Published: 2022-10-28

Real-world observational study to capture practice pattern of controlled ovarian stimulation in the in vitro-fertilization and embryo transfer or intracytoplasmic sperm injection-2

Vivek Sharma, Vishal Dave, Sonal Mehta, Ankita Shah


Background: The objective of the study was to evaluate the practice patterns of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in patients who underwent in vitro-fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

Methods: In REAL-COS (REAL-world observational study to capture practice pattern of COS in IVF-ET/ ICSI cycle) study, data was collected by 138 clinicians across India between April 2021 and March 2022 in a retrospective manner.

Results: Data of 1651 subfertility female patients were evaluated. The mean (SD) age was 31.8 (3.9) years and majority (77.8%) of the patients were aged <35 years. Obese patients constituted 28.1% of the total population. The majority (79.5%) of the patients had primary subfertility and the polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) was the most (27.8%) common cause of subfertility. Nearly equal percent of patients were treated with frozen or fresh embryo transfer. Most (~96%) of the patients received GnRH antagonist protocol wherein cetrorelix acetate was the most common drug (98.7%) while ~4% patients received GnRH agonist protocol wherein luprorelin was the most common one (83%). The most commonly used gonadotropin was recombinant follicle stimulating hormone alone therapy (rFSH, 49.2%). Majority (51.8%) of the patients were initiated at 225 IU dose of gonadotropin for COS. For ovulation trigger, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) was used in majority (59%) of the cases. Treatment with rFSH alone therapy resulted in max mean no. of oocytes and mean metaphase-II oocytes as compared with other treatments.

Conclusions: This real-world observational study reports primary subfertility as the major reason for IVF-ET/ICSI in the study population. The GnRH antagonist protocol was followed by most of the clinicians participating in this study. rFSH was the most commonly used gonadotropin. rFSH alone therapy yielded the greatest number of oocytes and metaphase II oocytes versus other treatments.


COS, rFSH, In vitro-fertilization, Controlled ovarian stimulation

Full Text:



Jose-Miller AB, Boyden JW, Frey KA. Infertility. Am Fam Physician. 2007;75:849-56.

Katole A, Saoji AV. Prevalence of primary infertility and its associated risk factors in urban population of central India: A community-based cross-sectional study. Ind J Community Med. 2019;44:337.

Malhotra N, Shah D, Pai R, Pai H, Bankar M. Assisted reproductive technology in India: A 3 year retrospective data analysis. J Human Reproduct Sci. 2013;6:235.

Huirne JA, Lambalk CB, van Loenen AC, Schats R, Hompes PG, Fauser BC et al. Contemporary pharmacological manipulation in assisted reproduction. Drugs. 2004;64:297-322.

La Marca A, Sunkara SK. Individualization of controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF using ovarian reserve markers: from theory to practice. Human Reproduct Update 2014;20:124-40.

Ananthakrishnan N, Shanthi A. ICMR’s Ethical guidelines for biomedical research on human participants: need for clarification. Indian J Med Ethics. 2012;9:207-9.

Fidler AT, Bernstein J. Infertility: from a personal to a public health problem. Pub Heal Rep. 1999;114:494.

Naina P, Sharma H. Prevalence and potential determinants of primary infertility in India: Evidence from Indian demographic health survey. Clin Epidemiol Global Health. 2021;9:162-70.

Deshpande P, Gupta A. Causes and prevalence of factors causing infertility in a public health facility. J Human Reproduct Sci. 2019;12:287-93.

Allow A, Sadek S, Maryam B. distribution of infertility factors among infertile couples in Yemen. J Clin Dev Biol. 2016;1:1-4.

Jacob Farhi M. Distribution of causes of infertility in patients attending primary fertility clinics in Israel. IMAJ. 2015;13:51-4.

Masoumi SZ, Parsa P, Darvish N, Mokhtari S, Yavangi M, Roshanaei G. An epidemiologic survey on the causes of infertility in patients referred to infertility center in Fatemieh Hospital in Hamadan. Iran J Reproduct Med. 2015;13:513.

Katole A, Saoji AV. Prevalence of Primary Infertility and its Associated Risk Factors in Urban Population of Central India: A Community-Based Cross-Sectional Study. Indian J Community Med. 2019;44:337-41.

Talwar P, Go O, Murali I. Statistics and demography. New Delhi: National Institute of Health and Family Welfare and Indian Council of Medical Res. 1986.

Das P, Baker KK, Dutta A, Swain T, Sahoo S, Das BS et al. Menstrual hygiene practices, WASH access and the risk of urogenital infection in women from Odisha, India. PloS one. 2015;10:e0130777.

Shamila S, Sasikala S. Primary report on the risk factors affecting female infertility in South Indian districts of Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Age (years). 2011;20:25-30.

World Health Organization. Obesity and overweight. Available at Accessed on 16 Sep, 2022.

Johnson J-A, Tough S, Wilson RD, Audibert F, Blight C, BrockS J-A et al. Delayed child-bearing. Journal of obstetrics and gynaecology Canada. 2012;34:80-93.

Mittal A, Yadav S, Yadav SS, Bhardwaj A, Kaur R, Singh P. An epidemiological study of infertility among urban population of Ambala, Haryana. Int J Interdiscip Multidiscip Stud. 2015;2:124-30.

Rajashekar L, Krishna D, Patil M. Polycystic ovaries and infertility: our experience. J Human Reproduct Sci 2008;1:65.

Stewart-Smythe G, Van Iddekinge B. Lessons learned from infertility investigations in the public sector. S Afri J Obstetr Gynaecol. 2003;9:46-8.

