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

Ovarian stimulation by promoting basal follicular growth

BACKGROUND

Most methods of ovarian stimulation rely on gonadotropin modulation. However, abnormal anti-Müllerian hormone concentrations are frequent in infertility, suggesting that defects in the gonadotropin-independent period of folliculogenesis preceding cyclic recruitment (i.e., basal follicular growth) may often occur. We need to better understand basal follicular growth and determine how to improve it.

METHODS

Section I summarizes a literature search concerning preantral and early antral folliculogenesis, cyclic recruitment, and selection. Section II presents current knowledge about interventions involving early antral folliculogenesis and cyclic recruitment.

RESULTS

While folliculogenesis following cyclic recruitment is gonadotropin-dependent, basal follicular growth is not. Basal follicular growth is regulated by follicle-stimulating hormone and local communication between the oocyte and its granulosa and thecal cells involving gap junctions and many autocrine/paracrine factors. This local communication sustains growth synergistically with follicle-stimulating hormone, but also suppresses this hormone to induce granulosa cell differentiation. As a follicle develops, its responsiveness to gonadotropin progressively increases. Section II describes 4 interventions affecting early antral folliculogenesis, including granulocyte colony-stimulating factor priming, bromocriptine rebound, carbohydrate metabolism intervention, and danazol priming, which have improved embryo development and live birth rate in patients with previous failures.

CONCLUSION

Basal follicular growth modulation can increase live birth rates.

Therapeutic management in women with a diminished ovarian reserve: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

IMPORTANCE

The clinical management of women with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) is a challenge in the field of medically assisted reproduction. Several therapeutic strategies have been proposed, but with mixed results, mainly because the definition of DOR used was inconsistent among trials.

OBJECTIVE

To investigate adjuvant treatments and protocols involving only women with DOR according to POSEIDON (Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number) criteria.

DATA SOURCES

We conducted a systematic search using the MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, and ISI Web of Knowledge databases to identify relevant studies published up to June 2024.The review protocol was registered at http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ (registration number: CRD42022346117).

STUDY SELECTION AND SYNTHESIS

After duplication removal, the titles and abstracts of 4,806 articles were scrutinized, and 124 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. In total, 38 randomized controlled trials were included in the qualitative/quantitative analysis. The following interventions were evaluated: dehydroepiandrosterone (n = 1,336); testosterone (n = 418); high- vs. low-dose gonadotropin (n = 957); delayed-start protocol with gonadotropin hormone-releasing hormone antagonist (n = 398); letrozole (n = 612); clomiphene citrate (1,113); growth hormone (311); luteal phase stimulation (n = 57); dual triggering (n = 139); dual stimulation (168); luteinizing hormone (979); oestradiol pretreatment (n = 552); and corifollitropin alfa (n = 561).

MAIN OUTCOMES

The primary outcome was live birth rate or ongoing pregnancy if data on live birth were unavailable. Secondary outcomes were number of oocytes retrieved, number of metaphase II oocytes, clinical pregnancy rate and miscarriage rate.

RESULTS

Testosterone supplementation is associated with higher live birth rates compared with nonsupplemented women among all interventions evaluated (odds ratio: 2.19, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.11-4.32, four studies, 368 patients). Testosterone (weighted mean difference [WMD] 0.88, 95% CI: 0.03-1.72; 4 studies, n = 368 patients), dehydroepiandrosterone (WMD 0.60, 95% CI: 0.07-1.13; 4 studies, n = 418 patients), and delayed started protocol (WMD 1.32, 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.89; 3 studies, n = 398 patients) significantly improved the total number of eggs collected. Lower number of oocytes retrieved is achieved in women undergoing low dose gonadotropin regimen vs high dose (WMD: -1.57, 95% CI: -2.12 to -1.17; 2 studies, n = 905 patients), The other interventions did not produce significant improvements.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE

Specific interventions such as testosterone seem to correlate with a better live birth rate in women with DOR; these findings should be further explored in randomized trials.

