Importance of a 5- versus 7-day pill-free interval in a GnRH antagonist protocol using corifollitropin alfa: a prospective cohort study in oocyte donors

Conventional ovarian stimulation vs. delayed single dose corifollitropin alfa ovarian stimulation in oocyte donors: a prospective randomized study. Tail trial

The present study compares two protocols for ovarian controlled stimulation in terms of number of cumulus-oocyte complexes and metaphase II oocytes. We employed a single injection of 150mcg of corifollitropin alfa after a 7-day oral contraceptive pill-free interval for TAIL group and a conventional administration of corifollitropin alfa after a 5-day OCP-free interval with additional rFSH from 8th of ovarian controlled stimulation. Prospective, randomized, comparative, non-inferiority, opened and controlled trial carried out in 180 oocyte donors 31 were excluded, 81 were randomized to the control group and 68 to the TAIL group. No differences were found in the number of follicles larger than 14 and 17 mm at triggering day. However, a lower number of cumulus-oocyte complexes and metaphase II oocytes were obtained in TAIL group compared to the control group, expressed as median (interquartile range): 10.5 (5.5-19) vs. 14 [11-21] and 9 (4-13) vs. 12 (9-17) respectively. Additionally, the incidence of failed retrieval or metaphase II oocytes = 0 was higher in TAIL group 7(10.3%) vs. 1(1.2%) p = 0.024. The use of a single injection of corifollitropin alfa after a 7-day oral contraceptive pill-free interval in oocyte donors resulted in a lower number of cumulus-oocyte complexes and metaphase II oocytes. No additional rFSH was administered in this group. Clinical Trial Registration: https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/trial/2019-001343-44/results.

Extended Injection Intervals of Gonadotropins by Intradermal Administration in IVF Treatment

CONTEXT

Gonadotropins can be administered every 5 days under intradermal injection in in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment.

OBJECTIVE

To explore the effectiveness of intradermal injection of recombinant human FSH (rhFSH) for women undergoing IVF.

METHODS

Women who received their first IVF treatment enrolled in this prospective intervention in 2018. All women received a bolus of 900 IU rhFSH intradermally at day 2 of the treatment cycle followed by additional dosage of rhFSH at day 7 and/or day 10. The main outcome measures included the total dose of rhFSH and number of injections required, sequential serum FSH level detected, and number of mature oocytes retrieved.

RESULTS

Seventy women completed the study. On average, 2.31 ± 0.73 injections and 1662 ± 397 IU of rhFSH were administered. While the baseline FSH level was 5.6 ± 2.2 IU/L, the serum concentrations of FSH after rhFSH administration were 35.3 ± 7.0 on the first day (24 hours) and 10.7 ± 3.7 IU/L on the fifth day (120 hours). A total of 10.5 ± 6.6 mature oocytes were retrieved, resulting in 7.3 ± 5.1 pronuclear embryos; 1.8 ± 0.6 embryos were transferred to the uterus. Our findings resulted in 72% fertilization, 91% cleavage, 31% implantation, and 36% live birth rates. Although fewer larger follicles were found, noninferiority results were noted in the mature oocytes retrieved, good embryos available, and clinical pregnancy rate compared with those received conventional daily subcutaneous rhFSH administration.

CONCLUSION

Intradermal administration of rhFSH, with a smaller dose of rhFSH and fewer injections, may achieve the goal of a cost-effective and more patient-friendly regimen.

Ovarian stimulation for oocyte donation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Since its introduction in the 1980s, oocyte donation (OD) has been largely integrated into ART. Lately, both demand and the indications for OD have increased greatly. Oocyte donors are healthy and potentially fertile women undergoing voluntarily ovarian stimulation (OS). Selection of the optimal type of stimulation is of paramount importance in order to achieve the most favourable outcomes for the oocyte recipients, but most importantly for the safety of the oocyte donors.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

This is the first systematic review (SR) with the objective to summarize the current evidence on OS in oocyte donors. The scope of this SR was to evaluate the OD programme by assessing four different aspects: how to assess the ovarian response prior to stimulation; how to plan the OS (gonadotrophins; LH suppression; ovulation trigger; when to start OS); how to control for the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and other complications; and the differences between the use of fresh versus vitrified donated oocytes.

SEARCH METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in May 2020, according to PRISMA guidelines in the databases PubMed and Embase, using a string that combined synonyms for oocytes, donation, banking, freezing, complications and reproductive outcomes. Studies reporting on the safety and/or efficacy of OS in oocyte donors were identified. The quality of the included studies was assessed using ROBINS-I and ROB2. Meta-analysis was performed where appropriate. Data were combined to calculate mean differences (MD) for continuous variables and odd ratios (OR) for binary data with their corresponding 95% CIs. Heterogeneity between the included studies was assessed using I2 and tau statistics.

