Are we choosing the correct FSH starting dose during controlled ovarian stimulation for intrauterine insemination cycles? Potential application of a nomogram based on woman’s age and markers of ovarian reserve
To evaluate the potential application of a nomogram based on woman’s age and ovarian reserve markers as a tool to optimize the follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) starting dose in intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles.
We conducted a retrospective analysis enrolling 179 infertile women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation (COS), followed by IUI. Each woman received an FSH starting dose according to clinical decision. After collecting data about COS and IUI procedures, we calculated the FSH starting dose according to the nomogram. The main outcomes measured were women’s baseline characteristics, COS, and clinical outcomes.
The FSH starting dose calculated by the nomogram was significantly lower than the one actually prescribed (p < 0.001), in only 14.8% of the cycles nomogram calculated a higher starting dose. When gonadotropin dose was decreased during COS, and similarly in case of hyper-response (more than two follicles ≥ 16 mm retrieved), the FSH starting dose calculated by the nomogram would have been lower in most of the cases (81.8% and 48.8%, respectively). Conversely, when gonadotropin dose was increased during COS and in case of low ovarian response (no follicle ≥ 16 mm retrieved), the FSH starting dose calculated by the nomogram would have been lower in most of the cases (64.7% and 100%, respectively); in these groups median anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level was 5.62 ng/mL.
The application of this nomogram in IUI cycles would lead to a more tailored FSH starting dose and improved cost-effectiveness, although in PCOS women, particularly the ones with high AMH, it does not seem adequate.
KeywordsFollicle-stimulating hormone Starting dose Anti-Müllerian hormone Controlled ovarian stimulation Intrauterine insemination Nomogram
Di Paola R and Zaffagnini S: study conceptualization and protocol planning, supervision. Garzon S: clinical data collection and analysis, manuscript writing/editing. Giuliani S, Parissone F and Zorzi C: clinical data collection and analysis. Laganà AS and Noventa M: clinical data analysis and manuscript writing/editing. Raffaelli R, Ghezzi F and Franchi M: project administration, methodology validation and supervision. All the authors conform to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship, contributed to the intellectual content of the study and gave approval for the final version of the article. The authors alone are responsible for the content and writing of the paper.
This study was not funded.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Di Paola R declares that she has no conflict of interest. Garzon S declares that he has no conflict of interest. Giuliani S declares that she has no conflict of interest. Parissone F declares that she has no conflict of interest. Zorzi C declares that she has no conflict of interest. Laganà AS declares that he has no conflict of interest. Noventa M declares that he has no conflict of interest. Raffaelli R declares that she has no conflict of interest. Ghezzi F declares that he has no conflict of interest. Franchi M declares that he has no conflict of interest. Zaffagnini S declares that he has no conflict of interest. The authors have no proprietary, financial, professional or other personal interest of any nature in any product, service or company.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki Declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. The design, analysis, interpretation of data, drafting, and revisions conform to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines (http://publicationethics.org/), and the RECORD (reporting of studies conducted using observational routinely collected health data) statement , available through the EQUATOR (enhancing the quality and transparency of health research) network (www.equator-network.org). The study was non-advertised, and no remuneration was offered to encourage patients to give consent for collection and analysis of their data. The retrospective study design and development, with anonymized handling of the data, was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the University of Verona.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study. Each patient enrolled in this study signed an informed consent for all the procedures and to allow data collection and analysis for research purpose.
- 1.The European IVF-monitoring Consortium (EIM), European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), Calhaz-Jorge C et al (2017) Assisted reproductive technology in Europe, 2013: results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 32:1957–1973. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dex264 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 5.Streda R, Mardesic T, Sobotka V et al (2012) Comparison of different starting gonadotropin doses (50, 75 and 100 IU daily) for ovulation induction combined with intrauterine insemination. Arch Gynecol Obstet 286:1055–1059. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2414-3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 8.Lensen SF, Wilkinson J, Leijdekkers JA et al (2018) Individualised gonadotropin dose selection using markers of ovarian reserve for women undergoing in vitro fertilisation plus intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI). Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD012693. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd012693.pub2 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 19.La Marca A, Papaleo E, Grisendi V et al (2012) Development of a nomogram based on markers of ovarian reserve for the individualisation of the follicle-stimulating hormone starting dose in in vitro fertilisation cycles: nomogram for the individualisation of FSH dose. BJOG 119:1171–1179. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03412.x CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 20.Papaleo E, Zaffagnini S, Munaretto M et al (2016) Clinical application of a nomogram based on age, serum FSH and AMH to select the FSH starting dose in IVF/ICSI cycles: a retrospective two-centres study. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 207:94–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejogrb.2016.10.021 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 23.Han X, McShane M, Sahertian R et al (2014) Pre-mixing serum samples with assay buffer is a prerequisite for reproducible anti-Mullerian hormone measurement using the Beckman Coulter Gen II assay. Hum Reprod 29:1042–1048. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deu050 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 24.Craciunas L, Roberts SA, Yates AP et al (2015) Modification of the Beckman-Coulter second-generation enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay protocol improves the reliability of serum antimüllerian hormone measurement. Fertil Steril 103(554–559):e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2014.10.052 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Peeraer K, Debrock S, De Loecker P et al (2015) Low-dose human menopausal gonadotrophin versus clomiphene citrate in subfertile couples treated with intrauterine insemination: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod Oxf Engl 30:1079–1088. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/dev062 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Peeraer K, Luyten J, Tomassetti C et al (2018) Cost-effectiveness of ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophin and clomiphene citrate in an intrauterine insemination programme for subfertile couples. Reprod Biomed Online 36:302–310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2017.12.007 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 32.Iliodromiti S, Kelsey TW, Anderson RA, Nelson SM (2013) Can Anti-Müllerian hormone predict the diagnosis of polycystic ovary syndrome? A systematic review and meta-analysis of extracted data. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 98:3332–3340. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2013-1393 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 35.Amer SA, Mahran A, Abdelmaged A et al (2013) The influence of circulating anti-Müllerian hormone on ovarian responsiveness to ovulation induction with gonadotrophins in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome: a pilot study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 11:115–123. https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-11-115 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar