Double stimulation in the same ovarian cycle (DuoStim) is an intriguing strategy to improve oocyte yield and the number of competent embryos in a short timeframe

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.

The impact of Duostim protocol on pregnancy outcomes in infertile patients: A meta-analysis comparing single and double conventional stimulation cycles

BACKGROUND

The DuoStim protocol has been proposed as an alternative to conventional single and double stimulation cycles in the treatment of infertility. However, its efficacy in improving pregnancy outcomes remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically evaluate the impact of the DuoStim protocol on pregnancy outcomes in infertile patients by comparing it with single and double conventional stimulation cycles.

METHODS

An online systematic search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE databases, covering the period from their inception to March 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the DuoStim protocol with single and double conventional stimulation cycles in infertile patients were identified. Data were extracted by two independent investigators who screened the literature and assessed the quality of the studies. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4 software.

RESULTS

A total of six RCTs involving 414 infertile patients were included. The DuoStim protocol significantly increased the total number of oocytes compared to single and double conventional stimulation (MD =  - 1.47; 95% CI, - 2.12 to - 0.82; P < 0.00001). There were no statistically significant differences in the number of MII oocytes, total embryos, pregnancy rate, and live birth rate. Subgroup Analysis: compared to single stimulation, the DuoStim protocol significantly increased the number of MII oocytes (MD = 1.71; 95% CI, 0.77 to 2.66; P = 0.0004) and total embryos (MD = 1.34; 95% CI, 0.61 to 2.08; P = 0.0003). There were no significant differences in pregnancy rate and live birth rate. Secondary outcomes showed the effect of the DuoStim protocol in patients undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A). The time to obtain euploid blastocysts was significantly reduced in the DuoStim group compared to the control group (23.3 ± 2.8 days vs. 44.1 ± 2.0 days; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The DuoStim protocol shows a significant advantage in increasing the total number of oocytes, MII oocytes, and embryos compared to single stimulation. However, it does not significantly improve pregnancy and live birth rates. The protocol also shortens the time to obtain euploid blastocysts in patients undergoing PGT-A, indicating potential benefits for specific patient groups. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and evaluate long-term outcomes. Thus, the quality of evidence should be considered moderate, warranting cautious interpretation of the results.

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.

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.

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.

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

AIM

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

METHODS

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

RECOMMENDATIONS

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

[Fertility preservation options before gonadotoxic antirheumatic treatment : A review]

Cyclophosphamide is still clinically used in rheumatic diseases with severe disease courses. Cyclophosphamide has a pronounced gonadotoxic effect largely depending on the cumulative dose. The risk of amenorrhea is reported to be in the range of 12-54% and is dependent on the age of the patient at initiation of treatment. Every patient of reproductive age should therefore be offered counseling on options for fertility protection. There are 3 options for fertility protection: oocyte harvesting and cryopreservation after a hormonal stimulation of 10-14 days, ovarian wedge resection and cryopreservation and administration of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist. The decision whether and, if so, which treatment should be performed is made in close consultation between the patient, rheumatologists and reproductive physicians and depends on the available treatment time window, the age of the patient and the severity of the underlying disease.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

When Should We Freeze Embryos? Current Data for Fresh and Frozen Embryo Replacement IVF Cycles

Recent years have seen a dramatic rise in the number of frozen-thawed embryo replacement (FER) cycles. Along with the advances in embryo cryopreservation techniques, the optimization of endometrial receptivity has resulted in outcomes for FER that are similar to fresh embryo transfer. However, the question of whether the Freeze all strategy is for all is nowadays a hot topic. This review addresses this issue and describes current evidence based on randomized controlled trials and observational studies. To date, it is reasonable to perform FER in cases with a clear indication for the benefits of such strategy including impending ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) or preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A); however, this strategy does not fit for all. This review analyses the pros and cons of the freeze all strategy highlighting the need to follow a personalized plan in embryo transfer, avoiding a freeze all methodology for all patients in an unselected manner.

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.

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

PURPOSE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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.

