Dual stimulation using corifollitropin alfa in 54 Bologna criteria poor ovarian responders - a case series

GnRH agonist trigger in poor prognosis patients undergoing a multicycle approach through DuoStim or consecutive stimulations: a SWOT analysis

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Identify the most recent and significant evidence regarding the ovulation trigger within the framework of a multicycle approach through DuoStim, providing valuable insights for improving treatment strategies in patients with a poor prognosis.

RECENT FINDINGS

The trigger method plays a pivotal role in optimizing in-vitro fertilization (IVF) stimulation, influencing oocyte retrieval and maturation rates, as well as follicle recruitment in consecutive ovarian stimulations such as double stimulation. Decision-making involves multiple factors and, while guidelines exist for conventional stimulation, specific recommendations for the multicycle approach are not well established.

SUMMARY

The different methods for inducing oocyte maturation underscore the need for personalization of IVF protocols. The GnRH agonist trigger induces rapid luteolysis and establishes favorable hormonal conditions that do not adversely affect the recruitment of consecutive follicular waves in the context of DuoStim. It serves as a valid alternative to hCG in freeze-all cycles. This strategy might enhance the safety and flexibility of ovarian stimulations with no impact on oocyte competence and IVF efficacy.

Benefit from luteal phase progestin-primed ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate supplementation in young women with diminished ovarian reserve: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the pregnant outcomes of luteal phase progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol with clomiphene citrate supplementation (LPPOS+CC) and follicular phase PPOS+CC protocol (FPPOS+CC) in young women with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR).

METHODS

A total of 483 women aged ≤35 years with DOR, who underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI)/embryo transfer (ET) with controlled ovarian stimulation using LPPOS+CC (n=257) or FPPOS+CC (n=226) protocols during June 2018 and December 2021 at the First Affiliated Hospital of Wenzhou Medical University, were included in this retrospective study. The baseline characteristics, ovarian stimulation, endocrinological indicators, clinical outcomes between the two groups, and pregnancy outcomes of women achieved at least one high-quality cleavage-stage embryo or good-morphology blastocyst between the two groups were compared.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were identified between the groups with respect to number of oocytes retrieved, oocyte maturation rate, high-quality cleavage-stage embryo cycle rate, the percentage of women with profound pituitary suppression, preterm birth rate, and live birth rate (P>0.05). Compared to FPPOS+CC group, the duration of stimulation [11.0 (9.0,12.0) vs. 9.0 (8.0,11.0) d, P<0.01] was significantly longer in the LPPOS+CC group. The LH levels on the day of trigger [4.0 (2.7,5.3) vs. 5.1 (3.2,7.2) IU/L, P<0.01], the percentage of women with LH levels of >10 IU/L on the trigger day (3.13% vs. 10.67%, P<0.01), and the two pronucleate (2PN) rate of ICSI oocytes (72.16% vs. 79.56%, P<0.05) were significantly lower in the LPPOS+CC group than those in the FPPOS+CC group. The consumption of total gonadotropin [2213 (1650,2700) vs. 2000 (1575,2325) IU, P<0.01], the progesterone levels on the day of trigger [1.3 (0.8,2.9) vs. 0.9 (0.6,1.2) ng/mL, P<0.01], the clinical pregnancy rate [61.88% vs. 46.84%, P<0.01], and implantation rate [42.20% vs. 31.07%, P<0.01] in the LPPOS+CC group were significantly higher than those in the FPPOS+CC group.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to FPPOS+CC, the LPPOS+CC protocol appears to have better pregnancy outcomes for young women with DOR undergoing IVF-ICSI-ET.

Ovarian response and embryo ploidy following oral micronized progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation versus GnRH antagonist protocol. A prospective study with repeated ovarian stimulation cycles

STUDY QUESTION

Is there any difference in ovarian response and embryo ploidy following progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) using micronized progesterone or GnRH antagonist protocol?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Pituitary downregulation with micronized progesterone as PPOS results in higher number of oocytes retrieved and a comparable number of euploid blastocysts to a GnRH antagonist protocol.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Although the GnRH antagonist is considered by most the gold standard protocol for controlling the LH surge during ovarian stimulation (OS) for IVF/ICSI, PPOS protocols are being increasingly used in freeze-all protocols. Still, despite the promising results of PPOS protocols, an early randomized trial reported potentially lower live births in recipients of oocytes resulting following downregulation with medroxyprogesterone acetate as compared with a GnRH antagonist protocol. The scope of the current prospective study was to investigate whether PPOS with micronized progesterone results in an equivalent yield of euploid blastocysts to a GnRH antagonist protocol.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

In this prospective study, performed between September 2019 to January 2022, 44 women underwent two consecutive OS protocols within a period of 6 months in a GnRH antagonist protocol or in a PPOS protocol with oral micronized progesterone.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Overall, 44 women underwent two OS cycles with an identical fixed dose of rFSH (225 or 300 IU) in both cycles. Downregulation in the first cycles was performed with the use of a flexible GnRH antagonist protocol (0.25 mg per day as soon as one follicle of 14 mm) and consecutively, after a washout period of 1 month, control of LH surge was performed with 200 mg of oral micronized progesterone from stimulation Day 1. After the completion of both cycles, all generated blastocysts underwent genetic analysis for aneuploidy screening (preimplantation genetic testing for aneuplody, PGT-A).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Comparisons between protocols did not reveal differences between the duration of OS. The hormonal profile on the day of trigger revealed statistically significant differences between protocols in all the tested hormones except for FSH: with significantly higher serum E2 levels, more elevated LH levels and higher progesterone levels in PPOS cycles as compared with antagonist cycles, respectively. Compared with the GnRH antagonist protocol, the PPOS protocol resulted in a significantly higher number of oocytes (12.7 ± 8.09 versus 10.3 ± 5.84; difference between means [DBM] -2.4 [95% CI -4.1 to -0.73]), metaphase II (9.1 ± 6.12 versus 7.3 ± 4.15; DBM -1.8 [95% CI -3.1 to -0.43]), and 2 pronuclei (7.1 ± 4.99 versus 5.7 ± 3.35; DBM -1.5 [95% CI -2.6.1 to -0.32]), respectively. Nevertheless, no differences were observed regarding the mean number of blastocysts between the PPOS and GnRH antagonist protocols (2.9 ± 2.11 versus 2.8 ± 2.12; DBM -0.07 [95% CI -0.67 to 0.53]) and the mean number of biopsied blastocysts (2.9 ± 2.16 versus 2.9 ± 2.15; DBM -0.07 [95% CI -0.70 to 0.56]), respectively. Concerning the euploidy rates per biopsied embryo, a 29% [95% CI 21.8-38.1%] and a 35% [95% CI 26.6-43.9%] were noticed in the PPOS and antagonist groups, respectively. Finally, no difference was observed for the primary outcome, with a mean number of euploid embryos of 0.86 ± 0.90 versus 1.00 ± 1.12 for the comparison of PPOS versus GnRh antagonist.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The study was powered to detect differences in the mean number of euploid embryos and not in terms of pregnancy outcomes. Additionally, per protocol, there was no randomization, the first cycle was always a GnRH antagonist cycle and the second a PPOS with 1 month of washout period in between.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

In case of a freeze-all protocol, clinicians may safely consider oral micronized progesterone to control the LH surge and patients could benefit from the advantages of a medication of oral administration, with a potentially higher number of oocytes retrieved at a lower cost, without any compromise in embryo ploidy rates.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This research was supported by an unrestricted grant from Theramex. N.P.P. has received Research grants from Merck Serono, Organon, Ferring Pharmaceutical, Roche, Theramex, IBSA, Gedeon Richter, and Besins Healthcare; honoraria for lectures from: Merck Serono, Organon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Besins International, Roche Diagnostics, IBSA, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter; consulting fees from Merck Serono, Organon, Besins Healthcare, and IBSA. M.d.M.V., F.M., and I.R. declared no conflicts of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The study was registered at Clinical Trials Gov. (NCT04108039).

Comparison of luteal phase and follicular phase in-vitro maturation in women with oocyte maturation abnormalities

RESEARCH QUESTION

Are there differences in immature oocyte retrieval following luteal phase in-vitro maturation (IVM) compared with follicular phase IVM in women with oocyte maturation abnormalities (OMAs).

DESIGN

From January 2019 to May 2023, a retrospective cohort study at a private IVF centre included 36 women with 53 IVM cycles in Group 1 (follicular phase) and 24 women with 32 IVM cycles in Group 2 (luteal phase). Additionally, nine women had both follicular and luteal phase IVM cycles for intracycle variability analysis.

RESULTS

There were no differences in oocyte maturation stages between the groups at collection. Group 1 and Group 2 exhibited comparable median metaphase II oocyte rates per patient at 48 h after collection [40.0%, interquartile range (IQR) 0.0-66.7% versus 22.5%, IQR 0.0-52.9%] (P = 0.53). The median fertilization rate in Group 1 (66.7%, IQR 50.0-66.7%) was found to be comparable with that in Group 2 (66.7%, IQR 50.0-66.7%). There were no significant differences in the yielded embryo grades and pregnancy rates between the groups. Comparing follicular and luteal phase IVM within the same menstrual cycle in nine patients, no differences were observed in metaphase II oocyte maturation rates (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This study found no significant differences in oocyte maturation, fertilization rate, embryo quality or pregnancy outcomes between luteal phase and follicular phase IVM in women with OMAs. These findings suggest that luteal phase IVM can be used similarly to follicular phase IVM, offering a potential avenue to enhance embryo yield for women with OMAs.

Does dual oocyte retrieval with continuous FSH administration increase the number of mature oocytes in low responders? An open-label randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION

Is there an increase in the total number of metaphase II (MII) oocytes between a conventional ovarian stimulation (OS) and a double uninterrupted stimulation?

