Dehydroepiandrosterone Supplement- The Marvel Drug Used for the Treatment of Women with a Diminished Ovarian Reserve and Poor Ovarian Response to Fertility Treatment: A traditional Review

Backgrounds: Poor ovarian reserve and poor ovarian response present a challenge to fertility doctors and in vitro fertilization (IVF) centers. Delaying childbearing is rising nowadays, contributing considerably to an increase in age-related infertility and the demand for assisted reproductive technologies (ART) treatment. This brings to the infertility clinics many women with a diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) and poor ovarian response (POR) Dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) is presented as a miracle-drug and has been reported to improve pregnancy chances in patients with a diminished ovarian reserve and poor ovarian response to fertility treatment. Additionally, DHEA is now utilized by approximately one-third of all IVF centers worldwide. Aim: Our objective was to assess DHEA supplementation's effect on women with a diminished ovarian reserve and poor ovarian response to fertility treatment and to find out potential mechanisms of action of DHEA in infertile women. Therefore, we examined the rationale for using DHEA in poor responders and diminished ovarian reserve patients, selected the relevant studies, presented the data, and addressed its potential action mechanisms. Methods: A literature search in PMC, PubMed, Google, and Google Scholar was carried out using the following keywords: "ovarian reserve," “DHEA and infertility,” "DHEA and low ovarian reserve," "DHEA mechanism of action in low ovarian reserve." Study selection was in the language (English only), model (humans only), open accesses, and all types of studies were included as long as they were relevant to our study. Limitations: While we were gathering the information for this review, there were some limitations. Our data was primarily obtained from articles with free full access and written in English language only; thus, relevant articles of closed access and written in other languages may have been skipped. This review article is a traditional review and, therefore, does not follow the standard Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for systematic reviews.