Dataset Information

POSEIDON classification and the proposed treatment options for groups 1 and 2: time to revisit? A retrospective analysis of 1425 ART cycles.

ABSTRACT:

Study question

Do live birth outcomes differ when Patient-Oriented Strategy Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number (POSEIDON) stratified groups are compared with women with good prognosis (non-POSEIDON group) undergoing ART?

Summary answer

The current study showed no significant difference in the live birth rates (LBRs) per embryo transfer between POSEIDON groups 1 and 2 when compared with women in the non-POSEIDON group undergoing ART.

What is known already

Recently, there has been a lot of focus on the POSEIDON classification for low prognosis women undergoing ART and various management options have been advocated. For POSEIDON groups 1 and 2, low starting dose and gonadotrophin receptor polymorphism have been suggested as possible reasons for a hyporesponse, and increasing the starting gonadotrophin dose, the addition of recombinant LH and dual stimulation have been suggested as treatment options. Most of these treatment options are hypothetical in nature and need validation.

Study design size duration

In the current cohort study, a total of 1425 cycles were analyzed retrospectively following a single cycle fresh embryo transfer. The study period was from January 2013 to June 2018.

Participants/materials setting methods

Women undergoing ART at a tertiary level infertility clinic were included. Clinical and treatment-related details were obtained from the hospital's electronic medical records. The ART outcomes in a non-POSEIDON group (women with an adequate ovarian reserve and/or optimal ovarian response i.e. >9 oocytes retrieved in the previous ART cycle) and a low prognosis group stratified by POSEIDON criteria were compared. We also examined the effectiveness of the modifications made in the current ART treatment protocols among women with an adequate ovarian reserve who had a history of poor/suboptimal response (POSEIDON 1 and 2).

Main results and the role of chance

There was no statistically significant difference in the LBR per embryo transfer in POSEIDON group 1 (32/109, 29%) and group 2 (17/58, 29%) when compared with the non-POSEIDON group (340/1041, 33%) (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) 0.69; 95% CI 0.37-1.27 and aOR 0.93, 95% CI 0.43-1.97, respectively), while significantly lower LBR were observed in POSEIDON groups 3 (17/97, 17.5%) and 4 (12/120, 10%) (aOR 0.49; 95% CI 0.28-0.89 and aOR 0.38, 95% CI 0.19-0.74, respectively). The gonadotrophin dose alone was increased in one-quarter of the cycles and in another 27% the dose was increased along with the protocol change among POSEIDON group 1. In POSEIDON group 2, a change in the dose alone and in combination with protocol change was performed in 5 and 41% of cycles, respectively.

Limitations reasons for caution

A limitation of our study is the retrospective nature of the study with an inherent risk of unknown confounders influencing the outcomes. Other limitations are the lack of cumulative live birth data and the relatively small sample within POSEIDON group 2, which could lead to a type II error.

Wider implications of the findings

The current study showed no significant difference in the LBR between the POSEIDON groups 1 and 2 when compared with the non-POSEIDON group of women, while groups 3 and 4 had significantly lower LBR. The simple gonadotrophin/protocol changes in groups 1 and 2 resulted in LBRs comparable to women with good prognosis. These findings call for revisiting the proposed treatment strategies for POSEIDON groups 1 and 2.

Study funding/competing interests

No funding was obtained. There are no competing interests to declare.

SUBMITTER: Chinta P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7882041 | biostudies-literature | 2021

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

POSEIDON classification and the proposed treatment options for groups 1 and 2: time to revisit? A retrospective analysis of 1425 ART cycles.

