DuoStim: a new strategy proposed for women with poor ovarian response

The efficacy of platelet rich plasma on women with poor ovarian response: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) is a therapeutic approach that is gaining attention for its potential in the treatment of poor ovarian response. This meta-analysis aimed to systematically review and analyze clinical studies to evaluate the impact of PRP on poor responders undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF.

METHODS

A comprehensive search was conducted in electronic databases, including PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant studies published in English. The pooled data, such as pregnancy outcome, number of MII oocytes, number of transferable embryos, and ovarian reserve markers were analyzed using R version 4.2.3.

RESULTS

A total of 10 trials were enrolled in the present meta-analysis. Following PRP treatment, live birth rate was found to be 16.6% (95% CI 8.8%-26.1%), while clinical pregnancy rate was observed to be 25.4% (95% CI 13.1%-39.9%). PRP pretreatment resulted in a higher number of MII oocytes (MD 1.073, 95% CI 0.720 to 1.427), a higher number of embryos (MD 0.946, 95% CI 0.569 to 1.323), a higher antral follicle count (MD 1.117; 95% CI 0.689 to 1.544), and the change of hormone levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the studies evaluated in this review, PRP showed promising results in poor responder. Further research is required to clarify the potential role of PRP in female reproductive health.

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 ).

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

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

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.

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.