SUMMARY ANSWER

There is no increase in the total number of MII oocytes when comparing one conventional OS to a continuous stimulation with double oocyte aspiration.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Based on the concept of multiple follicular waves, the combination of two stimulations in the same ovarian cycle has gained interest in patients with a low ovarian reserve. This so-called dual stimulation approach is usually characterized by a discontinuation of FSH administration for ∼5 days and appears to have a favourable impact on the number of retrieved oocytes without affecting the embryo quality or ploidy status. The outcomes of dual uninterrupted OS have not yet been studied.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This was an open-label randomized controlled trial (RCT) with superiority design, performed in a single tertiary centre. Subjects were randomized with a 1:1 allocation into two groups between October 2019 and September 2021. All patients underwent a conventional stimulation with recombinant FSH. When two or more follicles of 17 mm were present, the final inclusion criterion was assessed; randomization occurred only in the presence of ≤9 follicles of ≥11 mm. In Group A, ovulation was triggered with hCG, and oocyte retrieval (OR) was performed 34-36 h later, followed by a fresh single or double embryo transfer (SET or DET) on Day 3/5. In Group B, ovulation was triggered with GnRH agonist, followed by another OS, without discontinuation of the FSH administration. In the presence of one or more follicles of ≥17 mm, the second stimulation was completed with hCG. A freeze-all strategy (Day 3/5) was applied for both retrievals, followed by transfer of one or two embryos in an artificially prepared frozen-thawed cycle. In the absence of one or more follicles of ≥17 mm after 13 additional days of stimulation, the second cycle was cancelled. All ORs were executed by a senior fertility specialist who was blinded for the first treatment, and all follicles >10 mm were aspirated, according to routine clinical practice. The primary outcome was the total number of MII oocytes. Patients were followed up until all embryos were transferred, or until live birth was achieved. Other secondary outcomes included the number of cumulus-oocyte complexes (COCs), the number of good quality embryos (Day 3/5), the ongoing pregnancy rate, and gonadotropin consumption.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Patients between 25 and 40 years old, with an anti-Müllerian hormone level of ≤1.5 ng/ml, antral follicle count of ≤6, or ≤5 oocytes after a previous stimulation, were included. At the start, 70 patients were eligible for participation in the trial, of whom 48 patients fulfilled the final inclusion criterium and were randomized. After drop-out of two patients, 23 patients were randomized to a single round of OS (Group A), and 23 patients were randomized to two uninterrupted rounds of OS (Group B).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Baseline characteristics were similar between both groups. The cumulative number of COCs and MII oocytes after completion of the second OR was similar in Group A and Group B [5.3 ± 2.7 versus 5.3 ± 3.0 (P = 0.95); 4.1 ± 2.4 versus 4.3 ± 2.7 (P = 0.77)]. Likewise, a comparable number of excellent and good quality embryos was available on Day 3 (3.0 ± 2.0 versus 2.7 ± 2.0; P = 0.63). In Group B, the cancellation rate due to insufficient response to the second round of stimulation was 39.1% (9/23). When focusing on the first stimulation in both groups, there were no significant differences regarding basal FSH, gonadotropin consumption, and the number of preovulatory follicles. After the first OR, the mean number of COC and MII oocytes was significantly higher in Group A (who had hCG triggering), compared to Group B (who had GnRH agonist triggering) [5.3 ± 2.7 versus 3.3 ± 2.2; difference 95% CI (0.54 to 3.45), P = 0.004 and 4.1 ± 2.4 versus 3.0 ± 2.2; difference 95% CI (-0.15 to 2.6), P = 0.05, respectively]. Likewise, the number of excellent and good quality embryos on Day 3 was significantly higher (3.0 ± 2.0 versus 1.9 ± 1.7; P = 0.02) in Group A.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

This study was powered to demonstrate superiority for the number of MII oocytes after dual stimulation. Investigating the impact of dual stimulation on pregnancy rates would have required a larger sample size. Furthermore, the heterogeneity in embryo vitrification and transfer policies precluded a correct comparison of embryologic outcomes between both groups.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This is the first RCT investigating the role of continuous stimulation with double aspiration in low responders. Our results show no statistically significant differences in the cumulative number of MII oocytes between one conventional stimulation with fresh ET and two consecutive stimulations with a freeze-only approach. Furthermore, the observed suboptimal oocyte yield after agonist ovulation triggering in low responders in the dual uninterrupted OS group is a reason for concern and further scrutiny, given that previous RCTs have shown similar outcomes in normal and high responders after hCG and GnRH agonist triggers.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This work was supported in part by a research grant from Organon. H.T. received honoraria for lectures and presentations from Abbott, Cooper Surgical, Gedeon-Richter, Cook, Goodlife, and Ferring. L.B. received fees for lectures from Merck & Organon and support for attending ESHRE 2023. M.D.V. reports fees for lectures from Ferring, Merck, Organon, IBSA, Gedeon Richter, and Cooper Surgical and support for attending ASRM 2023. S.M. received honoraria for lectures and presentations from Abbott, Cooper Surgical, Gedeon-Richter, IBSA, and Merck. C.B. was on the Advisory board and received consulting fees from Theramex and received honoraria for lectures and presentations from Abbott, Ferring, Gedeon-Richter, IBSA, and Merck.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03846544.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

19 February 2019.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

28 October 2019.

The effects of intraovarian injection of autologous menstrual blood-derived mesenchymal stromal cells on pregnancy outcomes in women with poor ovarian response

BACKGROUND

Assisted reproduction faces a significant obstacle in the form of poor ovarian response (POR) to controlled ovarian stimulation. To address this challenge, mesenchymal stem cell therapy has been proposed as a potential treatment for female infertility and/or restoration of ovarian function in POR women. Our previous research has demonstrated that menstrual blood-derived-mesenchymal stromal cells (MenSCs) injected into the ovaries of women with POR can increase pregnancy rates. The objective of this study was to examine whether MenSC therapy could enhance ovarian reserve parameters and pregnancy outcomes in a larger population of individuals with POR.

METHOD

This study consisted of 180 infertile individuals with POR who declined oocyte donation. Participants were divided into two groups: those who received bilateral MenSCs intraovarian injection and those who received no intervention. Our primary aim was to compare the rates of spontaneous pregnancy between the two groups, followed by an investigation of any alterations in the ovarian reserve parameters, such as serum FSH, AMH, and AFC levels, as well as the ICSI/IVF outcomes, in both groups of participants.

RESULTS

The MenSC therapy exhibited a favourable tolerability profile and did not raise any safety concerns. Following the 2-month follow-up period, women who received MenSC treatment demonstrated a significantly higher rate of spontaneous pregnancy (P < 0.005) and an improvement in anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels (P = 0.0007) and antral follicle count (AFC) (P < 0.001), whereas the control group demonstrated a considerable decline in these parameters (Both P < 0.001). The MenSC therapy led to a greater number of mature oocytes and embryos among women who underwent ICSI/IVF. Our age subgroup analysis demonstrated a significant difference in the number of spontaneous pregnancies and ICSI/IVF outcomes between the treatment and control groups only among individuals below 40 years of age.

CONCLUSION

The results of our study indicate that MenSCs treatment may be a viable option for treating women experiencing POR. However, in order to be widely implemented in clinical practice, the clinical effectiveness of MenSCs therapy will need to be established through rigorous prospective randomized clinical trials.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT05703308. Registered 01/26/2023, retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05703308 . IRCT, IRCT20180619040147N4. Registered 08/01/2020.

