Minimal stimulation IVF vs conventional IVF: a randomized controlled trial




Background


Minimal stimulation in vitro fertilization (mini–in vitro fertilization) is an alternative in vitro fertilization treatment protocol that may reduce ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, multiple pregnancy rates, and cost while retaining high live birth rates.


Objective


We performed a randomized noninferiority controlled trial with a prespecified border of 10% that compared 1 cycle of mini–in vitro fertilization with single embryo transfer with 1 cycle of conventional in vitro fertilization with double embryo transfer.


Study Design


Five hundred sixty-four infertile women (<39 years old) who were undergoing their first in vitro fertilization cycle were allocated randomly to either mini–in vitro fertilization or conventional in vitro fertilization. The primary outcome was cumulative live birth rate per woman over a 6-month period. Secondary outcomes included ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, multiple pregnancy rates, and gonadotropin use. The primary outcome was cumulative live birth per randomized woman within a time horizon of 6 months.


Results


Five hundred sixty-four couples were assigned randomly between February 2009 and August 2013 with 285 couples allocated to mini–in vitro fertilization and 279 couples allocated to conventional in vitro fertilization. The cumulative live birth rate was 49% (140/285) for mini–in vitro fertilization and 63% (176/279) for conventional in vitro fertilization (relative risk, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-0.89). There were no cases of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome after mini–in vitro fertilization compared with 16 moderate/severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome cases (5.7%) after conventional in vitro fertilization. The multiple pregnancy rates were 6.4% in mini–in vitro fertilization compared with 32% in conventional in vitro fertilization (relative risk, 0.25; 95% confidence interval, 0.14-0.46). Gonadotropin consumption was significantly lower with mini–in vitro fertilization compared with conventional in vitro fertilization (459 ± 131 vs 2079 ± 389 IU; P < .0001).


Conclusion


Compared with conventional in vitro fertilization with double embryo transfer, mini–in vitro fertilization with single embryo transfer lowers live birth rates, completely eliminates ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, reduces multiple pregnancy rates, and reduces gonadotropin consumption.


The current standard of in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment involves ovarian hyperstimulation with high doses of gonadotropins in combination with transfer of ≥1 embryos. The major safety issues of conventional IVF are ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and multiple pregnancies. Women with OHSS are at serious risk of potentially life-threatening conditions that involve hospitalization in 1.8% of the cases. Multiple pregnancies are associated with a high risk of preeclampsia, gestational diabetes mellitus, antepartum hemorrhage, anemia, preterm delivery, and cesarean delivery. Preterm birth is associated with a high risk of bronchopulmonary dysplasia, necrotizing enterocolitis, and cerebral palsy. Additionally, all these complications often lead to expensive hospital admissions, which impose a steep burden on societal expenses and health services.


One of the most important factors that influences the rate of multiple births is the number of embryos that are transferred. Single embryo transfer (SET) not only reduces the incidence of multiple pregnancies effectively but also decreases pregnancy rates per transfer. Given this reduction in pregnancy chances, most physicians and patients in the United States are reluctant to practice a SET policy; the percentage of SET in IVF cycles ranged from 8.9-14% among women who were <38 years old in 2012. This resulted in 25-29% multiple pregnancy rates among all pregnancies that were achieved during the same period of time.


Minimal stimulation IVF (mini-IVF) combined with SET has the potential to reduce OHSS and multiple pregnancy rates without significantly lowering live birth rates. Mini-IVF entails the use of clomiphene citrate (CC), which allows an endogenous rise in follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) to be added to the ovarian stimulation with low doses of gonadotropins. By triggering ovulation, mini-IVF frequently makes use of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa), instead of human chorionic gonadotropin, to prevent OHSS. A final contentious feature of mini-IVF is a freeze-all-embryo policy to prevent any negative effect of ovarian stimulation on endometrial receptivity. In observational studies, mini-IVF has been shown to lead to high pregnancy rates, low multiple pregnancy rates, low OHSS rates, and low cost.


The aim of this noninferiority randomized trial was to compare the effectiveness and safety of the mini-IVF strategy with the use of the freeze-all policy and SET with conventional IVF with the use of fresh double embryo transfer.