Surfing follicular waves in ovarian stimulation: is there a role for LH in DuoStim protocols? A narrative review and SWOT analysis

IVF treatments should be personalized to collect an appropriate number of oocytes, taking into account the woman's age and ovarian reserve, in order to maximize the efficacy and efficiency of the IVF process. From a scientific perspective, the 'continuous recruitment theory' suggests that several follicular waves are continuously recruited to grow and regress throughout one ovarian cycle. Clinically, this approach has paved the way for the theorization of a double stimulation protocol back-to-back in the same ovarian cycle (DuoStim) to rescue anovulatory waves. This protocol has been successfully adopted by several independent groups in the last decade to improve the number of oocytes in a short timeframe. Although the published data are promising for treating patients of advanced maternal age with reduced ovarian reserve and poor oocyte/embryo competence, the protocols adopted vary across studies. In this challenging population, choosing the appropriate protocol in the DuoStim context is critical to maximize the ovarian response and exploit the potential of individual follicular waves. In this regard, the administration of luteinizing hormone (LH) could be relevant to promote steroidogenesis and folliculogenesis, increase androgen production, improve pre-antral and antral follicle recruitment, and enhance the expression of follicle-stimulating hormone receptors in the granulosa cells. This review presents a step-by-step outline of all DuoStim protocols and proposes a SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, threats) analysis of LH administration in the context of DuoStim.

Smaller follicle diameter improves outcomes in natural LPOS: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to investigate the optimal follicular diameter at the initiation of luteal-phase ovarian stimulation (LPOS) protocol after natural ovulation to achieve better laboratory outcomes.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed 286 in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles in patients who began the LPOS protocol after natural ovulation. Patients were categorized into three groups based on follicle diameter at initiation: small diameter follicles (SDF, < 5 mm, n = 74), medium diameter follicles (MDF, 5.0-7.9 mm, n = 140), and large diameter follicles (LDF, ≥ 8 mm, n = 72). Linear regression analysis was used to assess the relationship between initial follicle diameter and laboratory outcomes.

RESULT

Significant differences were noted in anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), body mass index (BMI), and initial gonadotropin (Gn) dose among the groups. Primary outcomes included oocyte retrieval rate (SDF vs. MDF vs. LDF: 0.92 ± 0.88 vs. 0.68 ± 0.48 vs. 0.58 ± 0.54, p = 0.004), mature oocyte retrieval rate (0.78 ± 0.74 vs. 0.58 ± 0.43 vs. 0.51 ± 0.50, p = 0.01), and 2PN rate (0.58 ± 0.68 vs. 0.44 ± 0.40 vs. 0.36 ± 0.43, p = 0.03) in the SDF group were significantly higher than those in the MDF and LDF groups. Multivariate regression analysis, adjusting for potential confounders such as age, AMH levels, baseline follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels, BMI, and initial Gn dosage, revealed negative correlations between the initial follicle diameter and oocyte retrieval rate (p = 0.02), mature oocyte retrieval rate (p = 0.02), and 2PN rate (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Oocyte retrieval rate, mature oocyte retrieval rate, and 2PN rate decreased significantly with increasing follicle diameter at the initiation of LPOS. The optimal laboratory outcome was achieved with an initial follicle diameter of less than 5 mm.

Successful Fertility Preservation in a Case of Low-Grade Endometrial Stromal Sarcoma: A Multidisciplinary Approach Through the Oncofertility Network

Low-grade endometrial stromal sarcoma (LGESS) is a rare disease, accounting for less than 1% of all uterine malignancies. Standard treatment is total hysterectomy and bilateral tubal oophorectomy, although fertility preservation may be desirable because of the young age of onset. We document a case of fertility preservation in a 27-year-old nulligravida diagnosed with LGESS, which not only enabled the successful birth of two live infants but also underscores the efficacy of a multidisciplinary approach to patient treatment through the Hyogo Oncofertility Network (HOF-net). The patient underwent laparoscopic removal of a lesion initially suspected to be either a uterine myoma or an adnexal tumor. Through the HOF-net, a pioneering collaboration among patients, oncologists, and fertility specialists, she was connected to our department with the aim of achieving pregnancy in the future, even amidst her cancer diagnosis. Following the surgery, and during a medically advised period of contraception, assisted reproductive technology with the double stimulation (DuoStim) method was utilized to cryopreserve six embryos, followed by high-dose progestin therapy to mitigate the risk of cancer recurrence. Once the contraceptive mandate had been concluded, the implantation of the first thawed embryo during a hormone replacement cycle led to a viable pregnancy and the subsequent birth of a healthy child by cesarean section. Similarly, during the contraceptive period, after undergoing high-dose progestin therapy, a second thawed embryo transfer was performed, resulting in a successful pregnancy and the birth of a second child. Subsequently, she underwent a total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingectomy with preservation of both ovaries at another hospital 39 months after the initial surgery. No recurrence or residual disease was observed. The necessity for comprehensive informed consent was underscored by the potential for LGESS recurrence. Furthermore, the efficient coordination facilitated by the HOF-net enabled swift access to assisted reproductive services, aligning with the patient's primary healthcare plan. This case highlights the critical role of early engagement with assisted reproductive technologies and a multidisciplinary treatment strategy in facilitating successful outcomes for patients with LGESS, demonstrating the feasibility of fertility preservation in managing this condition.

