Similar miRNomic signatures characterize the follicular fluids collected after follicular and luteal phase stimulations in the same ovarian cycle

Influence of the starting day of luteal phase stimulation on double stimulation cycles

Background

Double ovarian stimulation is one of the most used strategies in poor-prognosis patients. There is a high heterogeneity between the studies regarding the execution of this stimulation protocol. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the day on which luteal phase stimulation begins after the first oocyte retrieval affects ovarian response in DuoStim cycles.

Methods

This observational and retrospective study included 541 DuoStim cycles between January 2018 and December 2021 in a private fertility clinic. Patients were assigned to 4 groups according to the timing of the onset of luteal phase stimulation after oocyte retrieval (0-2^nd day, 3^rd day, 4^th day and 5^th-6^th day). The primary outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved in the luteal phase in each group.

Results

No differences were found between groups in the number of oocytes collected (5.12 ± 3.56 vs. 5.39 ± 3.74 vs. 5.61 ± 3.94 vs. 5.89 ± 3.92; p=0,6), MII or number of follicles. An increase in the duration of stimulation was found when stimulation started on the 4^th day (10.42 ± 2.31 vs. 10.68 ± 2.37 vs. 11.27 ± 2.40 vs. 10.65 ± 2.37 days, p=0,033). A lower number of fertilized oocytes was observed when stimulation began before the fourth day (3.36 ± 2.80 vs. 3.95 ± 2.53 vs. 4.03 ± 2.73 vs. 4.48 ± 3.11; p=0,036). The number of blastocysts was higher when the stimulation started 5-6 days after retrieval (1.82 ± 1.74 vs. 2.13 ± 1.61 vs. 2.33 ± 2.06 vs. 2.91 ± 2.39; p= 0,030).

Discussion

The number of oocytes retrieved does not differ depending on the day that stimulation begins. However, oocytes competence in terms of fertilized oocytes and blastulation, appears to be lower when the second stimulation starts before the fourth day after oocyte retrieval.

Double stimulation for the management of poor-prognosis patients: where are we going?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The technical improvements in IVF allowed the implementation of nonconventional ovarian stimulation protocols for some specific patients. Where time is crucial, such as with oncologic patients, poor-prognosis patients, patients with low ovarian reserve, and those with advanced maternal age, access to IVF treatment is even more critical. Some of these protocols might start in the late follicular phase, luteal phase, or involve both stimulations within the same ovarian cycle.

RECENT FINDINGS

Until now, published evidence showed that oocytes retrieved from unconventional protocol seem to be developmentally, genetically, and reproductively competent. Second stimulation in the same ovarian cycle after the conventional approach may represent a sound alternative to oocyte accumulation. This can be proposed in progress after careful counselling focused on the patients' chances of finding at least one euploid embryo on account of their age and of the number of blastocysts obtained after the conventional approach.

SUMMARY

The adoption of these new strategies, known as double stimulation protocol, can be conceived as a real full-personalization of ovarian stimulation. Multicentre prospective RCTs are urgently needed to evaluate the efficacy, efficiency, and costs of double stimulation versus two consecutive conventional approaches with standard or mild stimulation and in a different IVF setting.

Pregnancy Outcomes in Double Stimulation versus Two Consecutive Mild Stimulations for IVF in Poor Ovarian Responders

To compare pregnancy outcomes between double stimulation (DouStim) and two consecutive mild stimulations in poor ovarian responders, this study retrospectively analyzed 281 patients diagnosed as having poor ovarian response (POR) who underwent oocytes retrieval for in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) from January 2018 to December 2020. They were divided into two groups: the DouStim group (n = 89) and the two consecutive mild stimulations group (n = 192). The results illustrated that there were no significant differences in the number of oocytes and 2PNs between the two groups. The number of frozen embryos [1 (0, 2) versus 1(0, 2)] was significantly lower and the proportion of patients without frozen embryos (39.3% versus 26.0%) was significantly higher in the DouStim group than in the two consecutive mild stimulations group (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) between the two groups (p > 0.05). The intra-subgroup comparison showed that in young POR patients under 35 years old, there were no significant differences in clinical indicators and pregnancy outcomes (p > 0.05). In elderly POR patients aged 35 years and above, the number of frozen embryos [1 (0, 1.5) versus 1 (0.25, 2)] (p < 0.01) was significantly lower in the DouStim group than in the two consecutive mild stimulations group, but the pregnancy outcomes were not significantly different (p > 0.05). In conclusion, the DouStim protocol is inferior to the two consecutive mild stimulations protocol in terms of the number of frozen embryos, which mainly occurs in elderly patients, but there is no difference in pregnancy outcomes between the two protocols.