Materials and Methods


Study oversight


This minimal ovarian stimulation trial was designed by investigators at the Academic Medical Center (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) and the New Hope Fertility Center (NHFC; New York, NY). All the participants received IVF treatments in a single center (NHFC). The noninferiority trial was approved by the Institutional Review Board of New York Downtown Hospital and was registered before its start at clinicaltrials.gov : NCT 00799929.


The trial protocol was approved by a protocol review committee and a data and safety monitoring board, both appointed by NHFC and by the institutional review boards of the New York Downtown Hospital and the Biomedical Research Alliance of New York. Randomization, monitoring, and data analysis were coordinated at the Academic Medical Center in the Netherlands.


Study design and patients


Women were recruited between February 2009 and August 2013 via printed and online media. Participants were responsible to pay for their own medications; they were provided free services (ie, oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer) as compensation for participation. Inclusion criteria included women between 18-38 years of age, having normal menstrual cycles, undergoing first IVF treatment and having infertility diagnoses of male, unexplained, and tubal factors. Exclusion criteria included preexisting medical conditions (such as diabetes mellitus, hypertension, hypothyroidism, and hyperprolactinemia), a body mass index of <18.5 or >32 kg/m 2 , and day-3 FSH >12 mIU/mL. Screening tests before initiation of treatment included complete blood count, varicella and rubella titer, Papanicolaou smear, syphilis, HIV 1 and 2, hepatitis B, hepatitis C, chlamydia, gonorrhea, prolactin, thyroid-stimulating hormone, cycle day 3 FSH and estradiol. Ultrasound testing was performed at baseline, and women with any submucosal or large intramural fibroid tumors that required surgery were excluded from the study.


Informed consent and randomization


After we obtained written informed consent, women were allocated randomly to mini-IVF or conventional IVF at a 1:1 ratio. The randomization was done at the start of the cycle with the use of sequentially numbered opaque envelopes that had been prepared on the basis of a computer-generated list at the Academic Medical Center in the Netherlands and sent to NHFC in New York. Women and medical staff were not blinded for treatment allocation. Outcome data were not disclosed to participants or investigators until completion of the trial.


Mini-IVF


After oral contraceptive pill pretreatment for 10-14 days, adequate suppression was confirmed with an estradiol level of <75 pg/mL. Minimal ovarian stimulation was started with an extended regimen (from day 3 until the day before triggering) of CC (50 mg/d orally) in conjunction with gonadotropin injections (Bravelle and/or Menopur, Ferring, Parsippany, NJ; Follistim, Merck, White House Station, NJ; or Gonal F, EMD Serono, Rockland, MA) starting on cycle days 4-7 with 75-150 IUs daily. No hypothalamic-pituitary suppression was performed, and the final maturation of oocytes was induced by a GnRHa nasal spray (Synarel nasal spray, Pfizer, New York, NY) when the lead follicle reached a diameter of ≥18 mm ( Figure 1 ). Oocyte retrieval was performed most often with local anesthesia; follicular flushing was performed as needed. Retrieved oocytes were fertilized by conventional IVF or ICSI, as indicated, and subsequently cultured until the blastocyst stage. All blastocysts were vitrified with the CryoTop method (Kitazato Biopharma, Fuji, Japan). A single thawed blastocyst was transferred in a subsequent natural or artificially prepared cycle with oral Estrace (Actavis Pharma, Inc, Parsippany, NJ).




Figure 1


Schematic diagrams of mini–in vitro fertilization and conventional in vitro fertilization protocols

In the artificially prepared frozen embryo transfer of the mini–in vitro fertilization protocol, oral estradiol treatment was started on day 3 and was given daily; progesterone treatment was added on day 13 onward to the estradiol pills.

GnRHa , gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist; HCG , human chorionic gonadotropin; ICSI , intracytoplasmic sperm injection; IVF , in vitro fertilization; US , ultrasound.

Zhang et al. Mini-IVF vs conventional IVF. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016 .


