Double Stimulation in the Same Ovarian Cycle (DuoStim) to Maximize the Number of Oocytes Retrieved From Poor Prognosis Patients: A Multicenter Experience and SWOT Analysis

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 pregnancy outcomes of luteal phase and follicular phase progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol with clomiphene citrate supplementation (LPPOS+CC and 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, superovulation results, laboratory related indicators between the two groups, and the pregnancy outcomes of women who achieved at least one high-quality cleavage-stage embryo or good-morphology blastocyst were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

No statistically significant differences were identified between the groups with respect to age, duration of infertility, proportion of secondary infertility, previous failed cycles, body mass index, anti-Müllerian hormone, antral follicle count, basal luteinizing hormone level, basal progesterone level, number of oocytes retrieved, oocyte maturation rate, high-quality cleavage-stage embryo cycle rate, the percentage of women with profound pituitary suppression, live birth rate and preterm birth rate (all P>0.05). The LH levels on the day of trigger [4.0 (2.7, 5.3) vs. 5.1 (3.2, 7.2) IU/L], the percentage of women with LH levels of >10 IU/L on the trigger day (3.13% vs. 10.67%), and the two pronucleus (2PN) rate of ICSI oocytes (72.16% vs. 79.56%) were significantly lower in the LPPOS+CC group than those in the FPPOS+CC group (P<0.05 or P<0.01). The duration of stimulation [11 (9, 12) vs. 9 (8, 11) d], the consumption of total gonadotropin [2213 (1650, 2700) vs. 2000 (1575, 2325) IU], the progesterone levels on the day of trigger [1.3 (0.8, 2.9) vs. 0.9 (0.6, 1.2) ng/mL], the clinical pregnancy rate [61.88% vs. 46.84%], and implantation rate [42.20% vs. 31.07%] in the LPPOS+CC group were significantly higher than those in the FPPOS+CC group (all P<0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

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

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.

Comparison of luteal phase stimulation with follicular phase stimulation in poor ovarian response: a single-blinded randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

In the last decade, luteal-phase ovarian stimulation (LPOS) has been suggested as an alternative controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocol for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) cycles mainly in women with a history of poor ovarian response (POR). The present randomized controlled trial study aimed to compare the outcomes of follicular phase ovarian stimulation (FPOS) and LPOS protocols in POR cases undergoing ICSI cycles.

METHODS

Seventy-eight POR patients who met the Bologna criteria and underwent an ICSI cycle were included. In this study, 39 POR cases were allocated to the FPOS group, and 39 POR cases were allocated to the LPOS group. The primary outcome was the number of metaphase II (MII) oocytes. In addition, the total number of oocytes, number of top-quality day 3 embryo, day 3 embryo development rate, chemical pregnancy and clinical pregnancy rates were defined as secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The obtained results demonstrated that the number of MII oocytes significantly increased in the LPOS group compared to the FPOS group (P = 0.007). However, there was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the number of GV and MI oocytes, number of top-quality day 3 embryos and day 3 embryo development rate among both categories of patients. Also, the number of total and MII oocytes was significantly higher in the LPOS group (P = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

These results suggest that LPOS protocol effectively increases the number of mature oocytes in women with a history of POR.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

IRCT20210405050852N1 (Registered at Iranian registry of clinical trials; available at https://en.irct.ir/trial/55402 ).

Comparison In Vitro Fertilization Outcomes between DouStim and Minimal Stimulation Protocols in Poor Ovarian Responders: A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Various protocols have been approved to improve the response rate leading to successful fertilization in poor ovarian responders (PORs). The application of double ovarian stimulation (DuoStim) in the follicular and luteal phases of the same ovarian cycle has been shown as an intriguing option to achieve more oocyte retrievals in the shortest time. The aim of the current study is to compare the outcomes of different protocols, minimal stimulation (MS) and Duostim.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This randomized clinical trial was performed on 42 in vitro fertilization (IVF) candidates with POR diagnosis. Patients were classified into two equal groups and treated with the DuoStim protocol and MS protocol. The IVF outcomes, including retrieved follicles, oocytes, metaphase II (MII) oocytes and embryos, were compared between these groups.

RESULTS

The patients' characteristics including age, anti-mullerian hormone (AMH), follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), and antral follicle count (AFC) were collected and compared. It showed there was no significant difference between the two groups baseline characteristics (P>0.05). We observed that the DuoStim protocol resulted in a significantly higher score in comparison with the MS protocols , including the number of follicles (6.23 ± 2.93 vs. 1.77 ± 1.66, P<0.001), retrieved oocytes (3.86 ± 2.57 vs. 1.68 ± 1.58, P=0.002), MII oocytes (3.36 ± 2.42 vs. 1.27 ± 1.27, P=0.001) and obtained embryos (2.04 ± 1.64 vs. 0.77 ± 0.86, P=0.003).

CONCLUSION

The DuoStim protocol is a favourable and time saving plan that is associated with more oocytes in a single stimulation cycle. The DuoStim protocol significantly can result in more frequent MII oocytes and embryos. We figured that the higher number of oocytes and embryos might have led to a higher rate of pregnancy (registration number: IRCT20200804048303N1).