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.

Luteal Phase Stimulation in the Same Cycle Is an Effective Strategy to Rescue POSEIDON Poor Responders with No Embryos after the First Follicular Stimulation

Background

Poor responders may benefit from recruiting a 'second wave' of antral follicles within the same cycle. This concept forms the basis of double stimulation which has been named as 'DuoStim'. This protocol involves ovarian stimulation in both follicular and luteal phases with egg retrieval in each phase, respectively, to increase the number of oocytes and embryos in one menstrual cycle. This can be considered a potentially valuable option for women with poor ovarian reserve/response to maximise the number of oocytes retrieved in a single ovarian cycle in the shortest possible time.

Aims

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the DuoStim protocol in women classified as POSEIDON poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization by comparing the embryological outcomes between the follicular and luteal phase stimulations in the same menstrual cycle.

Settings and Design

This was a retrospective cohort study of 131 patients who enrolled to undergo DuoStim cycles from January 2021 to Sept. 2022, at a IVF center in a tertiary care hospital.

Materials and Methods

The follicular phase stimulation used a standard antagonist protocol for the first oocyte retrieval. Thereafter, the luteal phase stimulation was started 3 days after the first retrieval, with the same dose of gonadotropin along with a daily 10 mg medroxyprogesterone acetate tablet, followed by a second oocyte retrieval. Blastocysts produced in both the phases were subsequently vitrified.

Statistical Analysis Used

The paired t-test was used for comparing means and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for different parameters. McNemar's test was used to compare paired proportions. The analysis was conducted using R statistical environment 4.2.

Results

The mean number of oocytes retrieved and the mean number of utilizable blastocysts frozen per stimulation cycle were found to be significantly higher in the luteal phase as compared to the follicular phase (5.71 ± 3.95 vs. 4.87 ± 2.79, P = 0.02, and 1.43 ± 1.22 vs. 0.95 ± 1, P = 0.001, respectively). However, the mean fertilization rate and the mean blastocyst utilization rate were found to be similar between both the phases. The length of stimulation was found to be approximately 3 days longer in the luteal phase (12.63 ± 2.43 vs. 9.75 ± 1.85, P = 0.001). Overall, the odds of obtaining a usable blastocyst in the luteal phase was found to be significantly higher than in the paired follicular phase (73.9% vs. 57.7%, P = 0.012, odds ratio: 2.286 [95% CI: 1.186-4.636]). Also importantly, the luteal phase stimulation was able to rescue 68% (32/47) of patients where no blastocysts were formed in the follicular phase.

Conclusion

Our data demonstrate that in women with poor reserve, the addition of luteal stimulation could increase the chances of achieving a pregnancy by significantly increasing the number of eggs and transferable embryos per menstrual cycle compared to follicular stimulation alone. Furthermore, luteal phase stimulation in the same cycle proved to be an effective strategy to rescue POSEIDON poor responders with no embryos after the first stimulation.

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.

Routine double-ovarian-stimulation (DuoStim) in poor responders lacks rationale, evidence, and follow-up

Double ovarian stimulation (DuoStim), initially only suggested for fertility preservation in cancer patients, is now increasingly also used in routine clinical IVF, especially in poor responders. The claimed rational for this is the alleged existence of multiple follicular waves in a single intermenstrual interval, allowing for retrieval of more oocytes in a single IVF cycle. This commentary argues that this expansion of purpose lacks rationale, evidence, and follow-up. Consequently, we suggest that, unless valid clinical indications have been established, DuoStim be only subject of controlled clinical trials with appropriate experimental consents.

A randomized, non-inferiority trial on the DuoStim strategy in PGT-A cycles

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is the DuoStim strategy an effective alternative to two conventional ovarian stimulation cycles in poor-prognosis patients undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) to improve euploidy rates and obtain the first euploid embryo in less time?

DESIGN

This randomized controlled trial was performed at IVI Madrid between June 2017 and December 2020 and included 80 patients with a suboptimal profile aged 38 or older undergoing PGT-A cycles. Patients were blindly randomized into two groups: 39 women underwent two ovarian stimulations in consecutive cycles (control group), whereas the double stimulation strategy was applied to 41 women (DuoStim group). The main outcome was the euploidy rate in each group. The secondary outcomes were the time it took to obtain a euploid embryo and the main cycle outcomes.

RESULTS

The baseline characteristics of the patients were similar. No differences were found between the control group and the DuoStim group in the mean days of stimulation (21.3 ± 1.6 versus 23.0 ± 1.4, P = 0.10), total gonadotrophins (4005 ± 450 versus 4245 ± 430, P = 0.43), metaphase II oocytes (8.7 ± 1.8 versus 6.8 ± 1.7, P = 0.15) or euploid embryos obtained (0.8 ± 0.4 versus 0.6 ± 0.4, P = 0.45). The euploid rate per randomized patient (ITT) was 16.1% in the control group versus 22.7% in the DuoStim group, with P-values of 0.371, and the euploidy rate per patient treated was 39.0% versus 45.7% in the control versus DuoStim groups. However, there was a significant difference in the average number of days it took to obtain a euploid blastocyst, favouring the DuoStim group (44.1 ± 2.0 versus 23.3 ± 2.8, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of the DuoStim strategy in poor-prognosis patients undergoing PGT-A cycles maintains a similar euploidy rate while reducing the time required to obtain a euploid blastocyst.

Oocyte Quality and Blastocyst Formation Rate with Dual Stimulation in Patients Belonging to POSEIDON Groups 3 and 4: A Retrospective Comparative Study

Aim

To evaluate the oocyte retrieval rate and blastocyst formation rate with DuoStim protocol in patients belonging to POSEIDON groups 3 and 4.