Chinta Parimala P Antonisamy Belavendra B Mangalaraj Ann M AM Kunjummen Aleyamma T AT Kamath Mohan S MS

Human reproduction open 20210214 1

<h4>Study question</h4>Do live birth outcomes differ when Patient-Oriented Strategy Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number (POSEIDON) stratified groups are compared with women with good prognosis (non-POSEIDON group) undergoing ART?<h4>Summary answer</h4>The current study showed no significant difference in the live birth rates (LBRs) per embryo transfer between POSEIDON groups 1 and 2 when compared with women in the non-POSEIDON group undergoing ART.<h4>What is known already</h4>Recently, th ...[more]

PMID: 33614989

Similar Datasets

Project description:Recently, perinatal outcomes and cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) have widely been utilized to assess the fertility outcomes and safety of assisted reproductive technology (ART), but more robust research is needed to address the success rates of live-healthy births resulting from this procedure, particularly for patients with low prognosis. This study aims to assess and comparative perinatal outcomes and CLBR per cycle of in vitro fertilization/Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) between four groups of low prognosis characterized by POSEIDON criteria. A retrospective assessment was done among infertile women with a low prognosis undergoing IVF/ICSI at a reproductive center in China. Data were collected between January 2011 and December 2015 with a follow-up of at least two years, and censoring was defined by three-cycle completion, discontinuation, or having a live birth. Participants were grouped into 4 groups according to the POSEIDON classification (POSEIDON1, POSEIDON2, POSEIDON3, and POSEIDON4). The main outcomes were perinatal and obstetric outcomes with CLBR per cycle after IVF/ICSI procedure. And IVF/ICSI-technique outcomes as a secondary outcome. Statistical analyses were performed by SPSS, and a p value of < 0.05 was considered significant. A total of 461 eligible participants underwent a total of 825 IVF/ICSI cycles. POSEIDON1 had the best perinatal outcomes in terms of live births (≥ 28w) (54.8%). POSEIDON4 had a higher risk for perinatal and obstetric complications with abortion rate (9.8%); LBW (11.7%), PTD (23.5%), PROM (11.7%), and gestational diabetes (17.6%). POSEIDON2 had a high rate for malpresentation (14.2%), and cesarean delivery(57.2%), while POSEIDON3 was much associated with the occurrences of placenta previa (9.3%) compared to other groups (p value = 0.001). After adjusting odds ratio by age and BMI, POSEIDON4 had the least odds for biochemical pregnancy (p value = 0.019); and the least odds for clinical pregnancy (p value = 0.001) of the four groups. CLBR per cycle was better in POSEIDON1 and increased with an increasing number of cycles in all groups during the three cycles. Conservative CLBR after three complete cycles were 77.27%, 42.52%, 51.4% and 22.34%, while optimistic CLBR were 79.01%, 51.19%, 58.59% and 34.46% in POSEIDON1 to POSEIDON4, respectively. Younger women with low prognosis and normal ovarian reserve have a higher probability for live births and better perinatal outcomes compared with older women with poor or normal ovarian reserve. Besides, young women with low prognosis, despite ovarian reserve status, can increase their probability of conception and get relatively higher CLBR by undergoing multiple cycles of IVF/ICSI. Age is therefore considered as a critical parameter in predicting the perinatal outcome and CLBR.

Project description:Objective: To study the actual controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) management in women with suboptimal response, comparing clinical outcomes to the gonadotropins consume, considering potential role of luteinizing hormone (LH) addition to follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH). Design: Monocentric, observational, retrospective, real-world, clinical trial on fresh intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles retrieving from 1 to 9 oocytes, performed at Humanitas Fertility Center from January 1st, 2012 to December 31st, 2015. Methods: COS protocols provided gonadotropin releasing-hormone (GnRH) agonist long, flare-up, short and antagonist. Both recombinant and urinary FSH were used for COS and LH was added according to the clinical practice. ICSI outcomes considered were: gonadotropins dosages; total, mature, injected and frozen oocytes; cumulative, transferred and frozen embryos; implantation rate; pregnancy, delivery and miscarriage rates. Outcomes were compared according to the gonadotropin regimen used during COS. Results: Our cohort showed 20.8% of low responders, defined as 1-3 oocytes retrieved and 79.2% of "suboptimal" responders, defined as 4-9 oocytes retrieved. According to recent POSEIDON stratification, cycles were divided in group 1 (6.9%), 2 (19.8%), 3 (11.7%), and 4 (61.5%). The cohort was divided in 3 groups, according to the gonadotropin's regimen. Women treated with FSH plus LH showed worst prognostic factors, in terms of age, basal FSH, AMH, and AFC. This difference was evident in suboptimal responders, whereas only AMH and AFC were different among treatment groups in low responders. Although a different result, in terms of oocytes and embryos detected, major ICSI outcomes (i.e., pregnancy and delivery rates) were similar among groups of COS treatment. Outcomes were significantly different among Poseidon groups. Implantation, pregnancy and delivery rates were significantly higher in Poseidon group 1 and progressively declined in other POSEIDON groups, reaching the worst percentage in group 4. Conclusions: In clinical practice, women with worst prognosis factors are generally treated with a combination of LH and FSH. Despite low prognosis women showed a reduced number of oocytes retrieved, the final ICSI outcome, in terms of pregnancy, is similarly among treatment group. This result suggests that the LH addition to FSH during COS could improve the quality of oocytes retrieved, balancing those differences that are evident at baseline. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT03290911.