Chiamchanya C, Su-angkawatin W. Study of the causes and the results of treatment in infertile couples at Thammasat Hospital between 1999-2004. Med J Med Ass Thailand. 2008;91:805.

Fritz MA, Speroff L, Clinical gynecologic endocrinology and infertility. 2011, lippincott Williams and wilkins.

Gelbaya TA, Potdar N, Jeve YB, Nardo LG. Definition and epidemiology of unexplained infertility. Obstetr Gynecolo Survey. 2014;69:109-15.

Li HWR, Lee VCY, Lau EYL, Yeung WSB, Ho PC, Ng EHY. Role of baseline antral follicle count and anti-Mullerian hormone in prediction of cumulative live birth in the first in vitro fertilisation cycle: a retrospective cohort analysis. PloS One. 2013;8:e61095.

Nelson SM, Yates RW, Fleming R. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone and FSH: prediction of live birth and extremes of response in stimulated cycles-implications for individualization of therapy. Human Reproduct. 2007;22:2414-21.

Aflatoonian A, Oskouian H, Ahmadi S, Oskouian L. Prediction of high ovarian response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: anti-Müllerian hormone versus small antral follicle count (2-6 mm). J Assisted Reproduct Genet. 2009;26:319-25.

Klingmüller D, Schepke M, Enzweiler C, Bidlingmaier F. Hormonal responses to the new potent GnRH antagonist Cetrorelix. Acta Endocrinol (Copenh). 1993;128:15-8.

Depalo R, Jayakrishan K, Garruti G, Totaro I, Panzarino M, Giorgino F et al. GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF/ET). Reproduct Biol Endocrinol. 2012;10:26.

Yang J, Zhang X, Ding X, Wang Y, Huang G, Ye H. Cumulative live birth rates between GnRH-agonist long and GnRH-antagonist protocol in one ART cycle when all embryos transferred: real-word data of 18,853 women from China. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2021;19:124.

Al-Inany H, Aboulghar MA, Mansour RT, Serour GI. Optimizing GnRH antagonist administration: meta-analysis of fixed versus flexible protocol. Reprod Biomed Online. 2005;10:567-70.

Tarlatzis BC, Fauser BC, Kolibianakis EM, Diedrich K, Devroey P, OBotBGACWG. GnRH antagonists in ovarian stimulation for IVF. Human Reproduct Update. 2006;12:333-340.

Tayyar AT, Kahraman S. Comparison between cycles of the same patients when using recombinant luteinizing hormone + recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH), human menopausal gonadotropin + rFSH and rFSH only. Arch Med Sci. 2019;15:673-9.

Fatemi H, Bilger W, Denis D, Griesinger G, La Marca A, Longobardi S et al. Dose adjustment of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) during ovarian stimulation as part of medically-assisted reproduction in clinical studies: a systematic review covering 10 years (2007-2017). Reproduct Biol Endocrinol. 2021;19:68.

Felberbaum RE, Reissmann T, Küpker W, Bauer O, Al Hasani S, Diedrich C et al. Preserved pituitary response under ovarian stimulation with HMG and GnRH antagonists (Cetrorelix) in women with tubal infertility. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 1995;61:151-5.

Humaidan P, Bredkjaer HE, Bungum L, Bungum M, Grøndahl ML, Westergaard L et al. GnRH agonist (buserelin) or hCG for ovulation induction in GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI cycles: a prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2005;20:1213-20.

Kol S. Luteolysis induced by a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist is the key to prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Fertil Steril. 2004;81:1-5.

Felberbaum RE, Albano C, Ludwig M, Riethmüller-Winzen H, Grigat M, Devroey P et al. Ovarian stimulation for assisted reproduction with HMG and concomitant midcycle administration of the GnRH antagonist Cetrorelix according to the multiple dose protocol: a prospective uncontrolled phase III study. Human Reproduct 2000;15:1015-20.

Esteves SC, Schertz JC, Verza S, Jr., Schneider DT, Zabaglia SF. A comparison of menotropin, highly-purified menotropin and follitropin alfa in cycles of intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2009;7:111.

Hashish NM, Shaeer EK. Choosing the optimal dose of human menopausal gonadotropins for ovarian stimulation in ICSI cycles. Middle East Fertil Society J. 2014;19:124-8.

Tabata C, Fujiwara T, Sugawa M, Noma M, Onoue H, Kusumi M et al. Comparison of FSH and hMG on ovarian stimulation outcome with a GnRH antagonist protocol in younger and advanced reproductive age women. Reprod Med Biol. 2015;14:5-9.

La Marca A, Grisendi V, Giulini S, Argento C, Tirelli A, Dondi G et al. Individualization of the FSH starting dose in IVF/ICSI cycles using the antral follicle count. J Ovarian Res. 2013;6:11.

Schats R, Sutter PD, Bassil S, Kremer JAM, Tournaye H, Donnez J et al. Ovarian stimulation during assisted reproduction treatment: a comparison of recombinant and highly purified urinary human FSH. Human Reproduct. 2000;15:1691-7.

Lehert P, Schertz JC, Ezcurra D. Recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone produces more oocytes with a lower total dose per cycle in assisted reproductive technologies compared with highly purified human menopausal gonadotrophin: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2010;8:112.

Lehert P, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Schertz J, Saunders H, Arriagada P et al. Recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (r-hFSH) plus recombinant luteinizing hormone versus r-hFSH alone for ovarian stimulation during assisted reproductive technology: systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014;12:7.

Lenton E, Soltan A, Hewitt J, Thomson A, Davies W, Ashraf N et al. Induction of ovulation in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques: recombinant human FSH (follitropin alpha) versus highly purified urinary FSH (urofollitropin HP). Human Reproduct. 2000;15:1021-7.