al. (2003) Anti-Müllerian hormone levels in serum from human foetuses and children: pattern and clinical interest. Mol Cell Endocrinol 211: 55-63.
  63. La Marca A, De Leo V, Giulini S, Orvieto R, Malmusi S, et al. (2005) Anti-Mullerian hormone in premenopausal women and after spontaneous or surgically induced menopause. J Soc Gynecol Investig 12: 545-548.
  64. de Vet A, Laven JS, de Jong FH, Themmen AP, Fauser BC (2002) Antimüllerian hormone serum levels: a putative marker for ovarian aging. Fertil Steril 77: 357-362.
  65. van Rooij IA, Broekmans FJ, te Velde ER, Fauser BC, Bancsi LF, et al. (2002) Serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels: a novel measure of ovarian reserve. Hum Reprod 17: 3065-3071.
  66. Fanchin R, Schonäuer LM, Righini C, Guibourdenche J, Frydman R, et al. (2003) Serum anti-Müllerian hormone is more strongly related to ovarian follicular status than serum inhibin B, estradiol, FSH and LH on day 3. Hum Reprod 18: 323-327.
  67. van Rooij IA, Tonkelaar Id, Broekmans FJ, Looman CW, Scheffer GJ, et al. (2004) Anti-müllerian hormone is a promising predictor for the occurrence of the menopausal transition. Menopause 11: 601-606.
  68. van Rooij IA, Broekmans FJ, Scheffer GJ, Looman CW, Habbema JD, et al. (2005) Serum antimullerian hormone levels best reflect the reproductive decline with age in normal women with proven fertility: a longitudinal study. Fertil Steril 83: 979-987.
  69. Hazout A, Bouchard P, Seifer DB, Aussage P, Junca AM, et al. (2004) Serum antimüllerian hormone/müllerian-inhibiting substance appears to be a more discriminatory marker of assisted reproductive technology outcome than follicle-stimulating hormone, inhibin B, or estradiol. Fertil Steril 82: 1323-1329.
  70. Fanchin R, Méndez Lozano DH, Louafi N, Achour-Frydman N, Frydman R, et al. (2005) Dynamics of serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels during the luteal phase of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Hum Reprod 20: 747-751.
  71. Satwik R, Kochhar M, Gupta SM, Majumdar A (2012) Anti-mullerian hormone cut-off values for predicting poor ovarian response to exogenous ovarian stimulation in in-vitro fertilization. J Hum Reprod Sci 5: 206-212.
  72. La Marca A, Sighinolfi G, Radi D, Argento C, Baraldi E, et al. (2010) Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) as a predictive marker in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Hum Reprod Update 16: 113-130.
  73. Broer SL, Dólleman M, Opmeer BC, Fauser BC, Mol BW, et al. (2011) AMH and AFC as predictors of excessive response in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update 17: 46-54.
  74. Loutradis D, Vomvolaki E, Drakakis P (2008) Poor responder protocols for in-vitro fertilization: options and results. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol 20: 374-378.
  75. Kyrou D, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Papanikolaou EG, Bontis J, et al. (2009) How to improve the probability of pregnancy in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril 91: 749-766.
  76. Pandian Z, McTavish AR, Aucott L, Hamilton MP, Bhattacharya S (2010) Interventions for “poor responders” to controlled ovarian hyper stimulation (COH) in in-vitro fertilisation (IVF). Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD004379.
  77. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, et al. (2011) ESHRE consensus on the definition of 'poor response' to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod 26: 1616-1624.
  78. Maclaran K, Panay N (2011) Premature ovarian failure. J Fam Plann Reprod Health Care 37: 35-42.
  79. Crosignani PG, Ragni G, Lombroso GC, Scarduelli C, de Lauretis L, et al. (1989) IVF: induction of ovulation in poor responders. J Steroid Biochem 32: 171-173.
  80. Hofmann GE, Toner JP, Muasher SJ, Jones GS (1989) High-dose follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) ovarian stimulation in low-responder patients for in vitro fertilization. J In Vitro Fert Embryo Transf 6: 285-289.
  81. Siristatidis CS, Hamilton MP (2007) What should be the maximum FSH dose in IVF/ICSI in poor responders? J Obstet Gynaecol 27: 401-405.
  82. Rombauts L (2007) Is there a recommended maximum starting dose of FSH in IVF? J Assist Reprod Genet 24: 343-349.
  83. Andreeva P (2008) [HP-FSH (Fostimon)--a matter of choice in women with low ovarian response]. Akush Ginekol (Sofiia) 47: 56-61.
  84. Goverde AJ, McDonnell J, Schats R, Vermeiden JP, Homburg R, et al. (2005) Ovarian response to standard gonadotrophin stimulation for IVF is decreased not only in older but also in younger women in couples with idiopathic and male subfertility. Hum Reprod 20: 1573-1577.
  85. Caglar GS, Asimakopoulos B, Nikolettos N, Diedrich K, Al-Hasani S (2005) Recombinant LH in ovarian stimulation. Reprod Biomed Online 10: 774-785.
