Search

Purpose: This study is to evaluate the effectiveness of a PPOS protocol in poor prognosis patients undergoing IVF with DuoStim and PGT-A versus the conventional protocol with GnRH antagonist. Methods: Retrospective cohort study encompassing 444 couples obtained matching one PPOS-DuoStim with two antagonist-DuoStim cycles at a private IVF center between 2020 and 2023 (average maternal age: 40 years, average cumulus–oocyte complexes collected after the first stimulation: 5). The study was powered to exclude a two-sided different euploid blastocyst rate per MII oocytes (EBR per MII) in the two groups (alpha = 0.05, power = 0.9, effect size = 0.3). All cycles involved ICSI, blastocyst stage PGT-A, and single vitrified-warmed euploid transfers. We compared all embryological and clinical outcomes within each group (first vs. second stimulations), and among the two study arms (first stimulation vs. first stimulation; second stimulations vs. second stimulation; overall). The overall EBR per MII was the primary study outcome. The cumulative-live-birth-rate per concluded cycles (CLBR) was the main secondary outcome. Results: In the second stimulations, we obtained a greater number of COCs and MIIs in both antagonist- and PPOS-DuoStim groups. No difference was observed for all embryological and clinical outcomes when comparing the two stimulations within each group. All embryological and clinical outcomes were comparable also between the two groups, including the EBR per MII. To date, 285 and 121 antagonist- and PPOS-DuoStim cycles were concluded. The CLBR was comparable between the groups: 26% vs. 29%. Conclusions: PPOS-DuoStim holds potential for being an efficient, patient-friendly, and possibly cost-effective approach that does not compromise treatment efficacy. Future investigations must explore PPOS effect on follicular recruitment, neonatal, and long-term outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 (R 2: 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Double ovarian stimulation is one of the most used strategies in poor-prognosis patients. There is a high heterogeneity between the studies regarding the execution of this stimulation protocol. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the day on which luteal phase stimulation begins after the first oocyte retrieval affects ovarian response in DuoStim cycles. Methods: This observational and retrospective study included 541 DuoStim cycles between January 2018 and December 2021 in a private fertility clinic. Patients were assigned to 4 groups according to the timing of the onset of luteal phase stimulation after oocyte retrieval (0-2nd day, 3rd day, 4th day and 5th-6th day). The primary outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved in the luteal phase in each group. Results: No differences were found between groups in the number of oocytes collected (5.12 ± 3.56 vs. 5.39 ± 3.74 vs. 5.61 ± 3.94 vs. 5.89 ± 3.92; p=0,6), MII or number of follicles. An increase in the duration of stimulation was found when stimulation started on the 4th day (10.42 ± 2.31 vs. 10.68 ± 2.37 vs. 11.27 ± 2.40 vs. 10.65 ± 2.37 days, p=0,033). A lower number of fertilized oocytes was observed when stimulation began before the fourth day (3.36 ± 2.80 vs. 3.95 ± 2.53 vs. 4.03 ± 2.73 vs. 4.48 ± 3.11; p=0,036). The number of blastocysts was higher when the stimulation started 5-6 days after retrieval (1.82 ± 1.74 vs. 2.13 ± 1.61 vs. 2.33 ± 2.06 vs. 2.91 ± 2.39; p= 0,030). Discussion: The number of oocytes retrieved does not differ depending on the day that stimulation begins. However, oocytes competence in terms of fertilized oocytes and blastulation, appears to be lower when the second stimulation starts before the fourth day after oocyte retrieval. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundDouble ovarian stimulation is one of the most used strategies in poor-prognosis patients. There is a high heterogeneity between the studies regarding the execution of this stimulation protocol. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the day on which luteal phase stimulation begins after the first oocyte retrieval affects ovarian response in DuoStim cycles.MethodsThis observational and retrospective study included 541 DuoStim cycles between January 2018 and December 2021 in a private fertility clinic. Patients were assigned to 4 groups according to the timing of the onset of luteal phase stimulation after oocyte retrieval (0-2nd day, 3rd day, 4th day and 5th-6th day). The primary outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved in the luteal phase in each group.ResultsNo differences were found between groups in the number of oocytes collected (5.12 ± 3.56 vs. 5.39 ± 3.74 vs. 5.61 ± 3.94 vs. 5.89 ± 3.92; p=0,6), MII or number of follicles. An increase in the duration of stimulation was found when stimulation started on the 4th day (10.42 ± 2.31 vs. 10.68 ± 2.37 vs. 11.27 ± 2.40 vs. 10.65 ± 2.37 days, p=0,033). A lower number of fertilized oocytes was observed when stimulation began before the fourth day (3.36 ± 2.80 vs. 3.95 ± 2.53 vs. 4.03 ± 2.73 vs. 4.48 ± 3.11; p=0,036). The number of blastocysts was higher when the stimulation started 5-6 days after retrieval (1.82 ± 1.74 vs. 2.13 ± 1.61 vs. 2.33 ± 2.06 vs. 2.91 ± 2.39; p= 0,030).DiscussionThe number of oocytes retrieved does not differ depending on the day that stimulation begins. However, oocytes competence in terms of fertilized oocytes and blastulation, appears to be lower when the second stimulation starts before the fourth day after oocyte retrieval.