Association of microRNAs With Embryo Development and Fertilization in Women Undergoing Subfertility Treatments: A Pilot Study

Objective: Small non-coding RNAs, known as microRNAs (miRNAs), have emerging regulatory functions within the ovary that have been related to fertility. This study was undertaken to determine if circulating miRNAs reflect the changes associated with the parameters of embryo development and fertilization.

Methods: In this cross-sectional pilot study. Plasma miRNAs were collected from 48 sequentially presenting women in the follicular phase prior to commencing in vitro fertilization (IVF). Circulating miRNAs were measured using locked nucleic acid (LNA)-based quantitative PCR (qPCR), while an updated miRNA data set was used to determine their level of expression.

Results: Body mass index and weight were associated with the miRNAs let7b-3p and miR-375, respectively (p &lt; 0.05), with the same relationship being found between endometrium thickness at oocyte retrieval and miR-885-5p and miR-34a-5p (p &lt; 0.05). In contrast, miR-1260a was found to be inversely associated with anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH; p = 0.007), while miR-365a-3p, miR122-5p, and miR-34a-5p correlated with embryo fertilization rates (p &lt; 0.05). However, when omitting cases of male infertility (n = 15), miR122-5p remained significant (p &lt; 0.05), while miR-365a-3p and miR-34a-5p no longer differed; interestingly, however, miR1260a and mir93.3p became significant (p = 0.0087/0.02, respectively). Furthermore, age was negatively associated with miR-335-3p, miR-28-5p, miR-155-5p, miR-501-3p, and miR-497-5p (p &lt; 0.05). Live birth rate was negatively associated with miR-335-3p, miR-100-5p, miR-497-5p, let-7d, and miR-574-3p (p &lt; 0.05), but these were not significant when age was accounted for.However, with the exclusion of male factor infertility, all those miRNAs were no longer significant, though miR.150.5p emerged as significant (p = 0.042). A beta-regression model identified miR-1260a, miR-486-5p, and miR-132-3p (p &lt; 0.03, p = 0.0003, p &lt; 0.00001, respectively) as the most predictive for fertilization rate. Notably, changes in detectable miRNAs were not linked to cleavage rate, top quality embryos (G3D3), and blastocyst or antral follicle count. An ingenuity pathway analysis showed that miRNAs associated with age were also associated with the variables found in reproductive system diseases.

Conclusion: Plasma miRNAs prior to the IVF cycle were associated with differing demographic and IVF parameters, including age, and may be predictive biomarkers of fertilization rate.

Double or dual stimulation in poor ovarian responders: where do we stand?

Recent advances in our recognition of two to three follicular waves of development in a single menstrual cycle has challenged the dogmatic approach of ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization starting in the early follicular phase. First shown in veterinary medicine and thereafter in women, luteal phase stimulation–derived oocytes are at least as competent as those retrieved following follicular phase stimulation. Poor ovarian responders still remain a challenge for many decades simply because they do not respond to ovarian stimulation. Performing follicular phase stimulation and luteal phase stimulation in the same menstrual cycle, named as double stimulation/dual stimulation, clearly increases the number of oocytes, which is a robust surrogate marker of live birth rate in in vitro fertilization across all female ages. Of interest, apart from one study, the bulk of evidence reports significantly higher number of oocytes following luteal phase stimulation when compared with follicular phase stimulation; hence, performing double stimulation/dual stimulation doubles the number of oocytes leading to a marked decrease in patient drop-out rate which is one of the major factors limiting cumulative live birth rates in such poor prognosis patients. The limited data with double stimulation/dual stimulation-derived embryos is reassuring for obstetric and neonatal outcome. The mandatory requirement of freeze-all and lack of cost-effectiveness data are limitations of this novel approach. Double stimulation/dual stimulation is an effective strategy when the need to obtain oocytes is urgent, including patients with malignant diseases undergoing oocyte cryopreservation and patients of advanced maternal age or with reduced ovarian reserve.