Conventional IVF


Conventional ovarian stimulation consisted of a long GnRHa protocol with mid-luteal down-regulation (Leuprolide Acetate, Teva, Sellersville, PA) followed by stimulation with daily gonadotropins injections (Bravelle and/or Menopur, Ferring; Follistim, Merck; or Gonal F) at a dose of 150-300 IUs daily starting in the early follicular phase (cycle day 3). The final maturation of oocytes was induced with the standard human chorionic gonadotropin (Novarel, Ferring; Pregnyl, Merck; or Ovidrel, EMD Serono, Rockland, MA), rather than GnRHa, when at least 2 follicles reached ≥18 mm. Oocyte retrieval was performed mostly with general anesthesia because of the presence of a large number of mature follicles. Retrieved oocytes were fertilized by conventional IVF or ICSI according to the same indications as in the mini-IVF protocol and subsequently cultured until the blastocyst stage. Two or 1 blastocysts (the latter if 2 embryos were not available or if there was a medical contraindication for double embryo transfer) were transferred in the fresh cycle. Remaining supernumerary blastocysts were vitrified, and 2 thawed blastocysts or 1 blastocyst (if 2 were not available) were transferred in subsequent naturally or artificially prepared cycles with oral Estrace.


Outcomes


The primary outcome was cumulative live birth per randomly assigned woman (which included fresh and subsequent frozen embryo transfers [FET]) within a time horizon of 6 months. Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate; OHSS; multiple pregnancy rate; gonadotropin usage; the number of retrieved, mature, and fertilized oocytes; implantation rate; cancellation rate, and failed fertilization. A clinical pregnancy was defined as at least 1 intrauterine sac at 6 weeks gestation; live birth was defined as a child born after 22 weeks of gestation or who weighed at least 500 g.


Sample size calculation and statistical analysis


Sample size calculation was based on an expected cumulative live birth rate of 65% in women who were ≤38 years old after conventional IVF based on US Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology registry data from 2007 because recruitment started in 2009. A noninferiority margin of –10% was considered a clinically significant difference. Thus, 564 women were needed to assure that, with a power of 80%, the lower limit of a 1-sided 95% confidence interval (CI) was within a prespecified border of –10%.


The effectiveness of mini-IVF vs conventional IVF was expressed as a risk ratio for cumulative live birth, with the corresponding 95% CI. The risk difference and 95% CI for live birth and the relative risks and 95% CI for all binary secondary outcomes were calculated. For continuous outcomes, data were expressed as means ± standard deviation, and the difference between both arms was compared with the use of t -test. Chi-square and Fisher exact tests were used for categoric data, as appropriate. The analysis of all outcomes was on an intention-to-treat basis. A probability value of <.05 was considered statistically significant. SPSS software (version 22.0; SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL) was used to perform all statistical analyses.




Results


A total of 771 women were assessed for eligibility ( Figure 2 ). Of these, 180 women did not fulfill the inclusion criteria (41 women had no indication for IVF; 20 women had preexisting medical conditions interfering with IVF treatment; 75 women had abnormal screening results; 2 women were pregnant at the time of screening; 9 women had personal problems, and 33 women had multiple reasons) and 27 women did not give informed consent. A total of 564 women were allocated randomly to the mini-IVF strategy or to conventional IVF. Four women in the mini-IVF arm and 6 women in the conventional IVF arm did not receive the allocated intervention because of withdrawal before starting treatment. Additionally, 3 women in the mini-IVF arm and 6 women in the conventional IVF arm dropped-out after starting treatment for reasons that are detailed in Figure 2 . Cancelled cycles, failed fertilization, and blastocyst developmental failure in each arm are shown in Figure 2 . In the mini-IVF arm, of the 281 participants who received the allocated intervention, 6 women did not make it to the oocyte retrieval stage (3 women had ovarian cyst at the baseline ultrasound scanning; 1 woman had no follicular development, and 2 women prematurely ovulated), and 44 women had no embryo transfer for reasons such as failed fertilization, failed blastocyst formation, and spontaneous pregnancy before embryo transfer. In the conventional IVF arm, of the 273 participants who received the allocated intervention, 20 women did not make it to the oocyte retrieval stage (3 women failed to have ovarian suppression, and 17 women did not have appropriate follicular development), and 22 women did not have embryo transfer for similar reasons as those in the mini-IVF arm.