Project description:Introduction Women with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) have a lower pregnancy rate and higher cancellation rate compared to those without DOR when seeking assisted reproductive technology. However, which factors are associated with reproductive outcomes and whether AMH is a predictor of clinical pregnancy remain unclear. Objective This retrospective study was designed to find factors associated with reproductive outcomes in DOR patients and then discuss the role of AMH in predicting cycle results among this population. Method A total of 900 women were included in the study. They were diagnosed with DOR with the following criteria: (i) FSH > 10 IU/L; (ii)AMH < 1.1 ng/ml; and (iii) AFC <7. They were divided into different groups: firstly, based on whether they were clinically pregnant or not, pregnant group vs. non-pregnant group (comparison 1); secondly, if patients had transferrable embryos (TE) or not, TE vs. no TE group (comparison 2); thirdly, patients undergoing embryo transfer (ET) cycles were divided into pregnant I and non-pregnant I group (comparison 3). The baseline and ovarian stimulation characteristics of these women in their first IVF/ICSI cycles were analyzed. Logistic regression was performed to find factors associated with clinical pregnancy. Results Of the 900 DOR patients, 138 women got pregnant in their first IVF/ICSI cycles while the rest did not. AMH was an independent predictor of TE after adjusting for confounding factors (adjusted OR:11.848, 95% CI: 6.21-22.62, P< 0.001). Further ROC (receiver operating characteristic) analysis was performed and the corresponding AUC (the area under the curve) was 0.679 (95% CI: 0.639-0.72, P< 0.001). Notably, an AMH level of 0.355 had a sensitivity of 62.6% and specificity of 65.6%. However, there was no statistical difference in AMH level in comparison 3, and multivariate logistic regression showed female age was associated with clinical pregnancy in ET cycles and women who were under 35 years old were more likely to be pregnant compared to those older than 40 years old (adjusted OR:4.755, 95% CI: 2.81-8.04, P< 0.001). Conclusion AMH is highly related to oocyte collection rate and TE rate,and 0.355 ng/ml was a cutoff value for the prediction of TE. For DOR patients who had an embryo transferred, AMH is not associated with clinical pregnancy while female age is an independent risk factor for it.