The euploid blastocysts obtained after luteal phase stimulation show the same clinical, obstetric and perinatal outcomes as follicular phase stimulation-derived ones: a multicenter study

STUDY QUESTION

Are the reproductive outcomes (clinical, obstetric and perinatal) different between follicular phase stimulation (FPS)- and luteal phase stimulation (LPS)-derived euploid blastocysts?

SUMMARY ANSWER

No difference was observed between FPS- and LPS-derived euploid blastocysts after vitrified-warmed single embryo transfer (SET).

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Technical improvements in IVF allow the implementation non-conventional controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocols for oncologic and poor prognosis patients. One of these protocols begins LPS 5 days after FPS is ended (DuoStim). Although, several studies have reported similar embryological outcomes (e.g. fertilization, blastulation, euploidy) between FPS- and LPS-derived cohort of oocytes, information on the reproductive (clinical, obstetric and perinatal) outcomes of LPS-derived blastocysts is limited to small and retrospective studies.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Multicenter study conducted between October 2015 and March 2019 including all vitrified-warmed euploid single blastocyst transfers after DuoStim. Only first transfers of good quality blastocysts (≥BB according to Gardner and Schoolcraft's classification) were included. If euploid blastocysts obtained after both FPS and LPS were available the embryo to transfer was chosen blindly. The primary outcome was the live birth rate (LBR) per vitrified-warmed single euploid blastocyst transfer in the two groups. To achieve 80% power (α = 0.05) to rule-out a 15% difference in the LBR, a total of 366 first transfers were required. Every other clinical, as well as obstetric and perinatal outcomes, were recorded.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Throughout the study period, 827 patients concluded a DuoStim cycle and among them, 339 did not identify any transferable blastocyst, 145 had an euploid blastocyst after FPS, 186 after LPS and 157 after both FPS and LPS. Fifty transfers of poor quality euploid blastocysts were excluded and 49 patients did not undergo an embryo transfer during the study period. Thus, 389 patients had a vitrified-warmed SET of a good quality euploid blastocyst (182 after FPS and 207 after LPS). For 126 cases (32%) where both FPS- and LPS-derived good quality blastocysts were available, the embryo transferred was chosen blindly with a 'True Random Number Generator' function where '0' stood for FPS-derived euploid blastocysts and '1' for LPS-derived ones (n = 70 and 56, respectively) on the website random.org. All embryos were obtained with the same ovarian stimulation protocol in FPS and LPS (GnRH antagonist protocol with fixed dose of rec-FSH plus rec-LH and GnRH-agonist trigger), culture conditions (continuous culture in a humidified atmosphere with 37°C, 6% CO2 and 5% O2) and laboratory protocols (ICSI, trophectoderm biopsy in Day 5-7 without assisted hatching in Day 3, vitrification and comprehensive chromosome testing). The women whose embryos were included had similar age (FPS: 38.5 ± 3.1 and LPS: 38.5 ± 3.2 years), prevalence of male factor, antral follicle count, basal hormonal characteristics, main cause of infertility and previous reproductive history (i.e. previous live births, miscarriages and implantation failures) whether the embryo came from FPS or LPS. All transfers were conducted after warming in an artificial cycle. The blastocysts transferred after FPS and LPS were similar in terms of day of full-development and morphological quality.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The positive pregnancy test rates for FPS- and LPS-derived euploid blastocysts were 57% and 62%, biochemical pregnancy loss rates were 10% and 8%, miscarriage rates were 15% and 14% and LBRs were 44% (n = 80/182, 95% CI 37-51%) and 49% (n = 102/207, 95% CI 42-56%; P = 0.3), respectively. The overall odds ratio for live birth (LPS vs FPS (reference)) adjusted for day of blastocyst development and quality, was 1.3, 95% CI 0.8-2.0, P = 0.2. Among patients with euploid blastocysts obtained following both FPS and LPS, the LBRs were also similar (53% (n = 37/70, 95% CI 41-65%) and 48% (n = 27/56, 95% CI 35-62%) respectively; P = 0.7). Gestational issues were experienced by 7.5% of pregnant women after FPS- and 10% of women following LPS-derived euploid single blastocyst transfer. Perinatal issues were reported in 5% and 0% of the FPS- and LPS-derived newborns, respectively. The gestational weeks and birthweight were similar in the two groups. A 5% pre-term delivery rate was reported in both groups. A low birthweight was registered in 2.5% and 5% of the newborns, while 4% and 7% showed high birthweight, in FPS- and LPS-derived euploid blastocyst, respectively. Encompassing the 81 FPS-derived newborns, a total of 9% were small and 11% large for gestational age. Among the 102 LPS-derived newborns, 8% were small and 6% large for gestational age. No significant difference was reported for all these comparisons.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The LPS-derived blastocysts were all obtained after FPS in a DuoStim protocol. Therefore, studies are required with LPS-only, late-FPS and random start approaches. The study is powered to assess differences in the LBR per embryo transfer, therefore obstetric and perinatal outcomes should be considered observational. Although prospective, the study was not registered.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This study represents a further backing of the safety of non-conventional COS protocols. Therefore, LPS after FPS (DuoStim protocol) is confirmed a feasible and efficient approach also from clinical, obstetric and perinatal perspectives, targeted at patients who need to reach the transfer of an euploid blastocyst in the shortest timeframe possible due to reasons such as cancer, advanced maternal age and/or reduced ovarian reserve and poor ovarian response.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