Update on the management of poor ovarian response in IVF: the shift from Bologna criteria to the Poseidon concept

Despite the considerate progress to which assisted reproduction technology (ART) has been subject since 1978, some issues remain unresolved. Notably, the clinical management of patients with a poor ovarian response is still a challenge in everyday practice, frustrating to both the patient and the fertility expert. Poor ovarian responders (PORs) embody 9–24% of patients undergoing ovarian stimulation, meaning that up to one in four patients conceals a poor reproductive prognosis. The last decade has witnessed the attempts of the medical community to standardize diagnosis of POR with the developing of the Bologna Criteria and the subsequent evolution of the low prognosis patient elaborated in the POSEIDON classification. The aim of this article is to summarize all evidence concerning etiology and management of poor ovarian response, including the most recent advances and future prospects in this regard.

Reproductive outcomes after in vitro fertilization treatment in a cohort of Danish women transplanted with cryopreserved ovarian tissue

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate ovarian stimulation regimens and reproductive outcomes in a cohort of women undergoing ovarian tissue cryopreservation (OTC) and ovarian tissue transplantation (OTT).

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

University hospital and fertility clinics.

PATIENTS

Twenty-eight women undergoing OTT and in vitro fertilization (IVF) from 2012 to 2017.

INTERVENTION

OTC, OTT, and IVF.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Ovarian stimulation and IVF outcomes.

RESULTS

In total, 99 cycles were performed in 28 patients. In 19 patients responding to stimulation, a median of 3.0 cycles per patient (range: 1-14 cycles) was performed, and 2.0 mature oocytes were retrieved per cycle. The empty follicle rate was 35.9%. Eleven women achieved 15 pregnancies, of which 60% were lost during the first or second trimester, resulting in 5 of 28 women having ≥1 live births, and seven healthy children being born. In breast cancer patients (mean age at OTC: 33.0 years), the pregnancy rates (PR) and live birth rates (LBR) were 35.0% and 5.0% per embryo transfer, respectively. Patients aged ≥34.5 years at OTC all had breast cancer and did not achieve any pregnancies. For all other diagnoses (mean age at OTC: 26.6 years), PR and LBR were 50.0% and 37.5% per embryo transfer, respectively. Collectively, 39% of patients conceived at least once, and 17.9% delivered. Frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) resulted in more pregnancies than did fresh embryo transfer.

CONCLUSION

Our results suggest that women of advanced maternal age undergoing OTC and IVF have a poor ovarian reserve, resulting in a poor reproductive outcome. Interestingly, FET appeared to be superior to fresh transfer.

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.

What Is the Best Regimen for Ovarian Stimulation of Poor Responders in ART/IVF?

The infertile patients with aging ovaries-also sometimes referred to as impending premature ovarian insufficiency (POI), impending premature ovarian failure (POF), or poor ovarian responders (POR), constitute a significant and increasing bulk of the patients appealing to IVF/ART. Different causes have been cited in the literature, among the identified etiologies, including chromosomal and genetic etiology, metabolic, enzymatic, iatrogenic, toxic, autoimmune, and infectious causes. Although the most successful and ultimate treatment of POI/POF/POR patients is egg donation (ED), many, if not most, of these infertile women are reluctant to consent to ED upon the initial diagnostic interview, requesting alternative solutions despite the low odds for success. Despite anecdotal case reports, no unequivocal treatment proved to be successful for these patients in prospective randomized controlled trials. Nevertheless, the addition of growth hormone (GH) to ovarian stimulation in POR with GH deficiency may improve the results of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) and the IVF success. In patients with autoimmune etiology for POR/POI, the combination of glucocorticosteroids, pituitary-ovarian suppression, and COH may be successful in achieving the desired conception.

Management Strategies for POSEIDON Group 2

Although individualization of ovarian stimulation aims at maximal efficacy and safety in assisted reproductive treatments, in its current form it is far from ideal in achieving the desired success in women with a low prognosis. This could be due a failure to identify such women who are likely to have a low prognosis with currently used prognostic characteristics. Introduction of the patient-oriented strategies encompassing individualized oocyte number (POSEIDON) concept reinforces recognizing such low prognosis groups and stratifying in accordance with important prognostic factors. The POSEIDON concept provides a practical approach to the management of these women and is a useful tool for both counseling and clinical management. In this commentary, we focus on likely management strategies for POSEIDON group 2 criteria.