Patients with low prognosis in ART: a Delphi consensus to identify potential clinical implications and measure the impact of POSEIDON criteria

BACKGROUND

Currently, there is no consensus on the optimal management of women with low prognosis in ART. In this Delphi consensus, a panel of international experts provided real-world clinical perspectives on a series of literature-supported consensus statements regarding the overall relevance of the POSEIDON criteria for women with low prognosis in ART.

METHODS

Using a Delphi-consensus framework, twelve experts plus two Scientific Coordinators discussed and amended statements and supporting references proposed by the Scientific Coordinators (Round 1). Statements were distributed via an online survey to an extended panel of 53 experts, of whom 36 who voted anonymously on their level of agreement or disagreement with each statement using a six-point Likert-type scale (1 = Absolutely agree; 2 = More than agree; 3 = Agree; 4 = Disagree; 5 = More than disagree; 6 = Absolutely disagree) (Round 2). Consensus was reached if > 66% of participants agreed or disagreed.

RESULTS

The extended panel voted on seventeen statements and subcategorized them according to relevance. All but one statement reached consensus during the first round; the remaining statement reached consensus after rewording. Statements were categorized according to impact, low-prognosis validation, outcomes and patient management. The POSEIDON criteria are timely and clinically sound. The preferred success measure is cumulative live birth and key management strategies include the use of recombinant FSH preparations, supplementation with r-hLH, dose increases and oocyte/embryo accumulation through vitrification. Tools such as the ART Calculator and Follicle-to-Oocyte Index may be considered. Validation data from large, prospective studies in each POSEIDON group are now needed to corroborate existing retrospective data.

CONCLUSIONS

This Delphi consensus provides an overview of expert opinion on the clinical implications of the POSEIDON criteria for women with low prognosis to ovarian stimulation.

Patient experience of social and medical fertility preservation fully reimbursed in France

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to review patient experience with social fertility preservation (sFP), as compared to medical fertility preservation (mFP), in a context where sFP is fully reimbursed.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective cohort study involving patients who underwent oocyte cryopreservation for mFP between 2017 and 2023 and sFP between 2022 and 2023 at a large ART single center. Additionally, we surveyed patients undergoing sFP and mFP, regarding their experiences, intentions, awareness, and financial consideration.

RESULTS

A total of 97 oocyte retrievals were performed for sFP in 75 women, and 155 were performed in mFP (127 women). Median ages were 36.4 years for sFP and 28.9 years for mFP. Median oocytes retrieved per session were 10 for sFP and 8 for mFP. Ninety-seven percent of of mFP participants were informed by healthcare professionals, while half of sFP participants learned through personal acquaintances. The primary motivation for sFP was a desire for pregnancy while being single. Most respondents in both groups knew that 15-20 oocytes are typically needed for a successful birth. None were aware of the "DuoStim" option, but interest was expressed by most women. Surprisingly, despite full reimbursement for sFP in France, 78% expressed willingness to pay if necessary.

CONCLUSION

Many women choose sFP due to concerns about declining fertility, often informed by non-medical sources. Free access to sFP can help mitigate the global decline in natality by allowing women to anticipate age-related fertility decline. This study should be considered by other countries as they may increasingly cover sFP costs in the future.

Double versus single stimulation in young low prognosis patients followed by a fresh embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial (DUOSTIM-fresh)

STUDY QUESTION

Does double stimulation, followed by a fresh embryo transfer (DUOSTIM fresh) give a higher number of good-quality blastocysts as compared with a single stimulation in young low prognosis patients?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Compared to single stimulation, DUOSTIM fresh leads to a significantly higher number of good quality blastocysts, without hindering fresh embryo transfer outcomes.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

DUOSTIM (ovarian stimulation both in the follicular and luteal phase of the same cycle) is an innovative strategy to retrieve a higher number of oocytes in a shorter time frame, thus it is particularly appealing for poor ovarian responders. Three current limitations of dual stimulation are: (i) it is unclear whether outcomes of the second (luteal) wave result from the second stimulation, or a carry-over effect from previous follicular stimulation; (ii) the desynchronization between endometrium and ovaries and, (iii) lack of robust evidence. No previous studies explored DUOSTIM starting from the luteal phase, and with a fresh embryo transfer (DUOSTIM fresh).

