| Literature DB >> 29587861 |
Yangying Xu1,2,3, Victoria Nisenblat2,3, Cuiling Lu2,3, Rong Li2,3, Jie Qiao2,3, Xiumei Zhen4,5, Shuyu Wang6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Management of women with reduced ovarian reserve or poor ovarian response (POR) to stimulation is one of the major challenges in reproductive medicine. The primary causes of POR remain elusive and oxidative stress was proposed as one of the important contributors. It has been suggested that focus on the specific subpopulations within heterogeneous group of poor responders could assist in evaluating optimal management strategies for these patients. This study investigated the effect of anti-oxidant treatment with coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) on ovarian response and embryo quality in young low-prognosis patients with POR.Entities:
Keywords: Clinical outcomes; Coenzyme Q10; High-quality embryos; In vitro fertilization; Oxidative stress; POSEIDON stratification; Poor ovarian response
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29587861 PMCID: PMC5870379 DOI: 10.1186/s12958-018-0343-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Reprod Biol Endocrinol ISSN: 1477-7827 Impact factor: 5.211
Fig. 1Flow of the patients through the trial
Baseline characteristics of the study population
| Variables | Study group ( | Control group ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demographic characteristics | |||
| Age (years), mean ± SD | 32.50 ± 3.30 | 31.92 ± 3.68 | 0.29 |
| BMI (kg/m2), mean ± SD | 21.85 ± 2.51 | 22.24 ± 3.07 | 0.37 |
| Infertility duration (years), median (IQR) | 3 (2, 4) | 3 (2, 3) | 0.32 |
| Primary infertility, n (%) | 48/76 (63.15) | 65/93 (69.89) | 0.71 |
| Nulliparity, n (%) | 72/76 (94.74) | 86/93 (92.47) | 0.76 |
| Previous ART treatments, n (%) | 11/76 (14.47) | 20/93 (21.51) | 0.43 |
| Ovarian reserve markers | |||
| AMH (ng/ml), median (IQR) | 0.57 (0.35, 0.80) | 0.56 (0.35, 0.80) | 0.46 |
| AFC, median (IQR) | 5 (3, 6) | 4 (3, 6) | 0.17 |
| Day 3 FSH (IU/ml), median (IQR) | 12.25 (9.39, 15.50) | 12.6 (9.95, 15.60) | 0.58 |
| Diagnosis of infertility in addition to POR | |||
| Tubal factor, n (%) | 13/76 (17.11) | 22/93 (23.66) | 0.61 |
| Male factor, n (%) | 22/76 (28.95) | 25/93 (26.88) | 0.82 |
| Unexplained, n (%) | 22/76 (28.95) | 25/93 (26.88) | 0.82 |
AMH - anti-Mullerian hormone; AFC - antral follicle count; BMI – body mass index; IQR – interquartile range; POR – poor ovarian reserve; SD – standard deviation
Ovarian reserve markers before and after CoQ10 treatment in the study group
| Variables | Before CoQ10 ( | After CoQ10 ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| AMH (ng/ml), median (IQR) | 0.57 (0.35, 0.80) | 0.59 (0.38, 0.80) | 0.91 |
| AFC(n), median (IQR) | 5 (3, 6) | 5 (3, 7) | 0.94 |
| Day 3 FSH (IU/ml), median (IQR) | 12.25 (9.39, 15.50) | 10.50 (9.23, 12.60) | 0.006 |
AMH - anti-Mullerian hormone; AFC - antral follicle count; FSH - follicle stimulating hormone; IQR - interquartile range
ART cycle stimulation parameters and embryology outcomes
| Variable | Study group ( | Control group ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cycle stimulation | |||
| Total dose of Gn (IU), median (IQR) | 2000 (1200, 4275) | 3075 (1900, 4275) | 0.03 |
| Duration of stimulation (days), median (IQR) | 10 (9, 11) | 11 (9, 12) | 0.08 |
| Peak E2 concentration (pmol/l), median (IQR) | 2349 (892, 4784) | 1685 (1125, 3042) | 0.02 |
| Endometrial thickness on the day of hCG trigger (mm), mean ± SD | 10.12 ± 1.93 | 10.34 ± 1.50 | 0.13 |
| Patients who had oocyte retrieval | 72/76 (94.74) | 83/93 (89.25) | 0.82 |
| Cancelled cycles a, n (%) | 4/76 (5.23) | 10/93 (10.75) | 0.27 |
| Embryology outcomes | |||
| Retrieved oocytes, median (IQR) | 4 (2, 5) | 2 (1, 4) | 0.002 |
| ICSI cycles, n (%) | 24/76 (31.58) | 19/93 (20.43) | 0.20 |
| Fertilized oocytes (2PN), median (IQR) | 0.80 (0.50, 0.93) | 0.50 (0.33, 1.0) | 0.01 |
| Fertilization rate b, n (%) | 191/253 (67.49) | 191/283 (45.06) | 0.001 |
| Number of high quality embryos, median (IQR) | 1 (0, 2) | 0 (0, 1.75) | 0.03 |
aIncluded women in who did not respond to stimulation and did not have oocyte retrieval
bCalculated as following: the number of total 2PN embryos divided by the number of total inseminated oocytes
E2 – estradiol; Gn – gonadotrophin; hCG – human chorionic gonadotrophin; IQR – interquartile range; LH - luteinizing hormone; P - progesterone, 2PN – two pronuclear, SD - standard deviation
Clinical reproductive outcomes
| Variable | Study group ( | Control group ( | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Number of fresh ET cyclesa, n (%) | 66/76 (86.84) | 64/93 (68.82) | 0.35 |
| Patients who had oocyte retrieval but no ET b, n (%) | 6/72 (8.33) | 19/83 (22.89) | 0.04 |
| Number of FET cycles, n (%) | 12/76 (15.79) | 3/93 (3.23) | 0.01 |
| Patients with cryopreserved embryos, n (%) | 14/76 (18.42)c | 4/93 (4.30)d | 0.012 |
| Number of embryos per ETe, median (IQR) | 2 (1,2) | 1 (1,2) | 0.04 |
| Clinical pregnancy rate per fresh ETf, n (%) | 23/66 (34.85) | 16/64 (25.00) | 0.24 |
| Cumulative clinical pregnancy rateg, n (%) | 24/76 (31.58) | 16/93 (17.20) | 0.11 |
| Multiple pregnancy, n (%) | 4/76 (5.26) | 3/93 (3.23) | 0.70 |
| Spontaneous miscarriage, n (%) | 2/23 (8.67) | 2/16 (12.50) | 0.73 |
| Live birth rate per fresh ETf, n (%) | 21/66 (31.82) | 14/64 (21.88) | 0.33 |
| Cumulative live birth rateg, n (%) | 22/76 (28.95) | 14/93 (15.54) | 0.08 |
aAll patients with available embryos had fresh ET
bIncluded women who had hCG andoocyte retrieval but did not have oocytes or useable embryos
cEmbryos for 2women from this group did not survive the thawing (2/14, 14.29%)
dEmbryos for 1 woman from this group did not survive the thawing (1/4, 25%)
eAll the transferred embryos were day-3 cleavage stage embryos
fCalculated as follows: the number of clinical pregnancies/ live births originated from fresh ET divided by the number of women with transferred embryos
gCalculated as follows: the number of clinical pregnancies/ live births originated from one completed ART cycle including fresh and frozen-thaw ETs divided by the number of women treated
ET – embryo transfer; FET – frozen-thaw embryo transfer; IQR – interquartile range