Clinical factors associated with unexpected poor or suboptimal response in Poseidon criteria patients

Alyssa Hochberg,Michael H. Dahan,Hakan Yarali,Lan N. Vuong,Sandro C. Esteves
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2024.103852
IF: 4.567
2024-02-01
Reproductive BioMedicine Online
Abstract:Research Question What clinical factors are associated with 'unexpected' poor or suboptimal responses to in-vitro fertilization (IVF) ovarian stimulation per POSEIDON's criteria, and which specific anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) and antral follicle count (AFC) threshold values distinguish this population? Design A tri-center retrospective cohort study (2015-2017)involving first-time IVF/ICSI cycles with conventional ovarian stimulation (cOS)(≥150IU/day of follicle-stimulating-hormone). Eligibility criteria included sufficient ovarian reserve markers according to POSEIDON's classification (AMH≥1.2ng/mL and AFC≥5). Ovarian response categories were poor ( 9 oocytes). The primary outcomes included determining (i) the clinical factors associated with an unexpected poor/suboptimal response to cOS using logistic regression analyses,and (ii) the threshold values of AMH (Beckman Coulter assay) and AFC predicting increased risk of such responses using receiver operating characteristics curves (ROCs). Results 7,625 patients met inclusion criteria. Among those, 2,202(28.9%) were poor or suboptimal responders (suboptimal: n=1,998(90.7%); poor: n=204(9.3%)). Logistic regression identified significant clinical predictors for a poor/suboptimal response, including AFC, AMH, total gonadotropin dose, gonadotropin type, and trigger type. By ROCs, an AMH=2.87ng/mL(AUC 0.740) and AFC=12(AUC 0.826) were the threshold values predicting a poor or suboptimal response;AMH=2.17ng/mL(AUC 0.741) and AFC=9(AUC 0.835) predicted a poor response;and AMH=2.97ng/mL(AUC 0.722) and AFC=12(AUC 0.801) predicted a suboptimal response. Conclusions In women with adequate ovarian reserve markers undergoing cOS for IVF,various potentially modifiable clinical predictors for an 'unexpected' poor/suboptimal response were identified. The threshold values of AMH and AFC predicting such responses were higher than expected. These findings have critical implications for tailoring IVF stimulation regimens and dosages.
obstetrics & gynecology,reproductive biology
What problem does this paper attempt to address?