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This study is a randomized, controlled, single-center, superiority clinical trial comparing two different ovarian stimulation protocols: a double stimulation cycle versus a single stimulation cycle followed by fresh embryo transfer. The primary outcome was the number of good quality blastocysts obtained, while secondary outcomes included results from fresh embryo transfer (clinical pregnancy, miscarriage). A total of 120 women were enrolled in this study between October 2020 and October 2022, with a 1:1 allocation.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Only young (<40 years old) low prognosis (anti-Müllerian hormone <1.2 ng/ml) patients were recruited in the Reproductive Medicine Department of Dexeus University Hospital. In the investigational group, DUOSTIM fresh, the first stimulation was initiated in the luteal phase (Day 18-21 cycle) followed by a second stimulation 5 days post first oocyte retrieval, initiated in the follicular phase and a fresh embryo transfer of the best blastocyst generated (first or second cycle). The control group performed a follicular phase single stimulation cycle with a fresh embryo transfer.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Overall, 107 patients were analyzed, 53 in the investigational (DUOSTIM fresh) and 54 in the control arm (single stimulation). DUOSTIM fresh resulted in a significantly higher number of good quality blastocysts as compared to single stimulation (difference of mean 0.81, 95% CI 0.12-1.49). The mean percentage of cycles with embryo transfer was comparable (62.3% and 51.9%, respectively for double versus single stimulation). No significant differences were found for clinical outcomes following fresh embryo transfer with an ongoing pregnancy rate of 24.5% for DUOSTIM fresh versus 22.2%, for conventional IVF. Of interest comparisons between different stimulation cycles (A: luteal-phase DUOSTIM fresh, B: follicular-phase DUOSTIM fresh, and C: single stimulation) did not demonstrate any significant difference in terms of ovarian response with the mean (SD) number of mature oocytes being (A: 3.3 (2.9), B: 3.4 (3.4), and C: 3.5 (2.9), respectively).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Study sample size was calculated to detect differences on the mean number of good quality blastocysts. Therefore, results for secondary outcomes (embryo transfer rates and clinical pregnancy rates) should be interpreted with caution as exploratory findings that deserve future investigations.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Although DUOSTIM fresh results in a higher number of blastocysts as compared with a single stimulation in young low prognosis patients, the decision of performing dual stim should be evaluated with caution, considering that whether this may improve embryo transfers rate and pregnancy outcomes is still unclear. Results on cumulative-live-birth-rate are warranted.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The study was an investigator-initiated study supported by an unrestricted grant by Organon. N.P.P. has received grants from Merck Serono, Organon, Ferring Pharmaceutical, Theramex, and Besins Healthcare. N.P.P. has received consulting fees from Merck Serono, Organon, Besins Healthcare, and IBSA. N.P.P. has received honoraria for lectures from Merck Serono, Organon, Theramex, Roche Diagnostics, IBSA, Besins Healthcare, and Ferring. A.R. has received Research grants, honoraria for lectures from Merck Serono, MSD/Organon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Besins International, IBSA, Guerbet. The other authors declare that there is no conflict of interest to disclose with respect to the content of this article.

TRIAL REGISTRATIO NUMBER

NCT04446845.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

25 June 2020.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT’S ENROLMENT

30 October 2020.

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.

Oocyte vitrification for fertility preservation is an evolving practice requiring a new mindset: societal, technical, clinical, and basic science-driven evolutions

Infertility is a condition with profound social implications. Indeed, it is not surprising that evolutions in both medicine and society affect the way in vitro fertilization is practiced. The keywords in modern medicine are the four principles, which implicitly involve a constant update of our knowledge and our technologies to fulfill the "prediction" and "personalization" tasks, and a continuous reshaping of our mindset in view of all relevant societal changes to fulfill the "prevention" and "participation" tasks. A worldwide aging population whose life priorities are changing requires that we invest in fertility education, spreading actionable information to allow women and men to make meaningful reproductive choices. Fertility preservation for both medical and nonmedical reasons is still very much overlooked in many countries worldwide, demanding a comprehensive update of our approach, starting from academia and in vitro fertilization laboratories, passing through medical offices, and reaching out to social media. Reproduction medicine should evolve from being a clinical practice to treat a condition to being a holistic approach to guarantee patients' reproductive health and well-being. Oocyte vitrification for fertility preservation is the perfect use case for this transition. This tool is acquiring a new identity to comply with novel indications and social needs, persisting technical challenges, brand-new clinical technologies, and novel revolutions coming from academia. This "views and reviews" piece aims at outlining the advancement of oocyte vitrification from all these tightly connected perspectives.

Luteal phase stimulation in double ovarian stimulation cycles is not affected by the follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) receptor genotype: double ovarian stimulation is beneficial independently of the genotype at position 680 of the follicle-stimulating hormone receptor

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether follicle-stimulating hormone receptor (FSHR) genotype influences the outcome of ovarian stimulation treatment in luteal phase.

METHODS

A total of 299 patients were included in a retrospective study between July 2017 and December 2021. These patients carried out a double stimulation protocol and the variant Asn680Ser (rs6166; c.2039A>G) of FSH receptor was genotyped either as part of the pre-treatment fertility tests or for the current study. Patients undergoing a double stimulation treatment who could not be genotyped were excluded from this analysis.

RESULTS

The results obtained from ovarian stimulation in luteal phase were better than those obtained in conventional follicular phase. Statistically significant differences ( P  < 0.001) were found in the number of retrieved oocytes (5.47 vs. 4.18), retrieved MII (4.52 vs. 3.29) and fertilised oocytes (3.81 vs. 2.20). Furthermore, these differences remained regardless of the FSH receptor genotype for the 680 position in all groups ( P  < 0.05). In addition, stimulation in luteal phase lasts longer and requires more gonadotropins than in follicular phase. This is especially noteworthy in patients with Ser/Ser genotype, who required a slightly higher dose of gonadotropins compared to other genotypes in luteal phase, as previously observed in the follicular phase for this genotype. No significant differences in age, anti-Müllerian hormone levels, antral follicle count, BMI and type of trigger used in luteal phase were observed among groups of patients with different FSH receptor genotypes.

CONCLUSION

All patients undergoing IVF seem to benefit from luteal phase ovarian stimulation, regardless of their FSHR genotype.

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.

Optimal timing to retrieve oocytes for fertility preservation in patients with acute myeloid leukemia: two cases of controlled ovarian stimulation using DuoStim with a literature review

Fertility preservation (FP) for hematological malignancies is difficult because immediate chemotherapy is needed after diagnosis. We report two cases of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treated with controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and oocyte cryopreservation using DuoStim after first-line chemotherapy. In Cases 1 and 2, COS and oocyte retrieval (OR) were performed using DuoStim 116 and 51 days after first-line chemotherapy, respectively, and 14 and 6 unfertilized oocytes, respectively, were cryopreserved. Another round of COS and OR was performed using the random-start method 82 days after first-line chemotherapy, and 22 unfertilized oocytes were cryopreserved. DuoStim is useful to maximize OR for patients with a short interval for FP. Many oocytes can be retrieved depending on the timing of recruitment from primary to secondary follicles, although ovarian reserve capacity declines immediately after first-line chemotherapy. Aggressive FP should be performed before allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation becomes necessary.

Optimizing the "Time to pregnancy" in women with multiple sclerosis: the OPTIMUS Delphi survey

Background

The debate on how to manage women affected by multiple sclerosis (MS) during reproductive age is still open, as is the issue of fertility in such patients. Main issue regard the identification of the optimal window for pregnancy and how to deal with medical therapy before and during conception. The aim of this Delphi consensus was to collect the opinions of a multidisciplinary group, involving reproductive medicine specialists and neurologists with experience in the management of multiple sclerosis women with reproductive desire.

Methods

Four experts plus scientific coordinators developed a questionnaire distributed online to 10 neurologists and later discussed the responses and amended a list of statements. The statements were then distributed via an online survey to 23 neurologists (comprising the first 10), who voted on their level of agreement/disagreement with each statement. Consensus was achieved if agreement or disagreement with a statement exceeded 66%.

Results

Twenty-one statements reached consensus after two rounds of voting, leading to the following main recommendations: (1) Fertility evaluation should be suggested to wMS, in case of the need to shorten time to pregnancy and before treatment switch in women on DMTs contraindicated in pregnancy, particularly in case of highly active disease and age > 35 years. (2) ART should not be discouraged in wMS, but the use of DMTs until pregnancy confirmation should be suggested; ART may be considered in order to reduce time to pregnancy in MS women with a reduced ovarian reserve and/or age > 35 years, but in case of an expected poor ART prognosis and the need for more than one ART cycle, a switch to a high-efficacy DMD before ART should be offered. (3) Oocyte cryopreservation may be considered in women with reduced ovarian reserve, with unpredictable time to complete diagnostic workup and achieve disease control; a risk/cost-benefit analysis must be performed in women >35 years, considering the diminished ovarian reserve.

Conclusion

This consensus will help MS neurologists to support family planning in wMS, respecting MS therapeutic needs while also taking into account the safety and impact of advancing age on fertility.

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.