Optimizing In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) Success in Hypergonadotropic Hypogonadism: A Case Study on the Impact of the Shanghai Protocol

This article evaluated the effect of the Shanghai protocol on a hypergonadotropic hypogonadism patient undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. Hypergonadotropic hypogonadism was characterized by low sex hormone levels and elevated gonadotropins, leading to infertility. Poor ovarian response and failed pregnancy outcomes were the results of previous IVF treatments using conventional stimulation methods. The 37-year-old female patient was advised to follow the Shanghai protocol, which involved gonadotropin stimulation following pituitary suppression with a long-acting gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a). The Shanghai protocol significantly improved the ovarian response. Two oocytes were retrieved, and one 4AA grade (number 4 represents an expanded blastocyst, the embryo is large, and the zona is thin; first A represents the inner cell mass of numerous and tightly packed cells; second A represents trophectoderm, with many cells organized in epithelium) embryo was formed. According to her previous result, the patient with hypergonadotropic hypogonadism who had one unsuccessful IVF cycle after visiting our infertility center was advised of the Shanghai protocol. Establishing these results and enhancing the Shanghai protocol's implementation to this specific patient treatment, clinical pregnancy was achieved.

Conventional follicular-phase ovarian stimulation vs. luteal-phase stimulation in suboptimal responders: a randomized controlled trial

Objective

To compare the oocyte yield between follicular-phase stimulation (FPS) and luteal-phase stimulation (LPS) in suboptimal responders.

Design

Prospective, randomized, crossover clinical trial.

Patients

Forty-one patients with infertility according to the POSEIDON (Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number) criteria (1b/2b).

Interventions

Crossover study on 2 assigned ovarian stimulations that started randomly in the follicular or luteal phase. The in vitro fertilization cycles were not consecutive but separated in time (45 days to 6 months). The random crossover design ensured that all subjects received the first treatment by chance.

Main Outcome Measures

The primary objective was the number of cumulus-oocyte complexes retrieved in each cycle. Secondary objectives were number of metaphase II and fertilized oocytes, additional doses of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone, and the duration of ovarian stimulation (days).

Results

The mean number of cumulus-oocyte complexes retrieved was similar between the FPS and LPS groups (7.5 ± 4.6 vs. 7.0 ± 4.1; 95% confidence interval [CI] for the mean, 5.8-8.7 vs. 5.6-8.3, respectively; the difference between means, -0.5; 95% CI, -1.8 to +1.5). Similarly, the mean number of metaphase II oocytes retrieved was not different between the FPS and LPS groups (5.4 ± 3.6 vs. 5.2 ± 2.8; 95% CI for the mean, 4.2-6.5 vs. 4.3-6.1, respectively; the difference between means, -0.2; 95% CI, -1.2 to +1.1). Moreover, the secondary objectives were similar between FPS and LPS groups.

Conclusions

In this study, the oocyte yield in LPS did not increase in suboptimal responders compared with that in FPS when the onset of LPS was separated in time from FPS.

Clinical Trial Registration Number

NCT039393990 https://beta.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03939390.

DuoStim protocol- a novel fertility preservation strategy for female oncology patients

Fertility loss is one of the primary concerns among female oncology patients of childbearing age about to undergo gonadotoxic therapy. Currently, controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) followed by oocyte or embryo cryopreservation is the only technique of fertility preservation (FP) endorsed by the American Society of Clinical Oncology. This retrospective cohort study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a modified 'DuoStim' COS protocol in 36 female oncology patients at an FP clinic at St Mary's Hospital Reproductive Medicine Unit (Manchester, UK). Patients underwent two consecutive cycles of COS and outcomes assessed included total oocyte yield, mature oocytes of metaphase stage II, side effects of ovarian stimulation such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and delays to planned cancer therapy. Details of patient outcomes were determined by the review of patient medical records. Results of the study showed that this novel protocol increased oocyte yield by two-fold without delaying oncology treatment. Medical records confirmed that none of the 36 patients developed OHSS or experienced any delays in their cancer therapy. We conclude that the results of this study are encouraging and support DuoStim protocol as an effective strategy for FP in female FP patients.

A reappraisal of ovarian stimulation strategies used in assisted reproductive technology

Ovarian stimulation is a fundamental step in assisted reproductive technology (ART) with the intention of inducing ovarian follicle development prior to timed intercourse or intra-uterine insemination and facilitating the retrieval of multiple oocytes during a single in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle. The basis of ovarian stimulation includes the administration of exogenous gonadotropins, with or without pre-treatment with oral hormonal therapy. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist or antagonist is given in addition to the gonadotropins to prevent a premature rise of endogenous luteinizing hormone that would in turn lead to premature ovulation. With the advancement in technology, various stimulation protocols have been devised to cater for different patient needs. However, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and its serious complications may occur following ovarian stimulation. It is also evident that suboptimal ovarian stimulation strategies may have a negative impact on oogenesis, embryo quality, endometrial receptivity, and reproductive outcomes over recent years. This review describes the various forms of pre-treatment for ovarian stimulation and stimulation protocols, and aims to provide clinicians with the latest available evidence.

Predicting the total number of retrieved oocytes following double ovarian stimulation (DuoStim)

STUDY QUESTION

Can anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) help predict how many oocytes will be retrieved following double stimulation (DuoStim)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

A simple clinical tool can use serum AMH values to predict ovarian response following DuoStim in IVF cycles.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN

The knowledge that multiple follicular waves arise during a single ovarian cycle has led to the introduction of unconventional ovarian stimulation protocols. The DuoStim protocol involves two successive ovarian stimulations performed during a single ovarian cycle and has been proposed as an approach for patients with poor ovarian response and for medical fertility preservation. As AMH has been used as a marker of ovarian reserve and stimulation response, the current study aimed to investigate the diagnostic performance of AMH in predicting the number of retrieved oocytes following DuoStim.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This is a retrospective observational study involving 116 patients who received IVF treatment from January 2021 to September 2022.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

The study was conducted at a private IVF centre. Only patients who had their AMH measured prior to treatment and had complete patient records regarding their clinical and IVF/ICSI cycle characteristics were included. The primary outcome was the correlation between AMH values and the number of oocytes retrieved following DuoStim. Parametric and non-parametric tests were used to compare baseline characteristics and outcomes. Spearman's R was used to analyse correlations between variables, while the C statistic was used to calculate the diagnostic performance of AMH.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

AMH levels were significantly correlated with the total number of oocytes retrieved after the DuoStim (R 0.61; CI 0.44-0.70; P < 0.0001). The difference in the total number of oocytes retrieved between the first (median 4 oocytes, interquartile range (IQR) 2-6) and second (median 6 oocytes, IQR 3.2-8) stimulation was statistically significant (P < 0.0001). However, there was no significant difference in the number of mature oocytes that were retrieved (median of 3 and 4 in the first and second stimulations, respectively). After the first stimulation, 68% of patients had at least one blastocyst available, while after the second stimulation, 74% did (NS). Based on linear regression, each 0.25 ng/ml increase in basal AMH corresponds to one additional oocyte recovered at the end of both stimulations (R2: 0.32, P < 0.0001).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The results are limited owing to the observational nature of the study and the number of participants.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Counselling infertile couples regarding the intermediate outcome of IVF (i.e. number of retrieved oocytes) is one of the most demanding tasks that clinicians face. To our knowledge, this is the first study that provides an easy-to-use clinical tool that enables the quantitative prediction of ovarian response following DuoStim, based on serum AMH values.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No external funding was obtained for this study. The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

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.

Clinical Application of Double Ovulation Stimulation in Patients with Diminished Ovarian Reserve and Asynchronous Follicular Development Undergoing Assisted Reproduction Technology

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to compare the clinical effects of double ovulation stimulation (DouStim) applied during the follicular and luteal phases with the antagonist protocol in patients with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) and asynchronous follicular development undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART).

METHODS

The clinical data of patients with DOR and asynchronous follicular development receiving ART from January 2020 to December 2021 were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups according to their ovulation stimulation protocol: DouStim group (n=30) and antagonist group (n=62). Assisted reproduction and clinical pregnancy outcomes were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

In the DouStim group, the number of oocytes retrieved, metaphase II (MII) oocytes, two-pronuclei (2PN), day 3 (D3) embryos, D3 high-quality embryos as well as blastocyst formation, implantation, and human chorionic gonadotropin-positive rates were significantly greater than those in the antagonist group (all P<0.05). No significant differences were found in MII, fertilization, or continued pregnancy rates at the first frozen embryo transfer (FET), in-vitro fertilization (IVF) cancellation, or early medical abortion rates between the groups (all P>0.05). Except for the early medical abortion rate, the DouStim group generally had favorable outcomes. In the DouStim group, the dosage and duration of gonadotropin and the fertilization rate were significantly greater in the first ovulation stimulation induction than in the second ovulation stimulation induction (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The DouStim protocol efficiently and economically obtained more mature oocytes and high-quality embryos for patients with DOR and asynchronous follicular development.

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.

What should be done in terms of fertility preservation for patients with cancer? The French 2021 guidelines

AIM

To provide practice guidelines about fertility preservation (FP) in oncology.

METHODS

We selected 400 articles after a PubMed review of the literature (1987-2019).

RECOMMENDATIONS

Any child, adolescent and adult of reproductive age should be informed about the risk of treatment gonadotoxicity. In women, systematically proposed FP counselling between 15 and 38 years of age in case of treatment including bifunctional alkylating agents, above 6 g/m2 cyclophosphamide equivalent dose (CED), and for radiation doses on the ovaries ≥3 Gy. For postmenarchal patients, oocyte cryopreservation after ovarian stimulation is the first-line FP technique. Ovarian tissue cryopreservation should be discussed as a first-line approach in case of treatment with a high gonadotoxic risk, when chemotherapy has already started and in urgent cases. Ovarian transposition is to be discussed prior to pelvic radiotherapy involving a high risk of premature ovarian failure. For prepubertal girls, ovarian tissue cryopreservation should be proposed in the case of treatment with a high gonadotoxic risk. In pubertal males, sperm cryopreservation must be systematically offered to any male who is to undergo cancer treatment, regardless of toxicity. Testicular tissue cryopreservation must be proposed in males unable to cryopreserve sperm who are to undergo a treatment with intermediate or severe risk of gonadotoxicity. In prepubertal boys, testicular tissue preservation is: - recommended for chemotherapy with a CED ≥7500 mg/m2 or radiotherapy ≥3 Gy on both testicles. - proposed for chemotherapy with a CED ≥5.000 mg/m2 or radiotherapy ≥2 Gy. If several possible strategies, the ultimate choice is made by the patient.

Duo-Stimulation is a Time and Cost-Effective Stimulation Method to Increase the Number of Usable Blastocysts and Ongoing Pregnancies

Background: Duo-stimulation is an ART method whereby a patient undergoes two rounds of ovarian stimulation within a single menstrual cycle; a follicular phase stimulation (FPS) followed by a luteal phase stimulation (LFS) a . Previous studies have indicated that adoption of the duo-stimulation method increases the occurrence of at least one euploid blastocyst from 42% to 65.5% within a single ovarian cycle b . Additional benefits of the duo-stimulation method include both time taken to achieve similar results and, in Australia, cost a .

Aim: To determine the efficacy of LPS oocyte collections, as part of a duo-stimulation cycle, in relation to; stimulation, egg collection and utilization parameters, as well as pregnancy outcomes from subsequent FET cycles.

Method: A retrospective analysis of all LPS collections as part of a duo-stimulation cycle and subsequent FET cycles undertaken at Ballarat IVF between November 2016 and April 2021 was performed.

Results: 129 duo-stimulation cycles were started, (FPS egg collection), with 118 of these progressing to a LPS collection. The average number of oocytes collected was similar with 4.8 eggs collected from FPS egg collections and 4.9 oocytes from LPS collections. Embryo utilization rates were increased in a LPS collection compared to an FPS collection, at 36.09 and 38.04 respectively. Ongoing pregnancy rates from subsequent FET cycles were also increased when embryos created from an LPS collection were transferred, 33.3% vs those created from an FPS cycle 30.6%.

Conclusion: Egg collections performed after an LPS as part of a duo-stimulation cycle are a clinically effective method to procure more usable embryos in a short period of time. The duo-stimulation method will be of increasing benefit to those women of advanced maternal age, poor responders or undergoing fertility preservation for medical reasons. The biggest benefit to patients undergoing this method is cost related; when taking into account medicare rebates, undertaking two egg collections as part of a duo-stimulation cycle is a significantly more affordable option for patients in comparison to undertaking two subsequent stimulation cycles, with similar clinical outcomes.

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.

Development of a predictive model for luteal phase oocyte retrieval in poor responders undergoing natural cycle IVF

The aim of this study is the development of a prediction model indicating successful application of Oocyte Retrieval performed during the Luteal Phase (LuPOR) in poor responders, as defined by the retrieval of at least one MII oocyte. Recruitment included 1688 poor responders diagnosed as per Bologna Criteria, undergoing natural cycle ICSI between 2012 and 2020. Oocyte collections were performed during the follicular phase and during the luteal phase similarly. Antral Follicle Count (AFC), Estradiol (E₂) levels evaluated on both trigger days prior to Follicular Phase Oocyte Retrieval (FoPOR) and LuPOR, and the number of small follicles 8–12 mm that were not aspirated during FoPOR were identified as predictive factors indicative of an efficient LuPOR practice with an Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.86, 0.86, 0.89 as well as 0.82 respectively. The combination of the above-mentioned characteristics into a prediction model provided an AUC of 0.88, specificity and a sensitivity of 0.73 and 0.94 respectively and an accuracy of 0.89. The model provided a positive predictive value (PPV) of 93.5% and a negative predictive value (NPV) of 46.8%. The clinical conclusion of the present study aims to be of added value to the clinician, by providing a prediction model defining the POR population benefiting from LuPOR. The high PPV of this model may renders this tool helpful for the practitioner that considers LuPOR.

Ovarian Stimulation in Assisted Reproductive Technology Cycles for Varied Patient Profiles: An Indian Perspective

Controlled ovarian stimulation has been an integral part of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment cycles. Availability of different gonadotropins for ovarian stimulation and gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues for prevention of premature rise of leutinising hormone during follicular phase offer an opportunity to utilise them for a successful outcome in women with different subsets of ovarian response. Further, use of GnRH agonist as an alternative for human chorionic gonadotropin improves safety of ovarian stimulation in hyper-responders. Mild ovarian stimulation protocols have emerged as an alternative to conventional protocols in the recent years. Individualisation plays an important role in improving safety of IVF in hyper-responders while efforts continue to improve efficacy in poor responders. Some of the follicular and peri-ovulatory phase interventions may be associated with negative impact on the luteal phase and segmentalisation of the treatment with frozen embryo transfer may be an effective strategy in such a clinical scenario. This narrative review looks at the available evidence on various aspects of ovarian stimulation strategies and their consequences. In addition, it provides a concise summary of the evidence that has emerged from India on various aspects of ovarian stimulation.

Consecutive ovarian stimulation is beneficial in patients with a poor response to high-dose follicle-stimulating hormone

OBJECTIVE

To investigate if an immediate additional IVF-ET cycle bear an advantage to patients with poor ovarian response in comparison to a cycle performed at some delay.

METHODS

A cohort study including 632 patients who underwent a fresh IVF-ET cycle with high-dose (≥300 IU/d) FSH stimulation that yielded ≤4 oocytes and did not achieve a clinical pregnancy. All underwent a second stimulation and oocyte pick-up (OPU), either consecutively or separately within 180 days (nonconsecutive OPU). The oocyte yield, number of embryos available for transfer, pregnancy live birth rates of the second OPU were compared between patients who had consecutive and nonconsecutive cycles.

RESULTS

Consecutive OPU was associated with more mature follicles in the second cycle compared to nonconsecutive OPU (p = .03) in addition to higher peak estradiol level (p < .0001), and more aspirated oocytes (p = .03) and available embryos (p = .023). There was no between-group difference in ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates. In a multivariate analysis of variance controlling for potential confounders, the difference in the number of aspirated oocytes and available embryos was associated significantly only with consecutive performance of the second cycle.

CONCLUSION

Immediate sequential stimulation (without an intervening menstrual cycle) in poor responders is advantageous over delayed stimulation in terms of number of aspirated oocytes and available embryos. The administration of high-dose FSH in the first cycle may benefit follicular recruitment also in the subsequent cycle. Although the effect is modest, given that each additional oocyte aspirated contributes to the outcome, it might be of significance especially in younger patients.

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.

Associations of FSHR and LHCGR gene variants with ovarian reserve and clinical pregnancy rates

RESEARCH QUESTION

Are there any associations between the variants of FSHR c.2039 G>A (p. Ser680Asn, rs6166) and LHCGR c.935A>G (p. Asn312Ser, rs2293275) and ovarian reserve, ovarian response, clinical pregnancy rate and POSEIDON group?

DESIGN

A total of 210 infertile women were enrolled in this prospective study. The gene variants were analysed by the Sanger method. The clinical parameters were analysed based on genotypes.

RESULTS

The frequency of heterozygous and homozygous G allele for FSHR c.2039 G>A in the low prognosis group was significantly higher than that in other response groups (P = 0.034); there was no significant association between LHCGR c.935 A>G and ovarian response. Moreover, the serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) concentration, antral follicle count (AFC), oocytes retrieved, metaphase II (MII) oocytes and two-pronuclear (2PN) oocytes in patients with AG genotype for FSHR c.2039 G>A were significantly lower than those with AA genotype. The serum LH concentrations and clinical pregnancy rate of fresh embryo transfer in patients with GG genotype for LHCGR c.935 A>G were significantly higher than that of the AG genotype. In POSEIDON analysis, the low prognosis women with AA genotype for FSHR c.2039 G>A were more likely to appear in subgroup 1 (P = 0.038).

CONCLUSION

The FSHR c.2039 G>A variant has a significant beneficial influence on ovarian reserve and ovarian response. The LHCGR c.935 A>G variant is associated with increased clinical pregnancy rate of fresh embryo transfer in infertile women. In addition, the low prognosis women with AA genotype for FSHR c.2039 G>A tend to show better ovarian reserve and prognosis.

Recombinant human luteinizing hormone co-treatment in ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology in women of advanced reproductive age: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

INTRODUCTION

Several studies suggest that luteinizing hormone (LH) could improve IVF outcome in women of advanced reproductive age by optimizing androgen production. In this review, we assessed the role of recombinant-human LH (r-hLH) and recombinant human follicle stimulating hormone (r-hFSH) co-treatment in ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology in women of advanced reproductive age candidates for assisted reproduction.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Using a preregistered protocol we systematically searched Medline/PubMed, Scopus and the ISI Web of Science databases to identify randomized controlled trials in which r-hFSH monotherapy protocols were compared with r-hFSH/r-hLH co-treatment in women ≥35 years undergoing fresh IVF cycles. We calculated the pooled odds ratio (OR) for dichotomous data and the weight mean difference (WMD) for continuous data with an associated 95% confidence interval (CI). The meta-analyses were conducted using the random-effect model. P values < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. Subgroup analyses of all primary and secondary outcomes were performed only in women aged 35-40 years.

RESULTS

Twelve studies were identified. In women aged between 35 and 40 years, r-hFSH/r-hLH co-treatment was associated with higher clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.45, CI 95% 1.05-2.00, I² = 0%, P = 0.03) and implantation rates (OR 1.49, CI 95% 1.10-2.01, I² = 13%, P = 0.01) versus r-hFSH monotherapy. Fewer oocytes were retrieved in r-hFSH/r-hLH-treated patients than in r-hFSH-treated patients both in women aged ≥35 years (WMD -0.82 CI 95% -1.40 to - 0.24, I² = 88%, P = 0.005) and in those aged between 35 and 40 years (WMD -1.03, CI - 1.89 to - 0.17, I² = 0%, P = 0.02). The number of metaphase II oocytes, miscarriage rates and live birth rates did not differ between the two groups of women overall or in subgroup analysis.

CONCLUSION

Although more oocytes were retrieved in patients who underwent r-hFSH monotherapy, this meta-analysis suggests that r-hFSH/r-hLH co-treatment improves clinical pregnancy and implantation rates in women between 35 and 40 years of age undergoing ovarian stimulation for assisted reproduction technology. However, more RCTs using narrower age ranges in advanced age women are warranted to corroborate these findings.

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.

Antral follicle count and anti-Müllerian hormone to classify low-prognosis women under the POSEIDON criteria: a classification agreement study of over 9000 patients

STUDY QUESTION

What is the agreement between antral follicle count (AFC) and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels when used to patient classification according to the Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number (POSEIDON) criteria?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Our study indicates a strong agreement between the AFC and the AMH levels in classifying POSEIDON patients; thus, either can be used for this purpose, although one in four women will have discordant values when both biomarkers are used.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

According to the POSEIDON criteria, both AFC and AMH may be used to classify low-prognosis patients. Proposed AFC and AMH thresholds of 5 and 1.2 ng/ml, respectively, have their basis in published literature; however, no study has yet determined the reproducibility of patient classification in comparing one biomarker with the other, nor have their thresholds ever been validated within this patient population.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A population-based cohort study involving 9484 consecutive patients treated in three fertility clinics in Brazil, Turkey and Vietnam between 2015 and 2017.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Participants were infertile women between 22 and 46 years old in their first in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle of standard ovarian stimulation with exogenous gonadotropins whose baseline ovarian reserves had been assessed by both AFC and AMH. Details of pre- and post-treatment findings were input into a coded research file. Two indicators of interest were created to classify patients according to the POSEIDON criteria based upon AFC and AMH values. Patients who did not fit any of the four POSEIDON groups were classified as non-POSEIDON. AFC was determined in the early follicular phase using two-dimensional (2D) transvaginal ultrasonography, whereas AMH values were based on the modified Beckman Coulter generation II enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Agreement rates were computed between AFC and AMH to classify patients using Cohen's kappa statistics. Logistic regression analyzes were carried out to examine the association between ovarian markers and low (<4) and suboptimal (4-9) oocyte yield.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

The degree of agreement in classifying patients according to POSEIDON groups was strong overall (kappa = 0.802; 95% CI: 0.792-0.811). A total of 73.8% of individuals were classified under the same group using both biomarkers. The disagreement rates were ∼26% and did not diverge when AFC or AMH was used as the primary biomarker criterion. Significant regression equations were found between ovarian markers and oocyte yield (P < 0.0001). For low oocyte yield, the optimal AFC and AMH cutoff values were 5 and 1.27 ng/ml with sensitivities of 0.61 and 0.66, specificities of 0.81 and 0.72, and AUC receiver operating characteristics of 0.791 and 0.751, respectively. For suboptimal oocyte yield respective AFC and AMH cutoffs were 12 and 2.97 ng/ml with sensitivities of 0.74 and 0.69, specificities of 0.76 and 0.66 and AUCs of 0.81 and 0.80.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Our study relied on 2D transvaginal sonography to quantify the AFC and manual Gen II assay for AMH determination and classification of patients. AMH data must be interpreted in an assay-specific manner. Treatment protocols varied across centers potentially affecting patient classification.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Three of four patients will be classified the same using either AFC or AMH values. Both biomarkers provide acceptable and equivalent accuracy in predicting oocyte yield further supporting their use and proposed thresholds in daily clinical practice for patient classification according to the POSEIDON criteria. However, the sensitivity of POSEIDON thresholds in predicting low oocyte yield is low. Clinicians should adopt the biomarker that may best reflect their clinical setting.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

Unrestricted investigator-sponsored study grant (MS200059_0013) from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. The funder had no role in study design, data collection, analysis, decision to publish or manuscript preparation. S.C.E. declares receipt of unrestricted research grants from Merck and lecture fees from Merck and Med.E.A. H.Y. declares receipt of payment for lectures from Merck and Ferring. L.N.V. receives speaker fees and conferences from Merck, Merck Sharp and Dohme (MSD) and Ferring and research grants from MSD and Ferring. T.M.H. received speaker fees and conferences from Merck, MSD and Ferring. The remaining authors have nothing to disclose.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

not applicable.

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.

Ovarian follicular waves during the menstrual cycle: physiologic insights into novel approaches for ovarian stimulation

Elucidation of multiple waves of antral ovarian follicular development during the menstrual cycle has challenged traditional concepts of female reproductive physiology and foundations of assisted reproductive therapies. Approximately two-thirds of women develop two follicle waves throughout an interovulatory interval and the remainder exhibit three waves of follicle development. Major and minor waves of follicle development have been observed. Major waves are those in which a dominant follicle develops; dominant follicles either regress or ovulate. In minor waves, physiologic selection of a dominant follicle is not manifest. Knowledge of waves of antral follicular development has led to the global adoption of novel ovarian stimulation strategies in which stimulation can be initiated at various times throughout the cycle. Random-start and luteal-phase ovarian stimulation regimens have had important clinical applications for women requiring urgent oocyte or embryo cryopreservation for fertility preservation prior to chemotherapy. Ovarian stimulation twice in the same cycle, referred to as double stimulation, may be used to optimize clinical outcomes in women with a poor ovarian response to stimulation as well as in those requiring fertility preservation before chemotherapy.

Improving Reporting of Clinical Studies Using the POSEIDON Criteria: POSORT Guidelines

The POSEIDON (Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number) criteria were developed to help clinicians identify and classify low-prognosis patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) and provide guidance for possible therapeutic strategies to overcome infertility. Since its introduction, the number of published studies using the POSEIDON criteria has increased steadily. However, a critical analysis of existing evidence indicates inconsistent and incomplete reporting of critical outcomes. Therefore, we developed guidelines to help researchers improve the quality of reporting in studies applying the POSEIDON criteria. We also discuss the advantages of using the POSEIDON criteria in ART clinical studies and elaborate on possible study designs and critical endpoints. Our ultimate goal is to advance the knowledge concerning the clinical use of the POSEIDON criteria to patients, clinicians, and the infertility community.

Prospects of Germline Nuclear Transfer in Women With Diminished Ovarian Reserve

Diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) is associated with a reduced quantity and quality of the retrieved oocytes, usually leading to poor reproductive outcomes which remain a great challenge for assisted reproduction technology (ART). Women with DOR often have to seek for oocyte donation, precluding genetically related offspring. Germline nuclear transfer (NT) is a novel technology in ART that involves the transfer of the nuclear genome from an affected oocyte/zygote of the patient to the cytoplast of an enucleated donor oocyte/zygote. Therefore, it offers opportunities for the generation of genetically related embryos. Currently, although NT is clinically applied only in women with serious mitochondrial DNA disorders, this technology has also been proposed to overcome certain forms of female infertility, such as advanced maternal age and embryo developmental arrest. In this review, we are proposing the NT technology as a future treatment option for DOR patients. Strikingly, the application of different NT strategies will result in an increase of the total number of available reconstituted embryos for DOR patients.

How effective are the non-conventional ovarian stimulation protocols in ART? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness of starting the ovarian stimulation on the early follicular phase ("Conventional") with the newer range of non-conventional approaches starting in the luteal phase ("Luteal"), random-start, and studies implementing them in DuoStim ("Conventional"+"Luteal").

METHODS

Systematic review. We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, and Embase, on March 2020. We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials that compared "Luteal," random-start ovarian stimulation or DuoStim with "Conventional"; we analyzed them by subgroups: oocyte freezing and patients undergoing ART treatments, both, in the general infertile population and among poor responders.

RESULTS

The following results come from a sensitivity analysis that included only the low/moderate risk of bias studies. When comparing "Luteal" to "Conventional," clinically relevant differences in MII oocytes were ruled out in all subgroups. We found that "Luteal" probably increases the COH length both, in the general infertile population (OR 2.00 days, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.19, moderate-quality evidence) and in oocyte freezing cycles (MD 0.85 days, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.18, moderate-quality evidence). When analyzing DuoStim among poor responders, we found that it appears to generate a higher number of MII oocytes in comparison with a single "Conventional" (MD 3.35, 95%CI 2.54-4.15, moderate-quality evidence).

CONCLUSION

Overall, this systematic review of the available data demonstrates that in poor responders, general infertile population and oocyte freezing for cancer stimulation in the late follicular and luteal phases can be utilized in non-conventional approaches such as random-start and DuoStim cycles, offering similar outcomes to the conventional cycles but potentially with increased flexibility, within a reduced time frame. However, more well-designed trials are required to establish certainty.

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.

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.

The Conundrum of Poor Ovarian Response: From Diagnosis to Treatment

Despite recent striking advances in assisted reproductive technology (ART), poor ovarian response (POR) diagnosis and treatment is still considered challenging. Poor responders constitute a heterogeneous cohort with the common denominator of under-responding to controlled ovarian stimulation. Inevitably, respective success rates are significantly compromised. As POR pathophysiology entails the elusive factor of compromised ovarian function, both diagnosis and management fuel an ongoing heated debate depicted in the literature. From the criteria employed for diagnosis to the plethora of strategies and adjuvant therapies proposed, the conundrum of POR still puzzles the practitioner. What is more, novel treatment approaches from stem cell therapy and platelet-rich plasma intra-ovarian infusion to mitochondrial replacement therapy have emerged, albeit not claiming clinical routine status yet. The complex and time sensitive nature of this subgroup of infertile patients indicates the demand for a consensus on a horizontally accepted definition, diagnosis and subsequent effective treating strategy. This critical review analyzes the standing criteria employed in order to diagnose and aptly categorize POR patients, while it proceeds to critically evaluate current and novel strategies regarding their management. Discrepancies in diagnosis and respective implications are discussed, while the existing diversity in management options highlights the need for individualized management.

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.

Fertility preservation in borderline ovarian tumor patients and survivors

Borderline ovarian tumors (BOTs) represent around 15% of all epithelial ovarian cancer. Around one third of those patients is under 40 and has not completed childbearing when the tumor is diagnosed. Cancer survivors are more and more concerned about their future fertility since a large proportion of those with BOTs are young. Whatever the tumor stage, information regarding future fertility after treatment and fertility preservation (FP) options must be delivered to all patients before treatment. A multidisciplinary team will discuss and propose personalized treatment and FP strategies. Nowadays, the FP options offered to patients with BOT are the followings: i) minimal invasive conservative surgery, ii) oocyte cryopreservation after controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) or in vitro maturation (IVM) and iii) ovarian tissue cryopreservation. Generally, the most common strategy to preserve future fertility is represented by minimal invasive conservative surgery. However, with the remarkable success and evolution of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) - notably progress and efficiency in COS and oocyte vitrification - have led to offer another potential approach for FP consisting in oocyte cryopreservation. Several COS protocols, such as random start or dual stimulation associating tamoxifen or aromatase inhibitors with gonadotropins provide similar results when compared to standard protocols while providing safety by minimizing the risk of high estrogen exposure. When COS is contraindicated, oocyte cryopreservation can still be possible throw IVM. Even though, oocyte competence after IVM is lower than that obtained after COS. A less used approach is cryopreservation of ovarian tissue, consisting in freezing ovarian cortex fragments for a future thawing and graft. Some concerns and limitations regard the ovarian cortex graft and the risk of reintroducing malignant cells once performed. Nonetheless, the latter it is the only option in prepubertal patients.

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 INTERESTS

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 at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.) †ESHRE Pages content is not externally peer reviewed. The manuscript has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

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.

Assessing the practice of LuPOR for poor responders: a prospective study evaluating follicular fluid cfDNA levels during natural IVF cycles

PURPOSE

The aim of this study is to provide data on the practice of Luteal Phase Oocyte Retrieval (LuPOR). The authors assess cell-free DNA levels in follicular fluid (ff cfDNA) from poor responders undergoing natural cycles, and comparing it to respective data originating from follicular phase oocyte retrievals.

METHODS

Forty-seven women were eligible for this prospective study. Participants were classified as poor responders based on Bologna criteria while being detected with a second follicular wave. Follicular fluid was collected and prepared for cfDNA extraction. Levels of cfDNA were quantified via Q-PCR employing the ALU115 and ALU247 primers. These primers are associated with apoptotic and necrotic events. Levels of ff cfDNA resulting from follicular phase oocyte retrieval (FoPOR) and LuPOR-performed in a single menstrual cycle were associated with the number and maturation status of yielded oocytes and the number and fertilization status of resulting zygotes. Survival rate following thawing of cryopreserved zygotes, along with the resulting number of cleavage stage and blastocyst stage embryos are provided.

RESULTS

Mean levels of ALU115 were significantly lower during FoPOR when compared to LuPOR (0.79 ± 0.72 vs 1.46 ± 1.59 ng/μl, p = 0.02). Regarding the FoPOR group, a significant positive correlation of serum estradiol and ALU115 concentration (p = 0.04) was revealed. A significant negative correlation between serum estradiol and cfDNA integrity was observed both during FoPOR (p = 0.03) and LuPOR (p = 0.03). A significant lower number of retrieved (1.09 ± 0.28 vs 1.29 ± 0.58, p = 0.02) and MII oocytes (0.77 ± 0.55 vs 1.08 ± 0.61, p = 0.02) was observed when comparing the FoPOR to LuPOR groups respectively. The integrity of cfDNA was observed to be higher in FoPOR originating embryos that arrested either prior to cleavage (0.28 ± 0.13 vs 0.17 ± 0.10, p = 0.006) or prior to blastocyst formation (0.28 ± 0.12 vs 0.13 ± 0.06, p = 0.04). In the case of LuPOR originating embryos, cfDNA integrity was observed to be higher in embryos that arrested only prior to the blastocyst stage (0.27 ± 0.20 vs 0.11 ± 0.07, p = 0.008). Similarly, cfDNA integrity was observed to be lower in top quality blastocysts originating from FoPOR (0.07 ± 0.04 vs 0.17 ± 0.05, p = 0.03) and in top quality cleavage stage embryos (0.09 ± 0.06 vs 0.31 ± 0.22, p = 0.01) and blastocysts (0.06 ± 0.02 vs 0.14 ± 0.06, p = 0.02) originating from LuPOR.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that ff originating from LuPOR presents with higher levels of cfDNA. The higher cfDNA levels are attributed to mainly apoptotic events, as the ALU247 levels and DNA integrity did not differ statistically significantly between FoPOR and LuPOR. The absolute mean level of ALU247 corresponding to necrotic events was higher in LuPOR. Regarding embryological data, cfDNA integrity was correlated with both number and quality of cleavage stage embryos in both FoPOR and LuPOR, along with blastocyst stage embryos in LuPOR. Necrotic events were associated with poorer blastocyst formation rate and blastocyst quality in LuPOR. As the comparison between FoPOR and LuPOR results to similar IVF laboratory data, the practice of LuPOR may stand as a promising approach for poor responders, while it merits further investigation.

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.

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.