Affiliation:
1. State Scientific Center of the Russian Federation – Federal Medical Biophysical Center named after A.I. Burnazyan; Moscow Regional Perinatal Center
2. Moscow Regional Perinatal Center
Abstract
The most effective method of treating infertility is in vitro fertilization, the key element of which is ovarian stimulation. Ovarian response in IVF protocols has varying variability among patients. The ovarian response depends on many factors, but none of these factors has sufficient prognostic ability, and therefore the question of the individual ovarian response during stimulation in IVF programs still remains open, and the association of the ovarian response with polymorphisms of certain genes is being actively studied. The most effective IVF programs are observed among patients of young reproductive age. A decrease in the effectiveness of IVF programs and the appearance of complications is observed in patients of advanced reproductive age. Several types of ovarian response have been identified: poor (it is possible to obtain 3 oocytes), normal (from 4 to 15 oocytes), suboptimal response (less than 7 oocytes) and hyperergic response (more than 15 oocytes). Also, there is a group of patients of various age groups with a paradoxical ovarian response to stimulation. The response of oocytes to hormones can be regulated depending on the expression of receptor genes. FSH receptor (FSHR) polymorphism may explain interindividual variability in ovarian response to stimulation. Genetic screening is determined once and does not depend on endogenous and exogenous factors, while allowing you to adjust the dose of gonadotropins in ovarian stimulation protocols. This review presents current data on the polymorphism of the main genes that regulate the ovarian response in stimulating superovulation in in vitro fertilization programs.
Reference39 articles.
1. Cox CM, Thoma ME, Tchangalova N, Mburu G, Bornstein MJ, Johnson CL, Kiarie J. Infertility prevalence and the methods of estimation from 1990 to 2021: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Open. 2022;2022(4):hoac051. https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoac051.
2. Vermey BG, Chua SJ, Zafarmand MH, Wang R, Longobardi S, Cottell E et al. Is there an association between oocyte number and embryo quality? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2019;39(5):751–763. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2019.06.013.
3. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L. ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011;26(7):1616–1624. https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der092.
4. Kalinina EA, Donnikov AE, Vladimirova IV. Molecular genetic predictors of ovarian response, oocyte and embryo quality in assisted reproductive technology programs. Akusherstvo i Ginekologiya (Russian Federation). 2015;(3):21–25. (In Russ.) Available at: https://aig-journal.ru/articles/Molekulyarno-geneticheskie-prediktory-ovarialnogo-otveta-kachestvaoocitov-i-embrionov-v-programmah-vspomogatelnyh-reproduktivnyh-tehnologii.html.
5. Rudakova EB, Strizhova TV, Fedorova EA, Zamakhovskaya LYu. Possibilities for improving the effectiveness of IVF programs in «difficult» patients. Lechaschi Vrach. 2019;(12):14–19. (In Russ.) Available at: https://journal.lvrach.ru/jour/article/view/245.