None.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

Luteal Phase Ovarian Stimulation versus Follicular Phase Ovarian Stimulation results in different Human Cumulus cell genes expression: A pilot study

Background: Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation (LPOS) is an alternative in vitro fertilization (IVF) protocol. However, limited data showed the genes expression of cumulus cells (CCs) in LPOS. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate CC genes expression between LPOS and follicular-phase ovarian stimulation (FPOS) in poor ovarian responders (PORs) undergoing IVF cycles. Methods: This was a prospective non-randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03238833). A total of 36 PORs who met the Bologna criteria and underwent IVF cycles were enrolled. Fifteen PORs were allocated to the LPOS group, and 21 PORs were allocated to the FPOS group. The levels of CC genes involved in inflammation (CXCL1, CXCL3, TNF, PTGES), oxidative phosphorylation (NDUFB7, NDUFA4L2, SLC25A27), apoptosis (DAPK3, BCL6B) and metabolism (PCK1, LDHC) were analyzed using real-time quantitative PCR and compared between the two groups. Results: The number of retrieved oocytes, metaphase II oocytes, fertilized oocytes, day-3 embryos and top-quality day-3 embryos, clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates were similar between the two groups except for significantly high progesterone levels in the LPOS group. The mRNA expression levels of CXCL1 (0.51 vs 1.00, p < 0.001) and PTGES (0.30 vs 1.00, p < 0.01) were significantly lower in the LPOS group than in the FPOS group. The LPOS group had significantly lower mRNA expression of NDUFB7 (0.12 vs 1.00, p < 0.001) and NDUFA4L2 (0.33 vs 1.00, p < 0.01) than the FPOS group. DAPK3 (3.81 vs 1.00, p < 0.05) and BCL6B (2.59 vs 1.00, p < 0.01) mRNA expression was significantly higher in the LPOS group than in the FPOS group. Increased expression of PCK1 (3.13 vs. 1.00, p < 0.001) and decreased expression of LDHC (0.12 vs. 1.00, p < 0.001) were observed in the LPOS group compared to the FPOS group. Conclusions: Our data revealed different CC genes expression involving in inflammation, oxidative phosphorylation, apoptosis and metabolism between LPOS and FPOS in PORs. However, the results are non-conclusive; further large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to validate the results.