Project description:BackgroundIn vitro fertilization (IVF) is the main technique to address the infertility issue in the patient-oriented strategy encompassing individualized oocyte number (POSEIDON) population. Adopting appropriate protocols for assisted reproduction technologies (ART) cycles in the POSEIDON group may attain more favorable pregnancy outcomes.ObjectivesThis study aimed to compare the effectiveness of modified long gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist protocol and non-downregulation protocol in POSEIDON patients undergoing ART, and to identify the factors affecting the pregnancy outcomes in this group.DesignThis study was designed as a propensity score-matched (PSM) retrospective analysis.ParticipantsThe study cohort consisted of 910 patients diagnosed with ovarian hyporesponsiveness and treated by IVF from January 2020 to June 2022. They were followed up until the transfer of the last embryo of the IVF cycle and/or pregnancy at 12 weeks. The study was conducted at the Center of Reproductive Medicine, Tongji Medical College, Wuhan Union Hospital, Huazhong University of Science and Technology.MethodsThe patients were divided into Group I and Group II. Group I was treated with modified long gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist protocol while Group II was put on a non-downregulation protocol. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to select patients for each group. The subjects were compared in terms of the baseline level, process of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation, and pregnancy outcomes. Binary logistic regression analysis was performed to assess the difference in the cumulative pregnancy rate between the two groups.ResultsOf the 910 POSEIDON patients who underwent IVF, 213 received the modified long gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist protocol and 697 were subjected to the non-downregulation protocol. From the original cohort, PSM matched 174 pairs of patients. No statistically significant difference was found in total gonadotropin (Gn) dose between the two PSM groups, but the average daily Gn dose was lower in Group I and the duration of Gn lasted longer. The number of retrieved oocytes, the number of metaphase II (MII) ooctyes retrieved, normal fertilization, and normal cleavage embryos was significantly higher in Group I than in Group II, but there existed no significant difference in the number of high-quality embryos between the two groups. The single-cycle CPR (cumulative pregnancy rate) was higher in Group I than in Group II (for Group I: before PSM, CPR = 52.6%; after PSM, CPR = 51.7%; for Group II: before PSM, CPR = 34.0%; after PSM, CPR = 34.5%), and the difference was statistically significant. A binary logistic regression analysis in the unmatched patients showed that the CPR of Group II was 0.486 times that of Group I (95% CI: 0.303 to 0.779).ConclusionsThe modified long gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist protocol can be used as an optimal protocol for IVF or ICSI (Intracytoplasmic sperm injection) in POSEIDON patients.Level of evidenceLevel III.

Project description:Study questionDoes prior severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection in women undergoing fertility treatments affect the outcomes of fresh ART cycles?Summary answerSARS-CoV-2 infection does not affect fresh ART treatment outcomes, except for a possible long-term negative effect on oocyte yield (>180 days postinfection).What is known alreadyA single previous study suggested no evidence that a history of asymptomatic or mild SARS-CoV-2 infection in females caused impairment of fresh ART treatment outcomes.Study design, size, durationRetrospective cohort study, including all SARS-CoV-2 infected women who underwent fresh ART cycles within a year from infection (the first cycle postinfection), between October 2020 and June 2021, matched to non-diagnosed controls.Participants/materials, setting, methodsPatients from two large IVF units in Israel who were infected with SARS-CoV-2 and later underwent fresh ART cycles were matched by age to non-diagnosed, non-vaccinated controls. Demographics, cycle characteristics and cycle outcomes, including oocyte yield, maturation rate, fertilization rate, number of frozen embryos per cycle and clinical pregnancy rates, were compared between groups.Main results and the role of chanceOne hundred and twenty-one infected patients and 121 controls who underwent fresh ART cycles were included. Oocyte yield (12.50 versus 11.29; P = 0.169) and mature oocyte rate (78% versus 82%; P = 0.144) in all fresh cycles were similar between groups, as were fertilization rates, number of frozen embryos per cycle and clinical pregnancy rates (43% versus 40%; P = 0.737) in fresh cycles with an embryo transfer. In a logistic regression model, SARS-CoV-2 infection more than 180 days prior to retrieval had a negative effect on oocyte yield (P = 0.018, Slope = -4.08, 95% CI -7.41 to -0.75), although the sample size was small.Limitations, reasons for cautionA retrospective study with data that was not uniformly generated under a study protocol, no antibody testing for the control group.Wider implications of the findingsThe study findings suggest that SARS-CoV-2 infection does not affect treatment outcomes, including oocyte yield, fertilization and maturation rate, number of good quality embryos and clinical pregnancy rates, in fresh ART cycles, except for a possible long-term negative effect on oocyte yield when retrieval occurs >180 days post-SARS-CoV-2 infection. Further studies are warranted to support these findings.Study funding/competing interest(s)None.Trial registration number0010-21-HMC, 0094-21-ASF.

Dataset Information

POSEIDON classification and the proposed treatment options for groups 1 and 2: time to revisit? A retrospective analysis of 1425 ART cycles.

Study question

Summary answer

What is known already

Study design size duration

Participants/materials setting methods

Main results and the role of chance

Limitations reasons for caution

Wider implications of the findings

Study funding/competing interests

Publications

POSEIDON classification and the proposed treatment options for groups 1 and 2: time to revisit? A retrospective analysis of 1425 ART cycles.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets