Luteal-phase protocol in poor ovarian response: a comparative study with an antagonist protocol

ART outcomes following ovarian stimulation in the luteal phase:a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the impact of luteal phase ovarian stimulation (LPS) on the outcomes of assisted reproductive technology (ART) for infertile couples and patients desiring non-urgent egg cryopreservation.

METHODS

We included all studies reported patients who received LPS and that used follicular phase ovarian stimulation (FPS) as a comparison group until January 2021. Prior meta-analysis regarding the outcomes of LPS in double stimulation and fertility preservation have already been published, so these studies were excluded. Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions was used to assess the study quality. The study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (CRD42020183946).

RESULTS

Twelve studies with a total of 4433 patients were included. The regimen employed can be categorized into two groups, but there is currently no evidence to support one over the other. After we excluded the largest study, the clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate were similar after FPS and LPS. There were significantly more stimulation days and total gonadotropins used in the LPS group. After subgroup analysis, we found that poor responders received significantly more cumulus oocyte complexes (+0.64) in the LPS group.

CONCLUSION

Current evidence indicates that patients in the LPS group could achieve pregnancy outcomes non-inferior to those in the FPS group. Because of current debate over freeze-all policy and the limited data about live birth rate, the universal use of LPS is considered controversial. In the future, more well-designed studies are necessary to investigate the indications for LPS and its cost-effectiveness.

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.

ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI†

STUDY QUESTION

What is the recommended management of ovarian stimulation, based on the best available evidence in the literature?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The guideline development group formulated 84 recommendations answering 18 key questions on ovarian stimulation.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI has been discussed briefly in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline on fertility problems, and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist has published a statement on ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. There are, to our knowledge, no evidence-based guidelines dedicated to the process of ovarian stimulation.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. After formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 8 November 2018 and written in English were included. The critical outcomes for this guideline were efficacy in terms of cumulative live birth rate per started cycle or live birth rate per started cycle, as well as safety in terms of the rate of occurrence of moderate and/or severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline group. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the guideline group and the ESHRE Executive Committee.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The guideline provides 84 recommendations: 7 recommendations on pre-stimulation management, 40 recommendations on LH suppression and gonadotrophin stimulation, 11 recommendations on monitoring during ovarian stimulation, 18 recommendations on triggering of final oocyte maturation and luteal support and 8 recommendations on the prevention of OHSS. These include 61 evidence-based recommendations—of which only 21 were formulated as strong recommendations—and 19 good practice points and 4 research-only recommendations. The guideline includes a strong recommendation for the use of either antral follicle count or anti-Müllerian hormone (instead of other ovarian reserve tests) to predict high and poor response to ovarian stimulation. The guideline also includes a strong recommendation for the use of the GnRH antagonist protocol over the GnRH agonist protocols in the general IVF/ICSI population, based on the comparable efficacy and higher safety. For predicted poor responders, GnRH antagonists and GnRH agonists are equally recommended. With regards to hormone pre-treatment and other adjuvant treatments (metformin, growth hormone (GH), testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone, aspirin and sildenafil), the guideline group concluded that none are recommended for increasing efficacy or safety.

LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION

Several newer interventions are not well studied yet. For most of these interventions, a recommendation against the intervention or a research-only recommendation was formulated based on insufficient evidence. Future studies may require these recommendations to be revised.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in ovarian stimulation, based on the best evidence available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to promote further studies in ovarian stimulation.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. F.B. reports research grant from Ferring and consulting fees from Merck, Ferring, Gedeon Richter and speaker’s fees from Merck. N.P. reports research grants from Ferring, MSD, Roche Diagnositics, Theramex and Besins Healthcare; consulting fees from MSD, Ferring and IBSA; and speaker’s fees from Ferring, MSD, Merck Serono, IBSA, Theramex, Besins Healthcare, Gedeon Richter and Roche Diagnostics. A.L.M reports research grants from Ferring, MSD, IBSA, Merck Serono, Gedeon Richter and TEVA and consulting fees from Roche, Beckman-Coulter. G.G. reports consulting fees from MSD, Ferring, Merck Serono, IBSA, Finox, Theramex, Gedeon-Richter, Glycotope, Abbott, Vitrolife, Biosilu, ReprodWissen, Obseva and PregLem and speaker’s fees from MSD, Ferring, Merck Serono, IBSA, Finox, TEVA, Gedeon Richter, Glycotope, Abbott, Vitrolife and Biosilu. E.B. reports research grants from Gedeon Richter; consulting and speaker’s fees from MSD, Ferring, Abbot, Gedeon Richter, Merck Serono, Roche Diagnostics and IBSA; and ownership interest from IVI-RMS Valencia. P.H. reports research grants from Gedeon Richter, Merck, IBSA and Ferring and speaker’s fees from MSD, IBSA, Merck and Gedeon Richter. J.U. reports speaker’s fees from IBSA and Ferring. N.M. reports research grants from MSD, Merck and IBSA; consulting fees from MSD, Merck, IBSA and Ferring and speaker’s fees from MSD, Merck, IBSA, Gedeon Richter and Theramex. M.G. reports speaker’s fees from Merck Serono, Ferring, Gedeon Richter and MSD. S.K.S. reports speaker’s fees from Merck, MSD, Ferring and Pharmasure. E.K. reports speaker’s fees from Merck Serono, Angellini Pharma and MSD. M.K. reports speaker’s fees from Ferring. T.T. reports speaker’s fees from Merck, MSD and MLD. The other authors report no conflicts of interest.