Oocyte Cryopreservation for Medical and Planned Indications: A Practical Guide and Overview

Oocyte cryopreservation (OC) is the process in which ovarian follicles are stimulated, the follicular fluid is retrieved, and mature oocytes are isolated and vitrified. Since the first successful pregnancy utilizing previously cryopreserved oocytes in 1986, OC has become increasingly utilized as an option for future biologic children in patients facing gonadotoxic therapies, such as for the treatment of cancer. Planned OC, also termed elective OC, is growing in popularity as a means to circumvent age-related fertility decline. In this narrative review, we describe both medically indicated and planned OC, focusing on the physiology of ovarian follicular loss, OC technique and risks, timing of when OC should be performed, associated financial considerations, and outcomes.

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.

Retrospective study of influencing factors on the outcomes of luteal phase stimulation in patients with dual stimulation

Background

Dual/double stimulation (DS) is an ovarian stimulation strategy that has emerged in recent years; it is characterized by two rounds of ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval in the same menstrual cycle. DS can greatly shorten the time required to obtain valid embryos in assisted reproduction. For fertility preservation, DS can speed up oocyte storage process. However, factors influencing luteal phase ovarian stimulation (LPS) outcomes in DS have not been elucidated.

Methods

A total of 156 cycles from 78 cases were studied. Patients were grouped and analyzed according to their follicular phase ovarian stimulation (FPS) types. Female ages, ovarian stimulation protocols, number of oocytes retrieved, embryo quality were recorded. Comparisons of outcomes were conducted between different groups.

Results

Our study found that LPS obtained similar outcomes to follicular phase stimulation (FPS), and that the choice of FPS protocol affected the efficiency of LPS, the antagonist protocol and progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol resulted in better embryo outcomes in LPS. In LPS of DS, sufficient stimulation duration was the guarantee of embryo quality (number of available embryos: β = 0.145, 95% CI [0.078-0.211], P = 0.000; number of high-quality embryos: β = 0.114, 95% CI [0.057-0.171], P = 0.000).

Discussion

This study provided ideas for the precise use of DS. We suggest to further expand the sample size of DS in the future, conduct prospective controlled studies, unify the sample size of each subgroup, include the ovarian reserve of patients in the grouping basis, and exclude the influence of male factors. We hope that this study will help further refinement of DS so as to maximize patient benefits from it.

Conclusion

When the DS strategy is considered in the follicular phase, the antagonist protocol and PPOS protocol are more recommended for better embryo outcomes in LPS. During LPS, adequate ovarian stimulation duration is the most important guarantee for LPS efficiency.

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.

Pro: Fresh versus frozen embryo transfer. Is frozen embryo transfer the future?

Embryo cryopreservation has been an integral part of ART for close to 40 years and vitrification has boosted overall ART efficacy and safety. Recently, there has been a vivid scientific discussion on whether elective cryopreservation of all embryos (freeze-all) should be pursued for most patients, with a fresh embryo transfer taking place only in selected cases. In terms of efficacy, the available evidence suggests that the freeze-all strategy leads to higher live birth rates after the first embryo transfer compared to the conventional strategy in high responders, while there is no difference in normal responders. There is no evidence to suggest that the freeze-all strategy is inferior to the conventional strategy of fresh transfer when comparing cumulative live birth rates using data from all available randomized controlled trials. The incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is significantly reduced in the freeze-all policy. However, regarding obstetric complications and neonatal outcomes, the evidence suggests that each strategy is associated with certain risks and, therefore, there is no approach that could be unequivocally accepted as safer. Similarly, limited evidence does not support the notion that patients would be universally against freeze-all owing to the inevitable delay in pregnancy achievement. Finally, the cost-effectiveness of freeze-all is likely to vary in different settings and there have been studies supporting that this policy can be, under certain conditions, cost-effective. Adoption of the freeze-all policy can also allow for more flexible treatment strategies that have the potential to increase efficacy, reduce cost and make treatment easier for patients and clinics. Importantly, freeze-all does not require the use of any experimental technologies, further training of personnel or the costly acquisition of new equipment. For these reasons, transitioning to the freeze-all policy for most patients appears to be the next logical step in ART.

Second stimulation in the same ovarian cycle: an option to fully-personalize the treatment in poor prognosis patients undergoing PGT-A

PURPOSE

Our primary objective was to assess whether immediately undergoing a second stimulation in the same ovarian cycle (DuoStim) for advanced-maternal-age and/or poor-ovarian-reserve (AMA/POR) patients obtaining ≤ 3 blastocysts for preimplantation-genetic-testing-for-aneuploidies (PGT-A) is more efficient than the conventional-approach.

