Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 197–202 | Cite as

Mild ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: one perspective from the USA

Article

Abstract

Purpose

To provide a perspective regarding mild ovarian stimulation, taking into account particular issues relevant in the United States

Methods

Literature review and editorial commentary

Results

Mild ovarian stimulation for IVF has some proven and some theoretical advantages over conventional stimulation, such as lower risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and lower cost per fresh IVF cycle. However, cumulative live birth rate, including transfers from fresh and frozen embryos, is likely to be lower with mild stimulation. The cost-effectiveness of mild stimulation IVF in the United States has not been established.

Conclusions

Mild ovarian stimulation is an appropriate option to consider for certain patient groups or based on patient preference. However, significant potential disadvantages limit its widespread acceptability for patients in the United States at this time.

Keywords

Assisted reproductive technology In vitro fertilization Mild ovarian stimulation 

References

  1. 1.
    Nargund G, Fauser BC, Macklon NS, Ombelet W, Nygren K, Frydman R, et al. The ISMAAR proposal on terminology for ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:2801–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zarek SM, Muasher SJ. Mild/minimal stimulation for in vitro fertilization: an old idea that needs to be revisited. Fertil Steril. 2011;95:2449–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Siristatidis C, Trivella M, Chrelias C, Sioulas VD, Vrachnis N, Kassanos D. A short narrative review of the feasibility of adopting mild ovarian stimulation for IVF as the current standard of care. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2012;286:505–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Verberg MF, Macklon NS, Nargund G, Frydman R, Devroey P, Broekmans FJ, et al. Mild ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum Reprod Update. 2009;15:13–29.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ubaldi F, Rienzi L, Ferrero S, Baroni E, Iacobelli M, Sapienza F, et al. Natural in vitro fertilization cycles. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2004;1034:245–51. Review.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fauser BC, Nargund G, Andersen AN, Norman R, Tarlatzis B, Boivin J, et al. Mild ovarian stimulation for IVF: 10 years later. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:2678–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Heijnen EM, Eijkemans MJ, De Klerk C, Polinder S, Beckers NG, Klinkert ER, et al. A mild treatment strategy for in-vitro fertilisation: a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2007;369:743–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Verberg MF, Eijkemans MJ, Heijnen EM, Broekmans FJ, de Klerk C, Fauser BC, et al. Why do couples drop-out from IVF treatment? A prospective cohort study. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2050–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blum J, Shochet T, Lynd K, Lichtenberg ES, Fischer D, Arnesen M, et al. Can at-home semi-quantitative pregnancy tests serve as a replacement for clinical follow-up of medical abortion? A US study. Contraception. 2012;86:757–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weinerman R, Grifo J. Consequences of superovulation and ART procedures. Semin Reprod Med. 2012;30:77–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Devroey P, Bourgain C, Macklon NS, Fauser BC. Reproductive biology and IVF: ovarian stimulation and endometrial receptivity. Trends Endocrinol Metab. 2004;15:84–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Santos MA, Kuijk EW, Macklon NS. The impact of ovarian stimulation for IVF on the developing embryo. Reproduction. 2010;139:23–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McDonald SD, Han Z, Mulla S, Murphy KE, Beyene J, Ohlsson A, et al. Preterm birth and low birth weight among in vitro fertilization singletons: a systematic review and meta-analyses. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2009;146:138–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Reddy UM, Wapner RJ, Rebar RW, Tasca RJ. Infertility, assisted reproductive technology, and adverse pregnancy outcomes: executive summary of a national institute of child health and human development workshop. Obstet Gynecol. 2007;109:967–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Conrad KP, Baker VL. Corpus luteal contribution to maternal pregnancy physiology and outcomes in assisted reproductive technologies. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2012Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Luke B, Brown MB, Morbeck DE, Hudson SB, Coddington 3rd CC, Stern JE. Factors associated with Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome (OHSS) and its effect on Assisted Reproductive Technology (ART) treatment and outcome. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1399–404.