Methods

This observational, retrospective, single-center study including 90 patients belonging to POSEIDON groups 3 and 4 was conducted at a tertiary care hospital from October 2017 to March 2020. Patients were allocated into two groups based on POSEIDON classification criteria: group A (POSEIDON group 3) and group B (POSEIDON group 4). DuoStim protocol was performed with human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) at 225 IU and 300 IU in groups A and B, respectively. Study groups were again subdivided by considering the phase in which stimulation had been done [follicular phase stimulation (FPS) and luteal phase stimulation (LPS)], and then, inference was made accordingly in terms of oocytes retrieval rate and blastocysts formation rate. Data were compiled and analyzed using statistical software SPSS version 20.

Results

The baseline characteristics of two groups were compatible with POSEIDON groups 3 and 4. A significant difference was found between study groups with respect to age and anti-mullerian hormone levels (p < 0.05). Significantly, a greater number of oocytes and blastocysts were obtained in LPS stage, substantially more in group A (3.69 ± 3.4 vs. 4.52 ± 4.3 and 1.36 ± 0.65 vs. 3.17 ± 1.84) than group B (2.2 ± 1.36 vs. 3.6 ± 4.5 and 0.41 ± 0.8 vs. 1.29 ± 2.04). A greater blastulation rate (50 vs. 66.7% and 33.3 vs. 50%) and 100% oocyte maturity rate were observed in LPS stage of both the study groups.

Conclusion

In patients belonging to POSEIDON groups 3 and 4, the number of oocytes retrieved and blastocyst formation rate were greater in LPS stage when compared to FPS with DuoStim protocol.

Investigation of an efficient method of oocyte retrieval by dual stimulation for patients with cancer

Purpose

To examine the optimal timing of second ovarian stimulation using the dual stimulation method for good ovarian responders with cancer undergoing oocyte retrieval for fertility preservation.

Methods

A retrospective analysis was conducted using data from 69 patients with cancer who underwent oocyte retrieval for fertility preservation at four Japanese institutions during 2010-2021. Twenty-two patients underwent two oocyte retrievals for fertility preservation. We studied the relationship between the initial number of oocytes retrieved via dual stimulation and risk of ovarian enlargement as well as the appropriate waiting interval between the end of the first ovarian stimulation and beginning of the second ovarian stimulation.

Results

The risk of ovarian enlargement was high when the initial number of oocytes retrieved via dual stimulation was ≥5. An 8-day waiting interval may be more effective for performing a second ovarian stimulation oocyte retrieval in these cases, although the difference was not significant.

Conclusions

This study provides one policy for effectively managing ovarian enlargement and timing of second ovarian stimulation during oocyte retrieval via the dual stimulation method for patients with cancer undergoing fertility preservation. If more facilities implement this procedure, more oocytes may be obtained in a short period for fertility preservation purposes.

Comparison of blastocyst euploidy rates following luteal versus follicular phase stimulation in a GnRH antagonist protocol: a prospective study with repeated ovarian stimulation cycles

STUDY QUESTION

Is there any difference in the mean number of euploid embryos following luteal phase start (LS) and follicular phase start (FS) of ovarian stimulation?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The mean number of euploid blastocysts is equivalent independent of whether the inseminated oocytes are derived from FS or LS.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Starting ovarian stimulation at any time of the cycle ('random-start') is commonly used for emergency fertility preservation in cancer patients. A few retrospective studies have been published evaluating LS in women undergoing ovarian stimulation in the context of IVF, but there is a lack of robust data on the comparative efficacy of LS versus FS.Although 'random start' is commonly used in cancer survivors, few retrospective and uncontrolled studies have been published evaluating luteal phase stimulation in women undergoing ovarian stimulation in the context of IVF. Owing to this evident lack of robust data on the efficacy of LS, guidelines typically recommend the LS approach only for medical reasons and not in the context of IVF.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This is a prospective, equivalence study, with repeated stimulation cycles, conducted between May 2018 and December 2021. Overall, 44 oocyte donors underwent two identical consecutive ovarian stimulation cycles, one initiated in the FS and the other in the LS. The primary outcome of the study was to evaluate whether FS and LS in the same patient would result in equivalent numbers of euploid embryos following fertilization of oocytes with the same sperm sample.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Overall, 44 oocyte donors underwent two consecutive ovarian stimulation protocols with 150 μg corifollitropin alpha followed by 200 IU recombinant FSH (rFSH) in a fixed GnRH antagonist protocol. The only difference between the two cycles was the day of initiation of ovarian stimulation, which was in the early follicular phase (FS) in one cycle, and in the luteal phase (LS) in the other. Forty-four oocyte recipients participated in the study receiving a mean of six metaphase II (MII) oocytes from each stimulation cycle (FS and LS). All MIIs were inseminated with the corresponding recipient's partner sperm (which had been previously frozen) or donor sperm, in order to safeguard the use of the same sample for either the FS or LS. Following fertilization and blastocyst culture, all generated embryos underwent genetic analysis for aneuploidy screening (preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