  86. Barrenetxea G, Agirregoikoa JA, Jiménez MR, de Larruzea AL, Ganzabal T, et al. (2008) Ovarian response and pregnancy outcome in poor-responder women: a randomized controlled trial on the effect of luteinizing hormone supplementation on in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil Steril 89: 546-553.
  87.  Papaleo E, De Santis L, Fusi F, Doldi N, Brigante C, et al. (2006) Natural cycle as first approach in aged patients with elevated follicle-stimulating hormone undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a pilot study. Gynecol Endocrinol 22: 351–354.
  88. Schimberni M, Morgia F, Colabianchi J, Giallonardo A, Piscitelli C, et al. (2009) Natural-cycle in vitro fertilization in poor responder patients: a survey of 500 consecutive cycles. Fertil Steril 92: 1297-1301.
  89. Janssens RM, Lambalk CB, Vermeiden JP, Schats R, Schoemaker J (2000) In-vitro fertilization in a spontaneous cycle: easy, cheap and realistic. Hum Reprod 15: 314-318.
  90. Munne S, Magli C, Adler A, Wright G, de Boer K, et al. (1997) Treatment-related chromosome abnormalities in human embryos. Hum Reprod 12: 780-784.
  91. Lass A, Peat D, Avery S, Brinsden P (1998) Histological evaluation of endometrium on the day of oocyte retrieval after gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist-follicle stimulating hormone ovulation induction for in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod 13: 3203-3205.
  92. Ata B, Yakin K, Balaban B, Urman B (2008) Embryo implantation rates in natural and stimulated assisted reproduction treatment cycles in poor responders. Reprod Biomed Online 17: 207-212.
  93. Li J, Xu Y, Zhou G, Guo J, Xin N (2011) Natural cycle IVF/IVM may be more desirable for poor responder patients after failure of stimulated cycles. J Assist Reprod Genet 28: 791-795.
  94. Pelinck MJ, Vogel NE, Hoek A, Arts EG, Simons AH, et al. (2005) Minimal stimulation IVF with late follicular phase administration of the GnRH antagonist cetrorelix and concomitant substitution with recombinant FSH: a pilot study. Hum Reprod 20: 642-648.
  95. Yoo JH, Cha SH, Park CW, Kim JY, Yang KM, et al. (2011) Comparison of mild ovarian stimulation with conventional ovarian stimulation in poor responders. Clin Exp Reprod Med 38: 159-163.
  96. Garcia-Velasco JA, Isaza V, Requena A, Martínez-Salazar FJ, Landazábal A, et al. (2000) High doses of gonadotrophins combined with stop versus non-stop protocol of GnRH analogue administration in low responder IVF patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Hum Reprod 15: 2292-2296.
  97. Dirnfeld M, Fruchter O, Yshai D, Lissak A, Ahdut A, et al. (1999) Cessation of gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue (GnRH-a) upon down-regulation versus conventional long GnRH-a protocol in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 72: 406-411.
  98. Weissman A, Farhi J, Royburt M, Nahum H, Glezerman M, et al. (2003) Prospective evaluation of two stimulation protocols for low responders who were undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Fertil Steril 79: 886-892.
  99. Vollenhoven B, Osianlis T, Catt J (2008) Is there an ideal stimulation regimen for IVF for poor responders and does it change with age? J Assist Reprod Genet 25: 523-529.
  100. Akman MA, Erden HF, Tosun SB, Bayazit N, Aksoy E, et al. (2001) Comparison of agonistic flare-up-protocol and antagonistic multiple dose protocol in ovarian stimulation of poor responders: results of a prospective randomized trial. Hum Reprod 16: 868-870.
  101. Cheung LP, Lam PM, Lok IH, Chiu TT, Yeung SY, et al. (2005) GnRH antagonist versus long GnRH agonist protocol in poor responders undergoing IVF: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 20: 616-621.
  102. Marci R, Caserta D, Dolo V, Tatone C, Pavan A, et al. (2005) GnRH antagonist in IVF poor-responder patients: results of a randomized trial. Reprod Biomed Online 11: 189-193.
  103. Lainas TG, Sfontouris IA, Papanikolaou EG, Zorzovilis JZ, Petsas GK, et al. (2008) Flexible GnRH antagonist versus flare-up GnRH agonist protocol in poor responders treated by IVF: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 23: 1355-1358.
  104. Franco JG Jr, Baruffi RL, Mauri AL, Petersen CG, Felipe V, et al. (2006) GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in poor ovarian responders: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 13: 618-627.
  105. Mahutte NG, Arici A (2007) Role of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists in poor responders. Fertil Steril 87: 241-249.
  106. Griesinger G, Diedrich K, Tarlatzis BC, Kolibianakis EM (2006) GnRH-antagonists in ovarian stimulation for IVF in patients with poor response to gonadotrophins, polycystic ovary syndrome, and risk of ovarian hyperstimulation: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 13: 628-638.
  107. Berin I, Stein DE, Keltz MD (2010) A comparison of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist and GnRH agonist flare protocols for poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 93: 360-363.
