Cumulative delivery rate per aspiration IVF/ICSI cycle in POSEIDON patients: a real-world evidence study of 9073 patients.
ART
POSEIDON criteria
cumulative delivery rate
embryo transfer
infertility
life table
live birth
real-world evidence
Journal
Human reproduction (Oxford, England)
ISSN: 1460-2350
Titre abrégé: Hum Reprod
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8701199
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 07 2021
19 07 2021
Historique:
received:
27
04
2021
revised:
16
05
2021
pubmed:
29
6
2021
medline:
11
8
2021
entrez:
28
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
What is the cumulative delivery rate (CDR) per aspiration IVF/ICSI cycle in low-prognosis patients as defined by the Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number (POSEIDON) criteria? The CDR of POSEIDON patients was on average ∼50% lower than in normal responders and varied across POSEIDON groups; differences were primarily determined by female age, number of embryos obtained, number of embryo transfer (ET) cycles per patient, number of oocytes retrieved, duration of infertility, and BMI. The POSEIDON criteria aim to underline differences related to a poor or suboptimal treatment outcome in terms of oocyte quality and quantity among patients undergoing IVF/ICSI, and thus, create more homogenous groups for the clinical management of infertility and research. POSEIDON patients are presumed to be at a higher risk of failing to achieve a live birth after IVF/ICSI treatment than normal responders with an adequate ovarian reserve. The CDR per initiated/aspiration cycle after the transfer of all fresh and frozen-thawed/warmed embryos has been suggested to be the critical endpoint that sets these groups apart. However, no multicenter study has yet substantiated the validity of the POSEIDON classification in identifying relevant subpopulations of patients with low-prognosis in IVF/ICSI treatment using real-world data. Multicenter population-based retrospective cohort study involving 9073 patients treated in three fertility clinics in Brazil, Turkey and Vietnam between 2015 and 2017. Participants were women with infertility between 22 and 42 years old in their first IVF/ICSI cycle of standard ovarian stimulation whose fresh and/or frozen embryos were transferred until delivery of a live born or until all embryos were used. Patients were retrospectively classified according to the POSEIDON criteria into four groups based on female age, antral follicle count (AFC), and the number of oocytes retrieved or into a control group of normal responders (non-POSEIDON). POSEIDON patients encompassed younger (<35 years) and older (35 years or above) women with an AFC ≥5 and an unexpected poor (<4 retrieved oocytes) or suboptimal (4-9 retrieved oocytes) response to stimulation, and respective younger and older counterparts with an impaired ovarian reserve (i.e. expected poor responders; AFC <5). Non-POSEIDON patients were those with AFC ≥5 and >9 oocytes retrieved. CDR was computed per one aspirated cycle. Logistic regression analysis was carried out to examine the association between patient classification and CDR. The CDR was lower in the POSEIDON patients than in the non-POSEIDON patients (33.7% vs 50.6%; P < 0.001) and differed across POSEIDON groups (younger unexpected poor responder [Group 1a; n = 212]: 27.8%, younger unexpected suboptimal responder [Group 1b; n = 1785]: 47.8%, older unexpected poor responder [Group 2a; n = 293]: 14.0%, older unexpected suboptimal responder [Group 2b; n = 1275]: 30.5%, younger expected poor responder [Group 3; n = 245]: 29.4%, and older expected poor responder [Group 4; n = 623]: 12.5%. Among unexpected suboptimal/poor responders (POSEIDON Groups 1 and 2), the CDR was twice as high in suboptimal responders (4-9 oocytes retrieved) as in poor responders (<4 oocytes) (P = 0.0004). Logistic regression analysis revealed that the POSEIDON grouping, number of embryos obtained, number of ET cycles per patient, number of oocytes collected, female age, duration of infertility and BMI were relevant predictors for CDR (P < 0.001). Our study relied on the antral follicle count as the biomarker used for patient classification. Ovarian stimulation protocols varied across study centers, potentially affecting patient classification. POSEIDON patients exhibit lower CDR per aspirated IVF/ICSI cycle than normal responders; the differences are mainly determined by female age and number of oocytes retrieved, thereby reflecting the importance of oocyte quality and quantity. Our data substantiate the validity of the POSEIDON criteria in identifying relevant subpopulations of patients with low-prognosis in IVF/ICSI treatment. Efforts in terms of early diagnosis, prevention, and identification of specific interventions that might benefit POSEIDON patients are warranted. Unrestricted investigator-sponsored study grant (MS200059_0013) from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. The funder had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish or manuscript preparation. S.C.E. declares receipt of unrestricted research grants from Merck and lecture fees from Merck and Med.E.A. H.Y. declares receipt of payment for lectures from Merck and Ferring. L.N.V. receives speaker fees and conferences from Merck, Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD) and Ferring and research grants from MSD and Ferring. J.F.C. declares receipt of statistical services fees from ANDROFERT Clinic. T.M.H. received speaker fees and conferences from Merck, MSD and Ferring. P.H. declares receipt of unrestricted research grants from Merck, Ferring, Gedeon Richter and IBSA and lecture fees from Merck, Gedeon Richter and Med.E.A. C.A. declares receipt of unrestricted research grants from Merck and lecture fees from Merck. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. N/A.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34179973
pii: 6310343
doi: 10.1093/humrep/deab152
pmc: PMC8289325
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Multicenter Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2157-2169Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology.
