Department of Reproductive Medicine and Gynaecology, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Julius Centre for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht University, PO Box 85500, 3508 GA Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Hum Reprod. 2017 Dec 1;32(12):2496-2505. doi: 10.1093/humrep/dex318.
Does an increased FSH dose result in higher cumulative live birth rates in women with a predicted poor ovarian response, apparent from a low antral follicle count (AFC), scheduled for IVF or ICSI?
In women with a predicted poor ovarian response (AFC < 11) undergoing IVF/ICSI, an increased FSH dose (225/450 IU/day) does not improve cumulative live birth rates as compared to a standard dose (150 IU/day).
In women scheduled for IVF/ICSI, an ovarian reserve test (ORT) can predict ovarian response to stimulation. The FSH starting dose is often adjusted based on the ORT from the belief that it will improve live birth rates. However, the existing RCTs on this topic, most of which show no benefit, are underpowered.
STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Between May 2011 and May 2014, we performed an open-label multicentre RCT in women with an AFC < 11 (Dutch Trial Register NTR2657). The primary outcome was ongoing pregnancy achieved within 18 months after randomization and resulting in a live birth. We needed 300 women to assess whether an increased dose strategy would increase the cumulative live birth rate from 25 to 40% (two-sided alpha-error 0.05, power 80%).
PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Women with an AFC ≤ 7 were randomized to an FSH dose of 450 IU/day or 150 IU/day, and women with an AFC 8-10 were randomized to 225 IU or 150 IU/day. In the standard group, dose adjustment was allowed in subsequent cycles based on pre-specified criteria. Both effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the strategies were evaluated from an intention-to-treat perspective.
In total, 511 women were randomized, 234 with an AFC ≤ 7 and 277 with an AFC 8-10. The cumulative live birth rate for increased versus standard dosing was 42.4% (106/250) versus 44.8% (117/261), respectively [relative risk (RR): 0.95 (95%CI, 0.78-1.15), P = 0.58]. As an increased dose strategy was more expensive [delta costs/woman: €1099 (95%CI, 562-1591)], standard FSH dosing was the dominant strategy in our economic analysis.
LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Despite our training programme, the AFC might have suffered from inter-observer variation. As this open study permitted small dose adjustments between cycles, potential selective cancelling of cycles in women treated with 150 IU could have influenced the cumulative results. However, since first cycle live birth rates point in the same direction we consider it unlikely that the open design masked a potential benefit for the individualized strategy.
Since an increased dose in women scheduled for IVF/ICSI with a predicted poor response (AFC < 11) does not improve live birth rates and is more expensive, we recommend using a standard dose of 150 IU/day in these women.
STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW number 171102020). T.C.T., H.L.T. and S.C.O. received an unrestricted personal grant from Merck BV. H.R.V. receives monetary compensation as a member on an external advisory board for Ferring pharmaceutical BV. B.W.J.M. is supported by a NHMRC Practitioner Fellowship (GNT1082548) and reports consultancy for OvsEva, Merck and Guerbet. F.J.M.B. receives monetary compensation as a member of the external advisory board for Ferring pharmaceutics BV (the Netherlands) and Merck Serono (the Netherlands) for consultancy work for Gedeon Richter (Belgium) and Roche Diagnostics on automated AMH assay development (Switzerland) and for a research cooperation with Ansh Labs (USA). All other authors have nothing to declare.
Registered at the ICMJE-recognized Dutch Trial Registry (www.trialregister.nl). Registration number NTR2657.
20 December 2010.
DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT: 12 May 2011.
对于卵巢反应不良(AFC<11)、预计接受 IVF 或 ICSI 的女性,增加 FSH 剂量(225/450IU/天)是否会比标准剂量(150IU/天)提高累积活产率?
对于卵巢反应不良(AFC<11)、预计接受 IVF/ICSI 的女性,增加 FSH 剂量(225/450IU/天)并不能提高累积活产率,而标准剂量(150IU/天)则可以。
对于预计接受 IVF/ICSI 的女性,卵巢储备试验(ORT)可以预测卵巢对刺激的反应。通常会根据 ORT 调整起始 FSH 剂量,因为人们认为这会提高活产率。然而,关于这个主题的现有 RCT 大多数都没有显示出获益,因此这些 RCT 的效力不足。
研究设计、规模、持续时间:2011 年 5 月至 2014 年 5 月期间,我们在 AFC<11 的女性中进行了一项开放性、多中心 RCT(荷兰试验登记处 NTR2657)。主要结局是随机分组后 18 个月内实现的持续妊娠并导致活产。我们需要 300 名女性来评估增加剂量策略是否会将累积活产率从 25%提高到 40%(双侧α误差 0.05,效力 80%)。
参与者/材料、地点、方法:AFC≤7 的女性随机分为 FSH 剂量 450IU/天或 150IU/天组,AFC 8-10 的女性随机分为 225IU 或 150IU/天组。在标准组中,允许根据预先指定的标准在后续周期中调整剂量。从意向治疗的角度评估了两种策略的有效性和成本效益。
共随机分配了 511 名女性,其中 AFC≤7 的有 234 名,AFC 8-10 的有 277 名。增加剂量组与标准剂量组的累积活产率分别为 42.4%(106/250)和 44.8%(117/261)(相对风险[RR]:0.95[95%CI,0.78-1.15],P=0.58)。由于增加剂量策略的成本更高[每人成本差异:€1099(95%CI,562-1591)],因此在我们的经济分析中,标准 FSH 剂量是主导策略。
局限性、谨慎的原因:尽管我们进行了培训计划,但 AFC 可能存在观察者间变异。由于本开放性研究允许在周期之间进行小剂量调整,因此在接受 150IU 治疗的女性中,潜在的选择性取消周期可能会影响累积结果。然而,由于第一个周期的活产率指向相同的方向,我们认为开放设计不太可能掩盖个体化策略的潜在益处。
对于预计卵巢反应不良(AFC<11)、预计接受 IVF/ICSI 的女性,增加剂量并不能提高活产率,而且成本更高,因此我们建议在这些女性中使用标准剂量 150IU/天。
研究资助/利益冲突:本研究由荷兰健康研究与发展组织(ZonMW 编号 171102020)资助。T.C.T.、H.L.T.和 S.C.O. 获得了默克公司的无限制个人赠款。H.R.V. 作为外部咨询委员会的成员,从 Ferring 制药公司获得了经济补偿。B.W.J.M. 受澳大利亚国家健康与医学研究委员会从业者奖学金(GNT1082548)的支持,并报告了与 OvsEva、默克和 Guerbet 的咨询工作。F.J.M.B. 作为 Ferring pharmaceutics BV(荷兰)和 Merck Serono(荷兰)的外部咨询委员会成员,因在自动化 AMH 检测开发(瑞士)和 Roche Diagnostics 进行的工作获得了金钱补偿,以及与 Ansh Labs(美国)的合作研究。其他所有作者均无经济利益。
在 ICMJE 认可的荷兰试验注册处(www.trialregister.nl)注册。注册号 NTR2657。
2010 年 12 月 20 日。
2011 年 5 月 12 日。