Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation is a feasible method for poor ovarian responders undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer treatment compared to a GnRH antagonist protocol: A retrospective study

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.

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 ).

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

Purpose

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

Methods

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

Results

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

Conclusions

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

The earlier the initiation of gonadotropin in poor responders in luteal phase stimulation protocols, the better

INTRODUCTION

Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation has been proved to be feasible for producing competent oocytes/embryos and achieving live births, yet there is no standardized stimulation protocol for luteal-phase ovarian stimulation (LPS). The aim of this study was to explore the optimal timing of gonadotropin initiation in the LPS protocol for poor ovarian responders.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study conducted in the reproductive medicine center of a tertiary hospital. A total of 327 poor responders fulfilling Bologna criteria underwent LPS with IVF/ICSI treatment. HMG and letrozole were administrated after ovulation. Patients were stratified into three groups according to the gonadotropin start day: early, early-mid, and mid-late luteal phase. A freeze-all strategy was performed for all cycles. The duration of ovarian stimulation, total gonadotropin dose, number of oocytes retrieved, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and live birth rate after frozen/thawed embryo transfer cycles were included for evaluation.

RESULTS

The group accepted ovarian stimulation in the earlier phase tended to have a shorter duration of ovarian stimulation [8 (7,10) in early luteal group, 9 (8,10.25) in early-mid luteal group, and 11 (10,12) in mid-late luteal group; P <0.001] and lower gonadotropin consumption [1993.35 ± 720.31, 2282.73 ± 703.38, and 2764.83 ± 722.26, respectively; P <0.001]. Logistic regression and multiple linear regression were used to assess the associations between the phase of gonadotropin initiation and duration of ovarian stimulation (or total gonadotropin dose) by adjusting for confounding factors. Compared with the early luteal group, longer ovarian stimulation(>9 days) was more likely to occur in the early-mid and mid-late luteal groups, with the adjusted odds ratios 0.584 (0.327-1.042) and 0.116 (0.049-0.271), respectively (P-trend<0.001). Delayed gonadotropin initiation showed an 113.200 IU increase (95%CI: 70.469, 155.930) per-day in the total gonadotropin dosage. Meanwhile, there were no significant differences in the mean number of oocytes, utilizable embryos, pregnancy outcomes among three groups.

CONCLUSION

Although the timing of gonadotropin initiation is not associated with pregnancy outcomes, earlier initiation of gonadotropin therapy after ovulation was associated with a shorter duration of ovarian stimulation and lower gonadotropin consumption in poor responders in LPS.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Outcomes of ovarian stimulation in the follicular and luteal phases of the menstrual cycle in cancer patients

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of controlled ovarian stimulation in different phases of the menstrual cycle in cancer patients seeking for the preservation of reproductive material before gonadotoxic therapy.

METHODS

A total of 140 patients with oncological diseases underwent ovarian stimulation in the standard protocol with GnRH antagonists in the follicular phase of the cycle (n = 68) and in the random-start protocol in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle without prescribing GnRH antagonists (n = 72).

RESULTS

All patients included in the study were comparable in age and AMH level. There were no differences in the mean number of oocytes retrieved in the follicular phase group, and luteal phase group. Similarly, no significant differences were observed in the number of M II oocytes.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the study demonstrate the equal effectiveness of stimulation protocols in different phases of the menstrual cycle, which allows us to develop a personalized approach to the implementation of reproductive function both in cancer patients and in the routine practice of ART.

Luteal Phase Ovarian Stimulation versus Follicular Phase Ovarian Stimulation results in different Human Cumulus cell genes expression: A pilot study

Background: Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation (LPOS) is an alternative in vitro fertilization (IVF) protocol. However, limited data showed the genes expression of cumulus cells (CCs) in LPOS. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate CC genes expression between LPOS and follicular-phase ovarian stimulation (FPOS) in poor ovarian responders (PORs) undergoing IVF cycles. Methods: This was a prospective non-randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03238833). A total of 36 PORs who met the Bologna criteria and underwent IVF cycles were enrolled. Fifteen PORs were allocated to the LPOS group, and 21 PORs were allocated to the FPOS group. The levels of CC genes involved in inflammation (CXCL1, CXCL3, TNF, PTGES), oxidative phosphorylation (NDUFB7, NDUFA4L2, SLC25A27), apoptosis (DAPK3, BCL6B) and metabolism (PCK1, LDHC) were analyzed using real-time quantitative PCR and compared between the two groups. Results: The number of retrieved oocytes, metaphase II oocytes, fertilized oocytes, day-3 embryos and top-quality day-3 embryos, clinical pregnancy rates and live birth rates were similar between the two groups except for significantly high progesterone levels in the LPOS group. The mRNA expression levels of CXCL1 (0.51 vs 1.00, p < 0.001) and PTGES (0.30 vs 1.00, p < 0.01) were significantly lower in the LPOS group than in the FPOS group. The LPOS group had significantly lower mRNA expression of NDUFB7 (0.12 vs 1.00, p < 0.001) and NDUFA4L2 (0.33 vs 1.00, p < 0.01) than the FPOS group. DAPK3 (3.81 vs 1.00, p < 0.05) and BCL6B (2.59 vs 1.00, p < 0.01) mRNA expression was significantly higher in the LPOS group than in the FPOS group. Increased expression of PCK1 (3.13 vs. 1.00, p < 0.001) and decreased expression of LDHC (0.12 vs. 1.00, p < 0.001) were observed in the LPOS group compared to the FPOS group. Conclusions: Our data revealed different CC genes expression involving in inflammation, oxidative phosphorylation, apoptosis and metabolism between LPOS and FPOS in PORs. However, the results are non-conclusive; further large-scale randomized controlled trials are needed to validate the results.