Disclaimer

This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained.

Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type.

ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available atwww.eshre.eu/guidelines.)

^†ESHRE Pages content is not externally peer reviewed. The manuscript has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

Luteal phase stimulation versus follicular phase stimulation in poor ovarian responders: results of a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In young women with poor ovarian response, luteal-phase ovarian stimulation (LPOS) is a potential method for collecting competent oocytes. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of LPOS compared with follicular phase ovarian stimulation (FPOS) in young women with poor ovarian response (POR).

METHODS

This single-center, prospective, randomized pilot study compared LPOS and FPOS in women with POR fulfilling Bologna criteria who underwent in vitro fertilization at the Instituto Bernabeu. The primary outcome was the number of metaphase II (MII) oocytes obtained by follicular puncture.

RESULTS

Sixty women were included in the study, with 27 women completing LPOS and 30 undergoing FPOS. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of MII oocytes obtained between the LPOS group and the FPOS group (2.1 ± 2.0 vs. 2.6 ± 2.2, p = 0.31). Length of stimulation was also similar in both groups (8.35 ± 2.8 vs. 8.15 ± 4.1 days, p = 0.69). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the follicle-stimulating hormone total dose, number of cumulus-oocyte complexes, survival rate, fertilization rate, or cancellation rate between groups. A significantly higher Ovarian Sensitivity Index was observed in the LPOS group versus the FPOS group (0.96 vs. 0.57, p = 0.037).

CONCLUSION

LPOS was comparable with FPOS in terms of efficacy and may improve ovarian responsiveness in young women with POR.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02625532; EudraCT identifier: 2015-003856-31.

Evaluation of the Second Follicular Wave Phenomenon in Natural Cycle Assisted Reproduction: A Key Option for Poor Responders through Luteal Phase Oocyte Retrieval

Background: Emergence of Luteal Phase Oocyte Retrieval (LuPOR) may revolutionize the practice regarding the time-sensitive nature of poor responders ascertaining a higher number of oocytes, in a shorter amount of time. This may be especially important in view of employing the approach of natural cycles for Poor Responders. We suggest the acronym LuPOR describing the clinical practice of luteal phase oocyte retrieval. The aim of the study is to offer insight regarding the identity of LuPOR, and highlight how this practice may improve management of the special subgroup of poor responders. Materials and Methods: The present retrospective observational clinical study includes the collection and statistical analysis of data from 136 poor responders who underwent follicular oocyte retrieval (FoPOR) and subsequent LuPOR in natural cycles, during their In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) treatment, from the time period of 2015 to 2018. All 136 participants were diagnosed with poor ovarian reserve (POR) according to Bologna criteria. The 272 cycles were categorized as follows: 136 natural cycles with only FoPORs (Control Group) and 136 natural cycles including both FoPORs and LuPORs. Results: Our primary results indicate no statistically significant differences with regards to the mean number of oocytes, the maturation status, and fertilization rate between FoPOR and LuPOR in natural cycles. Secondarily, we demonstrate a statistically significant higher yield of oocytes (2.50 ± 0.78 vs. 1.25 ± 0.53), better oocyte maturity status (1.93 ± 0.69 vs. 0.95 ± 0.59) and higher fertilization rate (1.31 ± 0.87 vs. 0.61 ± 0.60) in natural cycles including both FoPOR and LuPOR, when compared to cycles including only FoPOR. Conclusion: Our study may contribute towards the establishment of an efficient poor responders’ management through the natural cycle approach, paving a novel clinical practice and ascertaining the opportunity to employ oocytes and embryos originating from a luteal phase follicular wave.

Luteal Phase Ovarian Stimulation May Improve Oocyte Retrieval and Oocyte Quality in Poor Ovarian Responders Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization: Preliminary Results from a Single-Center Prospective Pilot Study

INTRODUCTION

Luteal phase ovarian stimulation (LPOS) has been proven a feasible protocol for infertile patients. High progesterone level in the luteal phase could physiologically inhibit premature luteinizing hormone surge, from which poor ovarian responders (PORs) could obtain benefits. Therefore, we aimed to compare clinical outcomes between LPOS and follicular phase ovarian stimulation (FPOS) protocol in PORs undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF).

METHODS

This prospective pilot study was performed at one tertiary center from January 2016 to October 2017. A total of 60 PORs who met Bologna criteria and undergoing IVF were enrolled. Thirty PORs were allocated to the LPOS group and 30 PORs were allocated to the FPOS group. Basic characteristics, cycle characteristics, and pregnancy outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

The length of stimulation was significantly longer in the LPOS group than in the FPOS group. The numbers of retrieved oocytes, metaphase II oocytes, fertilized oocytes, and day-3 embryos were significantly higher in the LPOS group than in the FPOS group. Conversely, we could not find any significant difference for clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, abortion rate, and cancellation rate. The multivariate analysis showed that only LPOS (p = 0.007) was significantly associated the possibility to retrieve three or more oocytes, whereas basal follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) < 8 IU/l (p = 0.103) and antral follicle count (AFC) ≥ 3 (p = 0.143) did not significantly affect this event.

CONCLUSION

LPOS allows improved oocyte retrieval and oocyte quality in PORs with respect to FPOS, despite comparable pregnancy outcomes. LPOS may be considered a feasible option for oocytes accumulation in PORs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03238833.