Double-in vitro maturation increases the number of vitrified oocytes available for fertility preservation when ovarian stimulation is unfeasible

When ovarian stimulation is unfeasible, in vitro maturation (IVM) represents an alternative option for fertility preservation (FP). This retrospective study aims to evaluate the feasibility of performing within a short time frame two IVM cycles for FP. Seventeen women with breast cancer, 18-40 years of age, having undergone 2 cycles of IVM followed by oocyte vitrification were included. Non parametric analyses were used. No difference was observed between IVM1 and IVM2 outcomes. No complication was reported. The respective contributions of IVM1 and IVM2 for the number of cryopreserved oocytes were comparable irrespective of the delay between both procedures, even when performed during the same menstrual cycle. Those findings suggest that repeating IVM cycles may constitute a safe option for increasing the number of vitrified mature oocytes for FP. These two retrievals may be performed during the same cycle, providing additional argument for a physiologic continuous recruitment during follicular development.

The best execution of the DuoStim strategy (double stimulation in the follicular and luteal phase of the same ovarian cycle) in patients who are poor ovarian responders

BACKGROUND

Patients found to be poor ovarian responders (POR) are a challenging patient population for any assisted reproduction technology. Despite attempts at various controlled ovarian stimulation schemes, reproductive outcomes in this patient population have not improved. In recent years, the DuoStim protocol (both follicular and luteal phase stimulation during the same menstrual cycle) has shown a potential for use in patients with POR.

METHODS

This retrospective study reviewed the medical records of 304 women who were diagnosed as POR and underwent the DuoStim protocol. We compared follicular phase stimulation (FPS) data and luteal phase stimulation (LPS) data of the same patients. We also compared the effects of different trigger drugs including urine human chorionic gonadotropin (uHCG; 10,000 IU), recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin (rHCG; 250 μg), and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a; 0.2 mg) at the FPS and LPS stages.

RESULTS

POR undergoing the DuoStim protocol resulted in a significantly higher number of oocytes retrieved, normal fertilised oocytes, cleaved embryos, cryopreserved embryos, and good quality embryos at the LPS stage than at the FPS stage. Trigger drugs at the FPS stage did not affect the FPS stage data. Regardless of the stage, rHCG and GnRH-a yielded significantly more cryopreserved embryos and good quality embryos than uHCG.

CONCLUSION

The use of GnRH-a or rHCG as the trigger drug may be better than uHCG in both the FPS and LPS stages for POR undergoing the DuoStim protocol. This will increase the number of good quality embryos at the LPS stage. We found that the LPS stage results in more oocytes (and therefore more embryos) than the FPS stage.

DuoStim - a reproducible strategy to obtain more oocytes and competent embryos in a short time-frame aimed at fertility preservation and IVF purposes. A systematic review

Recent evidence suggests that follicular development occurs in a wave-like model during the ovarian cycle, where up to three cohorts of follicles are recruited to complete folliculogenesis. This understanding overtakes the previous dogma stating that follicles grow only during the follicular phase of the menstrual cycle. Therefore, in in vitro fertilization (IVF), novel protocols regarding ovarian stimulation have been theorized based on the use of gonadotrophins to prompt the growth of antral follicles at any stage of the menstrual cycle. These unconventional protocols for ovarian stimulation aim at a more efficient management of poor-prognosis patients, otherwise exposed to conflicting outcomes after conventional approaches. DuoStim appears among these unconventional stimulation protocols as one of the most promising. It combines two consecutive stimulations in the follicular and luteal phases of the same ovarian cycle, aimed at increasing the number of oocytes retrieved and embryos produced in the short time-frame. This protocol has been suggested for the treatment of all conditions requiring a maximal and urgent exploitation of the ovarian reserve, such as oncological patients and poor responders at an advanced maternal age. At present, data from independent studies have outlined the consistency and reproducibility of this approach, which might also reduce the drop-out between consecutive failed IVF cycles in poor-prognosis patients. However, the protocol must be standardized, and more robust studies and cost-benefit analyses are needed to highlight the true clinical pros and cons deriving from DuoStim implementation in IVF.