METHODS

All AMA/POR patients obtaining ≤ 3 blastocysts after conventional-stimulation between 2017 and 2019 were proposed DuoStim, and 143 couples accepted (DuoStim-group) and were matched for the main confounders to 143 couples who did not accept (conventional-group). GnRH-antagonist protocol with recombinant-gonadotrophins and agonist trigger, intra-cytoplasmatic-sperm-injection (ICSI) with ejaculated sperm, PGT-A and vitrified-warmed euploid single-blastocyst-transfer(s) were performed. The primary outcome was the cumulative-live-birth-delivery-rate per intention-to-treat (CLBdR per ITT) within 1 year. If not delivering, the conventional-group had 1 year to undergo another conventional-stimulation. A cost-effectiveness analysis was also conducted.

RESULTS

The CLBdR was 10.5% in the conventional-group after the first attempt. Only 12 of the 128 non-pregnant patients returned (165 ± 95 days later; drop-out = 116/128,90.6%), and 3 delivered. Thus, the 1-year CLBdR was 12.6% (N = 18/143). In the DuoStim-group, the CLBdR was 24.5% (N = 35/143; p = 0.01), 2 women delivered twice and 13 patients have other euploid blastocysts after a LB (0 and 2 in the conventional-group). DuoStim resulted in an incremental-cost-effectiveness-ratio of 23,303€. DuoStim was costlier and more effective in 98.7% of the 1000 pseudo-replicates generated through bootstrapping, and the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves unveiled that DuoStim would be more cost-effective than the conventional-approach at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 23,100€.

CONCLUSIONS

During PGT-A treatments in AMA/POR women, DuoStim can be suggested in progress to rescue poor blastocyst yields after conventional-stimulation. It might indeed prevent drop-out or further aging between attempts.

Why double ovarian stimulation in an in vitro fertilization cycle is potentially unsafe

The occurrence of two antral follicle recruitment waves in a single inter-ovulatory interval has been detected in ovaries of normal women. This data supports the claim that a double ovarian stimulation in the same cycle may benefit poor responder patients with an increased recovery of mature oocytes and good quality embryos per single cycle. The double stimulation protocol was the object of several published studies in which, surprisingly, the mechanism and the safety of the double stimulation in the same cycle were poorly addressed. We propose that in the double stimulation protocol, the first stimulation impacts more committed oocytes progenitors ready to differentiate into mature oocytes. Conversely, the protracted exposure of developmentally earlier less-committed ovarian stem cells to FSH, which occurs in the double stimulation protocol, impacts the less differentiated stem cells which take longer to differentiate into oocytes. The proposed mechanism has broad implications for the safety of the double stimulation strategy.

A Feasible Option before Cycle Cancellation for Poor Responders; STOP-START Protocol

Despite the advances in controlled ovarian stimulation (COS), management of a subgroup of poor ovarian responder patients may still be challenging. We describe a feasible and simplified protocol, namely the STOP-START protocol, for poor responders defined as Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing Individualize D Oocyte Number (POSEIDON) groups 3 and 4, who are unresponsive to COS with maximum dose gonadotrophins. Data of 11 women unresponsive to COS were reviewed. Mean age of the patients was 36.5 ± 6.0 years. Unresponsiveness was defined as no follicular growth >9 mm and/or estradiol level less than 40 pg/ml after a week of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH, 225-300 IU) administration. In that case, COS was stopped and each woman underwent weekly ultrasound assessment to catch a secondary follicular growth. All women showed at least one follicular growth within five to 20 days. Six women (54.5%) had spontaneous follicular growth and the other five required ovarian stimulation. At least one oocyte was retrieved from each one of seven patients (63.6%). The mean number of oocytes retrieved was 1.6 ± 1.4 and five women (45.5%) had at least one grade A embryo. Among all, two women became pregnant successfully and both gave live births (18.2%). In conclusion, STOP-START protocol may potentially be an effective, feasible, and time-saving management option for POSEIDON group 3/4 poor responders who are unresponsive to standard COS treatment with maximum dose gonadotrophins.

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 stimulation for fertility preservation in women with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis comparing random and conventional starts

OBJECTIVE

In female cancer patients anticipating chemotherapy or radiation, oocyte retrieval for fertility should be performed as efficiently as possible to avoid postponing cancer treatments. Our objective was to compare clinical outcomes among female cancer patients who underwent a conventional early follicular phase-start ovarian stimulation cycle and those who underwent a random-start ovarian stimulation cycle.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

A systematic review of the literature was performed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Medline, Embase.com, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Clinicaltrials.gov databases were searched to identify all original research published in English through July 2020 on the topic of female cancer patients undergoing ovarian stimulation with a random or conventional start. Studies lacking a comparison group or including women who had already undergone chemotherapy at the time of ovarian stimulation were excluded. The primary author assessed all identified article titles and abstracts, and two independent reviewers assessed full-text articles and extracted data. A meta-analysis with a random-effects model was used to calculate weighted mean differences (WMDs) for outcomes of interest. The primary outcome was the number of mature (meiosis II) oocytes retrieved. Secondary outcomes included duration of stimulation, total dose of gonadotropins, total number of oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate, and number of embryos or zygotes cryopreserved.