Références
N Engl J Med. 2018 Jan 11;378(2):137-147
pubmed: 29320655
Aging (Albany NY). 2020 May 29;12(10):9354-9364
pubmed: 32470947
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2018 Mar 27;16(1):29
pubmed: 29587861
Fertil Steril. 2010 Aug;94(3):1044-51
pubmed: 19589513
JBRA Assist Reprod. 2016 Aug 01;20(3):99-106
pubmed: 27584600
Hum Reprod. 2007 Nov;22(11):2801-4
pubmed: 17855409
Fertil Steril. 2016 Jun;105(6):1452-3
pubmed: 26921622
Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2010 Jun;22(3):189-92
pubmed: 20216414
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2021 Mar 19;12:587051
pubmed: 33815269
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019 Sep 19;10:642
pubmed: 31608011
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019 Nov 20;10:814
pubmed: 31824427
Hum Reprod. 2019 Dec 1;34(12):2555-2557
pubmed: 31756248
Hum Reprod. 2013 Oct;28(10):2728-34
pubmed: 23887075
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017 Aug;217(2):129-140
pubmed: 28235465
PLoS One. 2020 Jul 6;15(7):e0235707
pubmed: 32628729
N Engl J Med. 2009 Jan 15;360(3):236-43
pubmed: 19144939
Panminerva Med. 2019 Mar;61(1):11-23
pubmed: 30674180
Hum Reprod. 2016 Feb;31(2):370-6
pubmed: 26724797
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019 Jun 26;10:409
pubmed: 31293519
Hum Reprod. 2009 Dec;24(12):3127-35
pubmed: 19783833
Reprod Biomed Online. 2019 Nov;39(5):751-763
pubmed: 31540848
Hum Reprod. 2019 Jun 4;34(6):1030-1041
pubmed: 31125412
Reprod Biomed Online. 2013 Oct;27(4):390-9
pubmed: 23953069
Ann Intern Med. 2007 Oct 16;147(8):W163-94
pubmed: 17938389
PLoS One. 2019 Aug 16;14(8):e0221015
pubmed: 31419245
Panminerva Med. 2019 Mar;61(1):3-10
pubmed: 29962186
Fertil Steril. 2018 Sep;110(4):661-670.e1
pubmed: 30196963
Fertil Steril. 2015 Feb;103(2):554-59.e1
pubmed: 25487749
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2018 Nov;35(11):2013-2023
pubmed: 30132171
F1000Res. 2016 Dec 23;5:2911
pubmed: 28232864
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2020 Jan 24;10:917
pubmed: 32038484
Reprod Biomed Online. 2020 Nov;41(5):834-844
pubmed: 32978073
Cancer Chemother Rep. 1966 Mar;50(3):163-70
pubmed: 5910392
Reprod Sci. 2021 Feb;28(2):488-494
pubmed: 32833190
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018 Jun 29;9:327
pubmed: 30008696
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2016 Feb;33(2):215-20
pubmed: 26727932
Hum Reprod. 2015 Dec;30(12):2703-7
pubmed: 26466912
Hum Reprod. 2017 Sep 1;32(9):1786-1801
pubmed: 29117321
Metabolism. 2020 Jun;107:154193
pubmed: 32119876
BMJ. 2016 Nov 16;355:i5735
pubmed: 27852632
Hum Reprod Open. 2020 May 01;2020(2):hoaa009
pubmed: 32395637
Hum Reprod. 2021 May 17;36(6):1530-1541
pubmed: 33822057
Reprod Biomed Online. 2017 Jun;34(6):639-644
pubmed: 28366519
Cryobiology. 2020 Feb 1;92:9-14
pubmed: 31770530
Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol. 2009 Apr;33(4):477-83
pubmed: 19212944
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2009 Aug;31(8):717-720
pubmed: 19772703
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018 Oct 17;9:589
pubmed: 30386293
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2020 Apr 07;11:181
pubmed: 32318023