FS resulted in a significantly shorter duration of ovarian stimulation (difference between means (DBM) -1.05 (95% CI -1.89; -0.20)) and a lower total additional dose of daily rFSH was needed (DBM -196.02 (95% CI -319.92; -72.12)) compared with LS. The donors' hormonal profile on the day of trigger was comparable between the two stimulation cycles, as well as the mean number of oocytes (23.70 ± 10.79 versus 23.70 ± 8.81) (DBM 0.00 (95% CI -3.03; 3.03)) and MII oocytes (20.27 ± 9.60 versus 20.73 ± 8.65) (DBM -0.45 (95% CI -2.82; 1.91)) between FS and LS cycles, respectively. Following fertilization, the overall blastocyst formation rate was 60.70% with a euploid rate of 57.1%. Comparisons between the two stimulation cycles did not reveal any significance differences in terms of fertilization rates (71.9% versus 71.4%), blastocyst formation rates (59.4% versus 62%) and embryo euploidy rates (56.9 versus 57.3%) for the comparison of FS versus LS, respectively. The mean number of euploid blastocysts was equivalent between the FS (1.59 ± 1.30) and the LS (1.61 ± 1.17), (DBM -0.02 (90%CI -0.48; 0.44)).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The study was performed in young, potentially fertile oocyte donors who are patients with high blastocyst euploidy rates. Although results may be extrapolated to young infertile women with good ovarian reserve, caution is needed prior to generalizing the results to infertile women of older age.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The current study provides evidence that initiation of ovarian stimulation in the luteal phase in young potentially fertile women may result in a comparable number of oocytes and comparable blastocyst euploidy rates compared with follicular phase stimulation. This may imply that in case of a freeze-all protocol in young patients with good ovarian reserve, clinicians may safely consider initiation of ovarian stimulation during the luteal phase.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This research was supported by an unrestricted grant from MSD/Organon. N.P.P. has received Research grants and honoraria for lectures from: Merck Serono, MSD/Organon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Besins Intenational, Roche Diagnostics, IBSA, Theramex, Gedeon Richter. F.M., E.C., M.R. and S.G. declared no conflict of interests.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The study was registered at Clinical Trials Gov (NCT03555942).

Intraovarian Injection of Recombinant Human Follicle-Stimulating Hormone for Luteal-Phase Ovarian Stimulation during Oocyte Retrieval Is Effective in Women with Impending Ovarian Failure and Diminished Ovarian Reserve

It is a challenge to obtain sufficient eggs during in vitro fertilization (IVF) in women with impending ovarian failure (IOF)/diminished ovarian reserve (DOR). Although studies have suggested that more than one wave of follicle growth exists, the efficacy of controlled ovulation stimulation (COS) in both follicular and luteal phases of the same ovarian cycle (DuoStim) is not established in women with IOF/DOR. We investigated the efficacy of DuoStim using the intraovarian injection of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (rhFSH) during oocyte retrieval in women with DOR. For luteal-phase stimulation, intraovarian (Group A, N = 28) or superficial subcutaneous (Group B, N = 18) injection of 300 IU rhFSH immediately after oocyte retrieval was administered as the first dose, and intermittent superficial subcutaneous addition of gonadotropins was employed accordingly for further COS in both groups. In Group A, significantly lower Gn doses, a shorter duration of COS, a greater number of antral follicle counts, and an increased number of retrieved mature and total oocytes were noted. Compared with the clinical outcomes of luteal-phase COS, the average daily doses of rhFSH used in Group A were significantly lower. In summary, the novel approach using intraovarian rhFSH injection provides an efficient treatment regimen in women with IOF/DOR.

Four consecutive minimal ovarian stimulation (TetraStim) is a feasible alternative to increase the number of oocytes and improve live birth rates in poor responders who do not accept oocyte donation

OBJECTIVE

To present our experience using four consecutive minimal COS (TetraStim) followed by oocyte retrieval and vitrification to increase the number of oocytes in patients with POR for whom oocyte donation is not an option.

METHODS

We performed an observational study evaluating 128 poor responders submitted to TetraStim instead of oocyte donation cycles. Patients were submitted to four consecutive minimal COS started at luteal phase, oocyte retrieval, oocyte vitrification/warming, ICSI, endometrial priming and embryo transfer. We evaluated the number of vitrified oocytes, survival rate after warming, fertilization rate, cleavage rate, number of embryos transferred, clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate and live birth rate.

RESULTS

The mean age was 38.1 ± 3.1 years. A total of 791 oocytes were recovered (6.1 ± 2.7/patient), 682 (86.2%) Metaphase II (5.3 ± 2.4/patient) were vitrified, 95.3% survived warming (5.1 ± 2.3/patient), 82% showed normal fertilization after ICSI (4.2 ± 2/patient), 79.2% reached cleavage stage (3.3 ± 1.6/patient), 313 cleavage stage embryos were transferred to 115 patients (2.7 ± 0.7/patient) and 14.7% of the patients had surplus embryos that were vitrified. Clinical pregnancy rate per patient was 31.3% and live birth rate per patient was 22.6%.

CONCLUSION

To our knowledge this is the first study that demonstrates that TetraStim can be an effective alternative for patients with POR with an indication to perform IVF with donated oocytes, but do not agree to use. TetraStim is a feasible alternative to increase the number of oocytes and embryos and improve pregnancy rates with no dropouts and very low cycle cancelation rate. However, randomized controlled studies must be performed to compare TetraStim with other treatments.

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.

DuoStim cycles potentially boost reproductive outcomes in poor prognosis patients

AIM

To evaluate the overall performance and oocyte quality of follicular phase stimulation (FPS) vs. luteal phase stimulation (LPS) among patients undergoing double ovarian stimulation (DuoStim).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Observational retrospective two-center cohort study including 79 infertile women who underwent a total of 87 DuoStim cycles between January 2017 and May 2019. Besides assessing baseline characteristics in order to determine the patients' clinical profile, we analyzed the FPS and LPS regarding the total dose of gonadotropin received, the duration of stimulation, the number and maturity of oocytes, fertilization and blastocyst formation rates, and the number of blastocysts obtained.

RESULTS

The patients' baseline characteristics were compatible with a diminished ovarian reserve and poor reproductive prognosis. While the luteal phase needed longer stimulation (12 days (5-19) vs. 11 (7-16), p < .001) and slightly higher gonadotropin doses (2946 ± 890 IU vs. 2550 ± 970 IU, p < .001), no significant differences were detected in the oocyte maturity, fertilization, and blastocyst formation rates. However, the number of oocytes retrieved (5 (0-16) vs. 4 (0-15), p = .006), mature oocytes (4 (0-15) vs. 3 (0-11), p = .032), and blastocysts obtained (70 vs. 53) were substantially greater after LPS.