Figure 2


Trial profile

Screening, eligibility, randomization, and follow-up are addressed.

BMI , body mass index; FSH , follicle-stimulating hormone; IVF , in vitro fertilization.

Zhang et al. Mini-IVF vs conventional IVF. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016 .


Baseline characteristics did not differ between both arms ( Table 1 ). Most women (68%) were <35 years old. Primary and secondary outcomes are listed in Table 2 . The cumulative live birth rate per randomly assigned woman (including live births from frozen-thawed embryo transfers in both arms of the study) was 49% in the mini-IVF arm and 63% in the conventional IVF arm, which resulted in a relative risk of 0.78 (95% CI, 0.67–0.90). The average absolute difference of mini-IVF vs conventional IVF was –14% (95% CI, –6 to –22%). None of the women in the mini-IVF arm experienced OHSS because of the use of GnRHa; moderate/severe OHSS occurred in 16 women (5.7%) in the conventional IVF arm. Seven of these women were hospitalized and underwent transvaginal paracentesis for symptomatic relief. The multiple pregnancy rate was significantly lower in the mini-IVF arm (6.4% vs 32%; relative risk, 0.25; 95% CI, 0.14–0.46); they were all monozygotic twins because only 1 embryo was transferred in this arm. Women in the mini-IVF arm required significantly lower total doses of gonadotropins per cycle (459 ± 131 vs 2079 ± 389 IU; P < .0001).



Table 1

Demographics and baseline characteristics of the participants






















































































Variable In vitro fertilization
Mini Conventional
Randomly assigned patients, n 285 279
Age, y a 32.4 ± 3.6 31.9 ± 4
Body mass index, kg/m 2 a 24.7 ± 3.8 24.9 ± 3.8
Baseline follicle-stimulating hormone, mIU/mL a 8.6 ± 2.2 8.5 ± 2.3
Infertility duration, y a 2.4 ± 1.5 2.5 ± 1.5
Primary infertility, n (%) 127 (45) 132 (47)
Nulliparous, n (%) 207 (73) 207 (74)
Ethnicity, n (%)
White 143 (50) 126 (45)
Black 55 (19) 70 (25)
Hispanic 42 (15) 46 (16)
Asian 35 (12) 29 (10)
Mixed/other 10 (4) 8 (3)
Infertility diagnoses, n (%)
Tubal 78 (27) 101 (36)
Unknown 69 (24) 66 (24)
Male 70 (25) 48 (17)
Mixed male/female 21 (7) 29 (10)
Other (polycystic ovary syndrome, diminished ovarian reserve, endometriosis, multiple) 47 (16) 35 (12)

Zhang et al. Mini-IVF vs conventional IVF. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2016 .

a Data are given as mean ± SD. P > .1 for all comparisons between the mini and the conventional in vitro fertilization arms.



Table 2

Primary and secondary outcomes in the treatment groups








































































Pregnancy outcome In vitro fertilization Relative risk (95% confidence interval) P value
Mini Conventional
Randomly assigned patients, n a 285 279
Clinical pregnancy, n (%) 161 (57) 211 (76) 0.67 (0.57-0.78)
Live births, n (%) 140 (49) 176 (63) 0.78 (0.67-0.90)
Multiple pregnancy per live births, n (%) 9 (6.4) 56 (32) 0.25 (0.14-0.46)
Stimulation outcome b
Total clomiphene dose, mg a 513 ± 101
Total gonadotropin dose/cycle, IU a 459 ± 131 2079 ± 389 < .0001 c
Days of stimulation, n a 10.7 ± 5.7 10.4 ± 5.7 .48 c
Peak estradiol, pg/mL a 1657 ± 1067 3255 ± 2344 < .0001 c
Moderate/severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, n (%) 0 16 (5.7) < .0001 d

Only gold members can continue reading. Log In or Register to continue

Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel

May 4, 2017 | Posted by in GYNECOLOGY | Comments Off on Minimal stimulation IVF vs conventional IVF: a randomized controlled trial

Full access? Get Clinical Tree

Get Clinical Tree app for offline access