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.

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.

Cumulative live birth rate of advanced-age women more than 40 with or without poor ovarian response

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) per oocyte retrieval cycle and per patient in women over 40 years old undergoing IVF/ICSI treatments, stratified for age, ovarian response and oocyte retrieval cycle number.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

244 patients with poor ovarian response (POR) and 372 patients with normal ovarian response (NOR) were retrospectively investigated.

RESULTS

Of the patients aged 40 to 43 years, CLBR per oocyte retrieval cycle and per patient (4.3%; 8.8%) in POR group were both lower than those in NOR group (15.8%; 24.8%) (P < 0.01). No significant differences in live birth rate (LBR) per oocyte retrieval cycle or CLBR per patient were observed in the group of POR patients irrespective of oocyte retrieval cycles they underwent. Similarly, CLBR per patient in NOR group did not increase significantly with the oocyte retrieval cycle number. However, LBR per oocyte retrieval cycle in the first cycle (Cycle 1, 20.3%) was significantly higher than that in the second cycle (Cycle 2, 9.2%) and the third cycle (Cycle 3, 4.4%) (P < 0.01). And 94.8% (73/77) of live births were achieved during the first two cycles. Of the patients aged 44 to 45 years and over 45 years old, there were no significant differences in CLBR per oocyte retrieval cycle or per patient between POR and NOR groups.

CONCLUSION

Relatively higher cumulative live birth rate was only found in the patients aged 40 to 43 years without poor ovarian response. These findings may provide some information that further sub-classification of advance-age women according to ovarian response may help both clinicians and patients to balance decision-making about their infertility treatment.

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

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

Comparison of clinical outcomes among dual ovarian stimulation, mild stimulation and luteal phase stimulation protocols in women with poor ovarian response

This study aimed to determine whether consecutive ovarian stimulation in follicular and luteal phases within a single menstrual cycle (dual stimulation) is achievable and superior to conventional stimulation for poor ovarian responders (PORs). Data of 260 PORs were retrospectively collected and divided into three groups. Group A comprised of cycles with dual ovarian stimulation (n = 76), which were divided into two subgroups (follicular [group A-F] and luteal phase stimulation [group A-L]); group B comprised of cycles with ovarian stimulation that was performed only in the luteal phase (n = 52). Group C comprised of mild ovarian stimulation cycles (n = 132). Baseline parameters were not different among the three groups. The numbers of oocytes and embryo obtained were less in group A-F than group B and C, while group A overall had significantly more oocytes and viable embryo retrieved than did group B and C. Group A-L consumed significantly less gonadotropin than group B, without compromising the number of retrieved oocytes and embryo. The pregnancy outcomes of transfer of embryo from different stimulation phases were similar. We conclude that dual ovarian stimulation protocol is effective and potentially optimal for PORs.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier, NCT03238833.

Can ovarian double-stimulation in the same menstrual cycle improve IVF outcomes?

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the double-stimulation protocol efficacy over conventional ovarian stimulation in recovering a more adequate number of oocytes and increase the number of embryos to be transferred or to be genetically analyzed.

METHODS

A retrospective and comparative study with 13 patients who underwent unsuccessful in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles with a conventional antagonist ovarian stimulation protocol and repeat the attempt with a double stimulation protocol. The following variables were analyzed: number of oocytes collected, mature oocytes collected, fertilization rate, blastocyst rate, biopsied blastocyst rate and euploidy rate.

RESULTS

The double stimulation protocol had a significant higher number of oocytes collected (p=0.007) and mature oocytes to be injected (p=0.01). There was no statistically significant difference in fertilization (p=0.78) and blastocyst (p=0.59) rates.

CONCLUSION

Double stimulation favors patients who are at risk of incurring several attempts of IVF to achieve pregnancy.