  108. Prapas Y, Petousis S, Dagklis T, Panagiotidis Y, Papatheodorou A, et al. (2013) GnRH antagonist versus long GnRH agonist protocol in poor IVF responders: a randomized clinical trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 166: 43-46.
  109. Casson PR, Lindsay MS, Pisarska MD, Carson SA, Buster JE (2000) Dehydroepiandrosterone supplementation augments ovarian stimulation in poor responders: a case series. Hum Reprod 15: 2129-2132.
  110. Gleicher N, Barad DH (2011) Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) supplementation in diminished ovarian reserve (DOR). Reprod Biol Endocrinol 9: 67.
  111. Barad D, Gleicher N (2006) Effect of dehydroepiandrosterone on oocyte and embryo yields, embryo grade and cell number in IVF. Hum Reprod 21: 2845-2849.
  112. Artini PG, Simi G, Ruggiero M, Pinelli S, Di Berardino OM, et al. (2012) DHEA supplementation improves follicular microenviroment in poor responder patients. Gynecol Endocrinol 28: 669-673.
  113. Homburg R, Eshel A, Abdalla HI, Jacobs HS (1988) Growth hormone facilitates ovulation induction by gonadotrophins. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 29: 113-117.
  114. Barreca A, Artini PG, Del Monte P, Ponzani P, Pasquini P, et al. (1993) In vivo and in vitro effect of growth hormone on estradiol secretion by human granulosa cells. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 77: 61-67.
  115. Tesarik J, Hazout A, Mendoza C (2005) Improvement of delivery and live birth rates after ICSI in women aged >40 years by ovarian co-stimulation with growth hormone. Hum Reprod 20: 2536-2541.
  116. Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Diedrich K, Tarlatzis BC, 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. Hum Reprod Update 15: 613-622.
  117. Yovich JL, Stanger JD (2010) Growth hormone supplementation improves implantation and pregnancy productivity rates for poor-prognosis patients undertaking IVF. Reprod Biomed Online 21: 37-49.
  118. Duffy JM, Ahmad G, Mohiyiddeen L, Nardo LG, Watson A (2010) Growth hormone for in vitro fertilization. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: CD000099.
  119. Frattarelli JL, Hill MJ, McWilliams GD, Miller KA, Bergh PA, et al. (2008) A luteal estradiol protocol for expected poor-responders improves embryo number and quality. Fertil Steril 89: 1118-1122.
  120. Hill MJ, McWilliams GD, Miller KA, Scott RT Jr, Frattarelli JL (2009) A luteal estradiol protocol for anticipated poor-responder patients may improve delivery rates. Fertil Steril 91: 739-743.
  121. Lin H, Li Y, Li L, Wang W, Zhang Q, et al. (2013) Oral oestradiol supplementation as luteal support in IVF/ICSI cycles: a prospective, randomized controlled study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 167: 171-175.
  122. Moini A, Zadeh Modarress S, Amirchaghmaghi E, Mirghavam N, Khafri S, et al. (2011) The effect of adding oral oestradiol to progesterone as luteal phase support in ART cycles - a randomized controlled study. Arch Med Sci 7: 112-116.
  123. Weil S, Vendola K, Zhou J, Bondy CA (1999) Androgen and follicle-stimulating hormone interactions in primate ovarian follicle development. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 84: 2951-2956.
  124. Vendola K, Zhou J, Wang J, Famuyiwa OA, Bievre M, et al. (1999) Androgens promote oocyte insulin-like growth factor I expression and initiation of follicle development in the primate ovary. Biol Reprod 61: 353-357.
  125. Fábregues F, Peñarrubia J, Creus M, Manau D, Casals G, et al. (2009) Transdermal testosterone may improve ovarian response to gonadotrophins in low-responder IVF patients: a randomized, clinical trial. Hum Reprod 24: 349-359.
  126. Borgström B, Hreinsson J, Rasmussen C, Sheikhi M, Fried G, et al. (2009) Fertility preservation in girls with turner syndrome: prognostic signs of the presence of ovarian follicles. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 94: 74-80.
  127. Practice Committee of American Society for Reproductive Medicine; Practice Committee of Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (2013) Recommendations for gamete and embryo donation: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril 99: 47-62.
  128. van der Stege JG, Groen H, van Zadelhoff SJ, Lambalk CB, Braat DD, et al. (2008) Decreased androgen concentrations and diminished general and sexual well-being in women with premature ovarian failure. Menopause 15: 23-31.
  129. Schmidt PJ, Cardoso GM, Ross JL, Haq N, Rubinow DR, et al. (2006) Shyness, social anxiety, and impaired self-esteem in Turner syndrome and premature ovarian failure. JAMA 295: 1374-1376.
  130. Singer D, Hunter M (2000) Premature menopause: a multi-disciplinary approach, Whurr Publishers Ltd.
Citation: Artini PG, Ruggiero M, Uccelli A, Obino ME, Cela V (2013) Fertility Management of Patients with Reduced Ovarian Reserve. Reprod Sys Sexual Disorders S5:006.

Copyright: © 2013 Artini PG, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Top