STUDY QUESTION Is the total number of oocytes retrieved with dual ovarian stimulation in the same cycle (duostim) higher than with two consecutive antagonist cycles in poor responders? SUMMARY ANSWER Based on the number of total and mature oocytes retrieved in women with poor ovarian response (POR), there is no benefit of duostim versus two consecutive antagonist cycles. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Recent studies have shown the ability to obtain oocytes with equivalent quality from the follicular and the luteal phase, and a higher number of oocytes within one cycle when using duostim. If during follicular stimulation smaller follicles are sensitized and recruited, this may increase the number of follicles selected in the consecutive luteal phase stimulation, as shown in non-randomized controlled trials (RCT). This could be particularly relevant for women with POR. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This is a multicentre, open-labelled RCT, performed in four IVF centres from September 2018 to March 2021. The primary outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved over the two cycles. The primary objective was to demonstrate in women with POR that two ovarian stimulations within the same cycle (first in the follicular phase, followed by a second in the luteal phase) led to the retrieval of 1.5 (2) more oocytes than the cumulative number of oocytes from two consecutive conventional stimulations with an antagonist protocol. In a superiority hypothesis, with power 0.8 alpha-risk 0.05 and a 35% cancellation rate, 44 patients were needed in each group. Patients were randomized by computer allocation. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Eighty-eight women with POR, defined using adjusted Bologna criteria (antral follicle count ≤5 and/or anti-Müllerian hormone ≤1.2 ng/ml) were randomized, 44 in the duostim group and 44 in the conventional (control) group. HMG 300 IU/day with flexible antagonist protocol was used for ovarian stimulation, except in luteal phase stimulation of the duostim group. In the duostim group, oocytes were pooled and inseminated after the second retrieval, with a freeze-all protocol. Fresh transfers were performed in the control group, frozen embryo transfers were performed in both control and duostim groups in natural cycles. Data underwent intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE There was no difference between the groups regarding demographics, ovarian reserve markers, and stimulation parameters. The mean (SD) cumulative number of oocytes retrieved from two ovarian stimulations was not statistically different between the control and duostim groups, respectively, 4.6 (3.4) and 5.0 (3.4) [mean difference (MD) [95% CI] +0.4 [−1.1; 1.9], P  = 0.56]. The mean cumulative numbersof mature oocytes and total embryos obtained were not significantly different between groups. The total number of embryos transferred by patient was significantly higher in the control group 1.5 (1.1) versus the duostim group 0.9 (1.1) (P  = 0.03). After two cumulative cycles, 78% of women in the control group and 53.8% in the duostim group had at least one embryo transfer (P  = 0.02). There was no statistical difference in the mean number of total and mature oocytes retrieved per cycle comparing Cycle 1 versus Cycle 2, both in control and duostim groups. The time to the second oocyte retrieval was significantly longer in controls, at 2.8 (1.3) months compared to 0.3 (0.5) months in the duostim group (P  < 0.001). The implantation rate was similar between groups. The cumulative live birth rate was not statistically different, comparing controls versus the duostim group, 34.1% versus 17.9%, respectively (P  = 0.08). The time to transfer resulting in an ongoing pregnancy did not differ in controls 1.7 (1.5) months versus the duostim group, 3.0 (1.6) (P  = 0.08). No serious adverse events were reported. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The RCT was impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and the halt in IVF activities for 10 weeks. Delays were recalculated to exclude this period; however, one woman in the duostim group could not have the luteal stimulation. We also faced unexpected good ovarian responses and pregnancies after the first oocyte retrieval in both groups, with a higher incidence in the control group. However, our hypothesis was based on 1.5 more oocytes in the luteal than the follicular phase in the duostim group, and the number of patients to treat was reached in this group (N = 28). This study was only powered for cumulative number of oocytes retrieved. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This is the first RCT comparing the outcome of two consecutive cycles, either in the same menstrual cycle or in two consecutive menstrual cycles. In routine practice, the benefit of duostim in patients with POR regarding fresh embryo transfer is not confirmed in this RCT: first, because this study demonstrates no improvement in the number of oocytes retrieved in the luteal phase after follicular phase stimulation, in contrast to previous non-randomized studies, and second, because the freeze-all strategy avoids a pregnancy with fresh embryo transfer after the first cycle. However, duostim appears to be safe for women. In duostim, the two consecutive processes of freezing/thawing are mandatory and increase the risk of wastage of oocytes/embryos. The only benefit of duostim is to shorten the time to a second retrieval by 2 weeks if accumulation of oocytes/embryos is needed. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS This is an investigator-initiated study supported by a research Grant from IBSA Pharma. N.M. declares grants paid to their institution from MSD (Organon France); consulting fees from MSD (Organon France), Ferring, and Merck KGaA; honoraria from Merck KGaA, General Electrics, Genevrier (IBSA Pharma), and Theramex; support for travel and meetings from Theramex, Merck KGaG, and Gedeon Richter; and equipment paid to their institution from Goodlife Pharma. I.A. declares honoraria from GISKIT and support for travel and meetings from GISKIT. G.P.-B. declares Consulting fees from Ferring and Merck KGaA; honoraria from Theramex, Gedeon Richter, and Ferring; payment for expert testimony from Ferring, Merck KGaA, and Gedeon Richter; and support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. N.C. declares grants from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaA, Ferring, and Gedeon Richter; support for travel and meetings from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaG, MSD (Organon France), Gedeon Richter, and Theramex; and participation on advisory board from Merck KGaA. E.D. declares support for travel and meetings from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaG, MSD (Organon France), Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Theramex, and General Electrics. C.P.-V. declares support for travel and meetings from IBSA Pharma, Merck KGaA, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, and Theramex. M.Pi. declares support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Gedeon Richetr, and Merck KGaA. M.Pa. declares honoraria from Merck KGaA, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter; support for travel and meetings from Merck KGaA, IBSA Pharma, Theramex, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, and MSD (Organon France). H.B.-G. declares honoraria from Merck KGaA, and Gedeon Richter and support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Merck KGaA, IBSA Pharma, MSD (Organon France), Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. S.G. and M.B. have nothing to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER Registration number EudraCT: 2017-003223-30. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03803228. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE EudraCT: 28 July 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov: 14 January 2019. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT 3 September 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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? 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. 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). 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Resumen: La mejor comprensión de la fisiología reproductiva y la disponibilidad de más y mejores recursos diagnóstico/terapéuticos permiten individualizar la estimulación ovárica y hacerla más efectiva (mejores resultados), eficiente (en menos tiempo y con dosis más bajas), segura (con menos y más leves complicaciones), cómoda (menos molestias y autonomía) y accesible (para más personas, a menores costos). Con tecnología de ADN recombinante se dispone ahora de todas las gonadotrofinas e incluso algunas con formas moleculares modificadas para aumentar la duración de acción y disminuir el número de inyecciones. El esquema más utilizado es el de FSH recombinante junto con antagonistas de GnRH. Hay indicaciones específicas para agregar LH o coadyuvantes como hGH o andrógenos transdérmicos. La estimulación ovárica, además de infertilidad, se usa para la preservación de la fertilidad. Cada vez se implementan más estrategias como acumulación de óvulos, esquemas no convencionales (random start, DuoStim y otros) junto a vitrificación ovular, estudio genético preimplantatorio, transferencias embrionarias diferidas y la investigación continúa. Se pronostican mejoras en un futuro próximo, entre otras antagonistas por vía oral y estudio genético de pacientes para diagnosticar mutaciones o polimorfismos de gonadotrofinas y sus receptores. Aunque ya es factible individualizar la estimulación y volverla más efectiva, segura y amigable, así como ofrecer otras opciones a pacientes de mal pronóstico. Summary: Due to an increased understanding of reproductive physiology and to the availability of more and better diagnostic/therapeutic agents, ovarian stimulation through individualization, has become more effective (improved results), efficient (shorter span and lower doses), safe (less and milder complications), comfortable (less discomfort and dependance) and affordable (for more people at lower cost). All gonadotrophins are now available by recombinant DNA technology, including some modified compounds for specific purposes such as longer action and fewer injections. The most popular ovarian regime uses recombinant FSH and GnRH antagonist. There are precise indications for adding LH or adjuncts like hGH or transdermal androgens. Besides infertility, ovarian stimulation is also indicated for fertility preservation. Strategies like oocyte accumulation, non-conventional stimulation protocols (random start, DuoStim and others), oocyte vitrification, preimplantation genetic testing, freeze-all, deferred embryo transfer for particular cases are becoming popular, and the research still goes on. Future advances like oral GnRH antagonists, and the study of mutations and polymorphisms for gonadotropins and its receptors are foreseen. Today through individualization, ovarian stimulation is safe, effective and friendly, also we can offer good options to bad prognosis patients.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