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Baker VL, Brown MB, Luke B, Conrad KP. Association between multiple corpora lutea and birthweight among singletons from in vitro fertilization: analysis using Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinical Outcome Reporting System. Fertil Steril. 2012;98:S16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bosch E, Ezcurra D. Individualised controlled ovarian stimulation (iCOS): maximising success rates for assisted reproductive technology patients. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2011;9:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kato K, Takehara Y, Segawa T, Kawachiya S, Okuno T, Kobayashi T, et al. Minimal ovarian stimulation combined with elective single embryo transfer policy: age-specific results of a large, single-centre, Japanese cohort. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2012;10:35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Diedrich K, Fauser BC, Devroey P. Evian Annual Reproduction (EVAR) workshop group 2009. Cancer and fertility: strategies to preserve fertility. Reprod Biomed Online. 2011;22:232–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Teramoto S, Kato O. Minimal ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate: a large-scale retrospective study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2007;15:134–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Division of Reproductive Health. 2009 Assisted reproductive technology; success rates national summary and fertility clinic reports. Centers for disease control and prevention. 2011 http://www.cdc.gov/art/ART2009/PDF/ART_2009_Full.pdf
  23. 23.
    Baker VL, Jones CE, Cometti B, Hoehler F, Salle B, Urbancsek J, et al. Factors affecting success rates in two concurrent clinical IVF trials: an examination of potential explanations for the difference in pregnancy rates between the United States and Europe. Fertil Steril. 2010;94:1287–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Verberg MF, Eijkemans MJ, Macklon NS, Heijnen EM, Baart EB, Hohmann FP, et al. The clinical significance of the retrieval of a low number of oocytes following mild ovarian stimulation for IVF: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2009;15:5–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Luke B, Brown MB, Wantman E, Lederman A, Gibbons W, Schattman GL, et al. Cumulative birth rates with linked assisted reproductive technology cycles. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:2483–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Stern JE, Hickman TN, Kinzer D, Penzias AS, Ball GD, Gibbons WE. Can the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System (SART CORS) be used to accurately report clinic total reproductive potential (TRP)? Fertil Steril. 2012;97:886–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mansour R, Aboulghar M, Serour GI, Al-Inany HG, Fahmy I, Amin Y. The use of clomiphene citrate/human menopausal gonadotrophins in conjunction with GnRH antagonist in an IVF/ICSI program is not a cost effective protocol. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2003;82:48–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Baker VL, Gvakharia MO, Rone HM, Manalad JR, Adamson GD. Economic cost for implementation of the U.S. food and drug administration’s code of federal regulations title 21, Part 1271 in an egg donor program. Fertil Steril. 2008;90:537–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    The Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine and the Practice Committee of the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology. Recommendations for gamete and embryo donation: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2012. [Epub ahead of print]Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Ginsburg ES, Baker VL, Racowsky C, Wantman E, Goldfarb J, Stern JE. Use of preimplantation genetic diagnosis and preimplantation genetic screening in the United States: a society for assisted reproductive technology writing group paper. Fertil Steril. 2011;96:865–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Society of Assisted Reproductive Technology Clinic Outcome Reporting System. 2010 Clinic summary report. https://www.sartcorsonline.com/rptCSR_PublicMultYear.aspx?ClinicPKID=0
  32. 32.
    Treff NR, Scott Jr RT. Methods for comprehensive chromosome screening of oocytes and embryos: capabilities, limitations, and evidence of validity. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2012;29:381–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Baart EB, Martini E, Eijkemans MJ, Van Opstal D, Beckers NG, Verhoeff A, et al. Milder ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization reduces aneuploidy in the human preimplantation embryo: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2007;22:980–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility, Department of Obstetrics and GynecologyStanford University School of Medicine, Stanford Fertility and Reproductive Medicine CenterPalo AltoUSA

Personalised recommendations