OUTCOMES

In total, 57 manuscripts were selected for the review, out of 191 citations identified. Antral follicle count and anti-Müllerian hormone levels correlate with ovarian response to OS in OD but have limited value to discriminate donors who are likely to show either impaired or excessive response. Five randomized controlled trials compared different type of gonadotrophins as part of OS in oocyte donors; owing to high heterogeneity, meta-analysis was precluded. When comparing different types of LH control, namely GnRH antagonist versus agonist, the studies showed no differences in ovarian response. Use of progesterone primed ovarian stimulation protocols has been evaluated in seven studies: the evidence has shown little or no difference, compared to GnRH antagonist protocols, in mean number of retrieved oocytes (MD 0.23, [95% CI 0.58-1.05], n = 2147; 6 studies; I2 = 13%, P = 0.33) and in clinical pregnancy rates among recipients (OR 0.87 [95% CI 0.60-1.26], n = 2260, I2 = 72%, P < 0.01). There is insufficient evidence on long-term safety for babies born. GnRH agonist triggering is the gold standard and should be used in all oocyte donors, given the excellent oocyte retrieval rates, the practical elimination of OHSS and no differences in pregnancy rates in recipients (four studies, OR 0.86, 95%CI 0.58-1.26; I2 = 0%). OS in OD is a safe procedure with a low rate of hospitalization after oocyte retrieval. The use of a levonorgestrel intrauterine device or a progestin contraceptive pill during OS does not impact the number of oocytes retrieved or the clinical pregnancy rate in recipients. Ultrasound monitoring seems enough for an adequate follow up of the stimulation cycle in OD. Use of fresh versus vitrified donated oocytes yielded similar pregnancy outcomes.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

This update will be helpful in the clinical management of OS in OD based on the most recent knowledge and recommendations, and possibly in the management of women under 35 years undergoing oocyte vitrification for social freezing, owing to the population similarities. More clinical research is needed on OS protocols that are specifically designed for OD, especially in term of the long-term safety for newborns, effective contraception during OS, and treatment satisfaction.

Desogestrel versus antagonist injections for LH suppression in oocyte donation cycles: a crossover study

To study whether ovarian response to corifollitropin among oocyte donors (OD) is different when oral desogestrel (DSG) is used to block the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge when compared to GnRH-antagonist use. This is a retrospective, cohort study at a private, university-based, IVF center including 35 OD. Patients underwent two stimulation cycles under corifollitropin alfa (CFT), one under an antagonist and another under DSG, between February 2015 and May 2017. In antagonist cycles, daily ganirelix was administered since a leading follicle reached 14 mm. In the DSG cycles, daily oral DSG was prescribed. The main outcome measure was oocytes retrieved. Compared to antagonist cycles, cycles under DSG received fewer injections (10.3 ± 2.8 vs. 5.0 ± 2.1, p < .001), nominally lower total supplementary gonadotropin dose (497.4 ± 338.9I U vs. 442.9 ± 332.8 IU, p=.45) with a lower total cost of medication (1018.6 ± 191.0€ vs. 813.8 ± 145.9€, p<.001). There were no differences in the total number of retrieved oocytes between groups (17.4 ± 7.5 vs. 18.6 ± 8.9, p=.34). In the corresponding oocyte recipients, clinical pregnancy rate was similar between groups: 52.0% vs. 58.6%, respectively (p=.78). ODs' stimulation's response under DSG is similar when compared to (17.4 ± 7.5 vs. 18.6 ± 8.9, p=.34) but associated with less injections and lower medication costs. The main advantage of this strategy is its simplicity, an aspect of utmost importance in the management of ODs.

Ovarian response in oocyte donation cycles under LH suppression with GnRH antagonist or desogestrel progestin: retrospective and comparative study

Here are investigated the serum hormones in ovarian stimulation cycles of oocyte donors (OD), under endogenous luteinizing hormone (LH) suppression with GnRH antagonist (antGnRH) vs. desogestrel (DSG) (progesterone-primed [PP]). OD underwent ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins at a private, university-based, infertility center between January 2017 and March 2018. Endogenous LH peak was controlled with either daily injections of antGnRH or with daily oral 75 mcg DSG (PP) until triggering. LH and progesterone were measured at trigger and the following day. A total of 404 OD cycles were included. There were no differences in age (26.7 ± 4.9 vs. 27.1 ± 4.8 years), AMH (3.7 ± 2.1 vs. 4.1 ± 2.7 ng/ml), and body mass index (BMI) (22.4 ± 2.8 vs. 22.1 ± 3.0 kg/m²) between PP and antGnRH groups, respectively. On the day of trigger, progesterone was lower in PP compared to antGnRH (0.9 ± 0.7, vs. 1.5 ± 1.2 ng/ml, p < .001), whereas no significant differences existed in estradiol or LH. On the day after trigger, lower progesterone in PP vs. antGnRH (10.8 ± 6.0 vs. 13.4 ± 7.9 ng/ml, p=.002) was observed. No differences were observed in the number of retrieved oocytes or the clinical pregnancies among recipients. Our study shows that endocrine response to DSG differs significantly as compared to antGnRH use for the control of endogenous LH without apparent impact on number of retrieved oocytes or the clinical pregnancies among recipients.