RESULTS

A total of 446 articles were screened, and 9 full-text articles (all retrospective cohort or prospective observational) were included for review. Additionally, pooled primary retrospective data from two institutions were included. In total, data from 10 studies including 1653 women were reviewed. Five studies reported the number of embryos cryopreserved, and four reported fertilization rates. Random-start cycles were slightly longer (WMD 0.57 days, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 0.0-1.14 days) and used more total gonadotropins (WMD 248.8 international units, 95 % CI 57.24-440.40) than conventional-start cycles. However, there were no differences in number of mature oocytes retrieved (WMD 0.41 oocytes, 95 % CI -0.84-1.66), number of total oocytes retrieved (WMD 0.90 oocytes, 95 % CI -0.21-2.02), fertilization rates (WMD -0.12, 95 % CI -1.22-0.98), or number of embryos cryopreserved (WMD 0.12 embryos, 95 %CI -0.98-1.22) between random-start and conventional-start cycles. All outcomes except for the parameter "total oocytes retrieved" yielded an I² of over 50 %, indicating substantial heterogeneity between studies.

CONCLUSION(S)

Although random-start cycles may entail a longer duration of stimulation and use more total gonadotropins than conventional-start cycles, the absolute differences are small and likely do not significantly affect treatment costs. The similar numbers of mature oocytes retrieved, fertilization rates, and number of embryos cryopreserved in the two start-types suggest that they do not differ in any clinically important ways. Given that random-start cycles can be initiated quickly, they may help facilitate fertility preservation for cancer patients.

A Feasible Option before Cycle Cancellation for Poor Responders; STOP-START Protocol

Despite the advances in controlled ovarian stimulation (COS), management of a subgroup of poor ovarian responder patients may still be challenging. We describe a feasible and simplified protocol, namely the STOP-START protocol, for poor responders defined as Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing Individualize D Oocyte Number (POSEIDON) groups 3 and 4, who are unresponsive to COS with maximum dose gonadotrophins. Data of 11 women unresponsive to COS were reviewed. Mean age of the patients was 36.5 ± 6.0 years. Unresponsiveness was defined as no follicular growth >9 mm and/or estradiol level less than 40 pg/ml after a week of recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH, 225-300 IU) administration. In that case, COS was stopped and each woman underwent weekly ultrasound assessment to catch a secondary follicular growth. All women showed at least one follicular growth within five to 20 days. Six women (54.5%) had spontaneous follicular growth and the other five required ovarian stimulation. At least one oocyte was retrieved from each one of seven patients (63.6%). The mean number of oocytes retrieved was 1.6 ± 1.4 and five women (45.5%) had at least one grade A embryo. Among all, two women became pregnant successfully and both gave live births (18.2%). In conclusion, STOP-START protocol may potentially be an effective, feasible, and time-saving management option for POSEIDON group 3/4 poor responders who are unresponsive to standard COS treatment with maximum dose gonadotrophins.

Oocyte cryopreservation - current scenario and future perspectives: A narrative review

Oocyte cryopreservation is a boon for women undergoing assisted reproductive technology. With the evolution in the technique of cryopreservation over the last three decades, there has been an exponential rise in the number of oocyte cryopreservation cycles for diverse indications. Apart from cancer patients, it has also been promoted as a mode of fertility insurance to overcome the age-related decline in fertility as well as post-surgical decline following endometriosis surgery. The objective of the review is to evaluate its clinical applications, ideal age at freezing, optimal oocyte number, freezing method of choice, efficacy, safety and recent advances. In the last decade, vitrification has surpassed slow freezing for oocyte cryopreservation. Although closed system of vitrification provides the aseptic environment, open vitrification is commonly followed in practice. Early to mid-thirties is a reasonable age group for planned oocyte cryopreservation, although it might be recommended at a younger age, in patients with diminished ovarian reserve. The patients should be motivated to preserve around 14–20 mature oocytes for successful live birth. Various studies have shown comparable fertilisation and pregnancy rates between Intracytoplasmic sperm injection with fresh and frozen-thawed oocytes. The available evidence has shown no increase in the incidence of congenital abnormalities in babies born through vitrified oocytes. In the future, image analysis using artificial intelligence, and spindle visualisation using poloscope may further enhance the outcome of oocyte cryopreservation.

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.