CONCLUSIONS

The DuoStim strategy in poor prognosis patients increases the number of oocytes and blastocysts available. Moreover, the number of oocytes and blastocysts obtained are higher after LPS when compared to FPS. Thus, it should be considered for selected patients in order to not only improve reproductive outcomes but also shorten the time to pregnancy.

Live birth rate with double ovarian stimulation is superior to follicular phase ovarian stimulation per started cycle in poor ovarian responders

AIM

To compare the outcome of double ovarian stimulation (DOS) with follicular phase ovarian stimulation (FPS) per started cycle in poor ovarian responders (PORs).

METHODS

A total of 204 PORs who underwent ovulation induction for in vitro fertilization, cryopreservation of all embryos available, and frozen embryo transfer cycle were retrospectively analyzed. Of those, 146 received single FPS, and 58 received DOS. All viable embryos were cryopreserved and subsequently transferred within 1-6 months.

RESULTS

The number of oocytes collected and the number of mature oocytes per started cycle were higher in the DOS group compared to the FPS group (6.0 ± 1.9 vs. 2.8 ± 1.3 and 4.3 ± 1.3 vs. 2.2 ± 1.2, respectively, p = 0.001). Clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate per started cycle were also significantly higher in the DOS group than the FPS group (41.4% vs. 16.4% and 36.2% vs. 15.1%, respectively, p < 0.001). The cancellation rate of embryo transfer due to no viable embryo was significantly lower in the DOS group (10.3%) than the FPS group (40.4%) (p = 0.001). In the DOS group, numbers of oocytes (3.2 ± 1.2 vs. 2.7 ± 1.1, p = 0.006), MII oocytes (2.6 ± 1.0 vs. 2.1 ± 0.8, p = 0.001), and cryopreserved blastocysts (1.5 ± 0.8 vs. 1.1 ± 0.7, p = 0.002) were significantly higher in the luteal ovarian stimulation compared to follicular ovarian stimulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Live birth per started cycle with DOS is superior to FPS in PORs. Luteal phase stimulation contributes to improving pregnancy rates in these patients.

When Should We Freeze Embryos? Current Data for Fresh and Frozen Embryo Replacement IVF Cycles

Recent years have seen a dramatic rise in the number of frozen-thawed embryo replacement (FER) cycles. Along with the advances in embryo cryopreservation techniques, the optimization of endometrial receptivity has resulted in outcomes for FER that are similar to fresh embryo transfer. However, the question of whether the Freeze all strategy is for all is nowadays a hot topic. This review addresses this issue and describes current evidence based on randomized controlled trials and observational studies. To date, it is reasonable to perform FER in cases with a clear indication for the benefits of such strategy including impending ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) or preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A); however, this strategy does not fit for all. This review analyses the pros and cons of the freeze all strategy highlighting the need to follow a personalized plan in embryo transfer, avoiding a freeze all methodology for all patients in an unselected manner.

Triple stimulation (TriStim) before bilateral oophorectomy in a young woman with ovarian cancer: a case report and review of the literature

Background

Double ovarian stimulation (DuoStim) involves two rounds of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and oocyte retrieval in immediate succession. It represents a promising approach to increase oocyte yield for patients with diminished ovarian reserve or those with limited time before fertility-threatening oncologic treatment. We report the case of a 31-year-old woman with Stage IC endometrioid ovarian cancer who underwent a triple stimulation or "TriStim," completing three rounds of COS and oocyte retrieval within 42 days prior to bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy.

Case presentation

A 31 year old nulligravid woman presented for fertility preservation counseling following a bilateral ovarian cystectomy that revealed Stage IC endometroid adenocarcinoma arising within endometrioid borderline tumors. The patient was counseled for bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, lymph node dissection, and omentectomy followed by three cycles of carboplatin/paclitaxel. Prior to this, all within six weeks, the patient underwent three rounds of controlled ovarian stimulation using an antagonist protocol and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) trigger, resulting in vitrification of nine two-pronuclear zygotes (2PN), after which definitive surgery was performed.

Conclusions

Advantages of DuoStim procedures are increasingly recognized, especially for oncology patients with limited time before potentially sterilizing cancer treatment. To our knowledge, this is the first report of a triple stimulation ("TriStim"). Our case highlights that triple stimulation is a viable option for patients needing urgent fertility preservation in order to maximize egg and embryo yield within a limited time period.

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.

Update on the management of poor ovarian response in IVF: the shift from Bologna criteria to the Poseidon concept

Despite the considerate progress to which assisted reproduction technology (ART) has been subject since 1978, some issues remain unresolved. Notably, the clinical management of patients with a poor ovarian response is still a challenge in everyday practice, frustrating to both the patient and the fertility expert. Poor ovarian responders (PORs) embody 9–24% of patients undergoing ovarian stimulation, meaning that up to one in four patients conceals a poor reproductive prognosis. The last decade has witnessed the attempts of the medical community to standardize diagnosis of POR with the developing of the Bologna Criteria and the subsequent evolution of the low prognosis patient elaborated in the POSEIDON classification. The aim of this article is to summarize all evidence concerning etiology and management of poor ovarian response, including the most recent advances and future prospects in this regard.

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.

Novel Physiology and Definition of Poor Ovarian Response; Clinical Recommendations

Poor ovarian response (POR) to controlled ovarian stimulation (OS) presents a major challenge in assisted reproduction. The Bologna criteria represented the first serious attempt to set clear criteria for the definition of POR. However, the Bologna criteria were questioned because of the persistent heterogeneity among POR patients and the inability to provide management strategies. Based on these facts, a more recent classification, the POSEIDON (Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number) classification, was developed to provide a homogeneous and refined definition of POR that significantly reduces the heterogeneity of the Bologna criteria definition of POR and helps in the clinical handling and counseling of patients. In this review, we discuss the impact of the POSEIDON classification on the clinical management of patients with POR.

The Future of Cryopreservation in Assisted Reproductive Technologies

Societal changes and the increasing desire and opportunity to preserve fertility have increased the demand for effective assisted reproductive technologies (ART) and have increased the range of scenarios in which ART is now used. In recent years, the "freeze-all" strategy of cryopreserving all oocytes or good quality embryos produced in an IVF cycle to transfer later-at a time that is more appropriate for reasons of medical need, efficacy, or desirability-has emerged as an accepted and valuable alternative to fresh embryo transfer. Indeed, improvements in cryopreservation techniques (vitrification) and the development of more efficient ovarian stimulation protocols have facilitated a dramatic increase in the practice of elective frozen embryo transfer (eFET). Alongside these advances, debate continues about whether eFET should be a standard treatment option available to the whole IVF population or if it is important to identify patient subgroups who are most likely to benefit from such an approach. Achieving successful outcomes in ART, whether by fresh or frozen embryo transfer, is influenced by a wide range of factors. As well as the efficiency of IVF and embryo transfer protocols and techniques, factors affecting implantation include maternal aging, sperm quality, the vaginal and endometrial microbiome, and peri-implantation levels of serum progesterone. The safety of eFET, both during ART cycles and on longer-term obstetric and neonatal outcomes, is also an important consideration. In this review, we explore the benefits and risks of freeze-all strategies in different scenarios. We review available evidence on the outcomes achieved with elective cryopreservation strategies and practices and how these compare with more traditional IVF cycles with fresh embryo transfers, both in the general IVF population and in subgroups of special interest. In addition, we consider how to optimize and individualize "freeze-all" procedures to achieve successful reproductive outcomes.

Luteal phase after conventional stimulation in the same ovarian cycle might improve the management of poor responder patients fulfilling the Bologna criteria: a case series

OBJECTIVE

To assess the clinical contribution of luteal-phase stimulation (LPS) to follicular-phase stimulation (FPS) in a single ovarian cycle (DuoStim) for poor responder patients fulfilling the Bologna criteria.

DESIGN

Observational study (years 2015-2017) including women satisfying ≥2 of the following characteristics: maternal age ≥40 years and/or ≤3 oocytes retrieved after previous conventional stimulation and/or reduced ovarian reserve (i.e., antral follicle count <7 follicles or antimüllerian hormone <1.1 ng/mL). The LPS was started regardless of the outcome of the FPS.

SETTING

Private in vitro fertilization center.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 100 of 297 patients fulfilling the Bologna criteria chose to undergo DuoStim.

INTERVENTION(S)

The FPS and LPS with the same antagonist protocol and agonist trigger, intracytoplasmic sperm injection with ejaculated sperm, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies, and vitrified-warmed euploid single blastocyst transfer.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The contribution of LPS to the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) per intention-to-treat (ITT).

RESULT(S)

Patients (100) underwent FPS (maternal age, 42.1 ± 1.4 y; previous in vitro fertilization cycles with ≤3 collected oocytes, 0.7 ± 0.9; antral follicle count, 3.8 ± 1.2 follicles; and antimüllerian hormone, 0.56 ± 0.3 ng/mL). Ninety-one patients completed DuoStim. All patients were included in the analysis. More oocytes were obtained after LPS with similar developmental and chromosomal competence as paired FPS-derived ones. The CLBR per ITT increased from 7% after FPS to 15% after DuoStim. Conversely, the CLBR per ITT among the 197 patients that chose a conventional controlled ovarian stimulation strategy was 8%, as only 17 patients who were not pregnant returned for a second stimulation after the first attempt (drop-out rate, 81%).

CONCLUSION(S)

The LPS-derived oocytes increased the CLBR per ITT in a single ovarian cycle in patients fulfilling the Bologna criteria. The DuoStim strategy is promising to manage this thorny population of patients, especially to avoid discontinuation after a first failed attempt.

Future Perspectives of POSEIDON Stratification for Clinical Practice and Research

A total of 50% of patients undergoing IVF treatment has previously been estimated to fulfill the POSEIDON classification criteria; importantly, although the reproductive prognosis differs between patients, POSEIDON patients share the same characteristic of a low ovarian response to exogenous gonadotropin stimulation-independent of age. POSEIDON patients require focused attention as regards ovarian stimulation in order to increase the chances of having at least one euploid blastocyst for transfer-the success criterion for stimulation set forth by the POSEIDON Group. The key to success seems to be individualization in all steps of treatment. In this perspective article we discuss the future impact of the POSEIDON stratification for daily clinical practice as well as for research.

Management Strategies for POSEIDON Groups 3 and 4

In the POSEIDON classification, patients belonging to groups 3 and 4 share the same common feature of a poor ovarian reserve which independently of age renders them at high risk of a poor reproductive outcome. Overall, POSEIDON groups 1-4 constitute approximately 47% of patients attending assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment. With the increasing delay in childbearing, POSEIDON group 4 seems to increase in numbers now in some centers constituting more than 50% of the total POSEIDON population, whereas group 3 patients constitute approximately 10%. Both POSEIDON groups 3 and 4 patients require special attention as regards pre-treatment strategy, ovarian stimulation, adjuvant treatment, and ovulation trigger strategy in order to optimize the probability of having at least one euploid blastocyst for transfer. Although more evidence is needed, recent advances seem to have increased the reproductive outcomes in the poor prognosis patient. The key to success is individualization in all steps of ART treatment. Herein, we review the recent evidence for the management of POSEIDON groups 3 and 4.