Background/Aim: It is difficult to obtain healthy oocytes in poor ovarian response patients with conventional treatment methods. This study aimed to find out which agent is most effective at inducing ovulation in one menstrual cyle. We aimed to examine the effects of follicular and luteal stimulation in patients with poor ovarian response on oocyte count, blastocyst, euploid embryo, and pregnancy rates. Methods: A total of 134 patients were included in this retrospective cohort study, and the rates of ploidy in the embryos obtained by follicular and luteal stimulation were evaluated. All cases were treated with the antagonist protocol beforehand. The research was conducted by examining the data of patients who underwent Dual stimulation (Duostim) between 2015 and 2017 in the IVF Clinic of Acıbadem University Atakent Hospital retrospectively. Results: While ploidy rates in FS and LS were significant in terms of age and AMH values (P<0.05 for all), they did not differ with BMI values (P>0.05 for all). The rate of aneuploid embryo development in follicular phase was 81.8%, while that in luteal phase was 18.2%, and the rates of euploid embryo development in follicular and luteal treatments were 34.6% and 18.2%, respectively. The pregnancy rate with euploid embryos by LPS was significantly higher compared that by FPS (P<0.05). Conclusion: Our study concludes that follicles entering the anovulatory phase in the follicular phase can be saved by LS, so that healthier embryos can be obtained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To evaluate the overall performance and oocyte quality of follicular phase stimulation (FPS) vs. luteal phase stimulation (LPS) among patients undergoing double ovarian stimulation (DuoStim). Observational retrospective two-center cohort study including 79 infertile women who underwent a total of 87 DuoStim cycles between January 2017 and May 2019. Besides assessing baseline characteristics in order to determine the patients' clinical profile, we analyzed the FPS and LPS regarding the total dose of gonadotropin received, the duration of stimulation, the number and maturity of oocytes, fertilization and blastocyst formation rates, and the number of blastocysts obtained. The patients' baseline characteristics were compatible with a diminished ovarian reserve and poor reproductive prognosis. While the luteal phase needed longer stimulation (12 days (5–19) vs. 11 (7–16), p <.001) and slightly higher gonadotropin doses (2946 ± 890 IU vs. 2550 ± 970 IU, p <.001), no significant differences were detected in the oocyte maturity, fertilization, and blastocyst formation rates. However, the number of oocytes retrieved (5 (0–16) vs. 4 (0–15), p =.006), mature oocytes (4 (0–15) vs. 3 (0–11), p =.032), and blastocysts obtained (70 vs. 53) were substantially greater after LPS. The DuoStim strategy in poor prognosis patients increases the number of oocytes and blastocysts available. Moreover, the number of oocytes and blastocysts obtained are higher after LPS when compared to FPS. Thus, it should be considered for selected patients in order to not only improve reproductive outcomes but also shorten the time to pregnancy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The theory of multicyclic development of follicles during the menstrual cycle prompted new approaches to ovarian stimulation such as double stimulation within the same menstrual cycle, in both follicular and luteal phases. New stimulation approaches, together with cryopreservation techniques, provide higher chances for patients with poor ovarian response who undergo in vitro fertilization (IVF) to get pregnant. The double ovarian stimulation protocol has been proposed to optimize the number of oocytes retrieved within the shortest possible timeframe. Moreover, the short overall duration of this strategy is also useful in cases of a fertility preservation that requires rapid intervention before administering a gonadotoxic therapy, such as in oncologic therapy. In general, the aim of DUOSTIM is to obtain the highest number of oocytes in the shortest time, thus avoiding waste of time, which is crucial for these patients. Several protocols have been proposed with similar results, regardless of the protocol used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the clinical contribution of luteal-phase stimulation (LPS) to follicular-phase stimulation (FPS) in a single ovarian cycle (DuoStim) for poor responder patients fulfilling the Bologna criteria.Design: Observational study (years 2015-2017) including women satisfying ≥2 of the following characteristics: maternal age ≥40 years and/or ≤3 oocytes retrieved after previous conventional stimulation and/or reduced ovarian reserve (i.e., antral follicle count <7 follicles or antimüllerian hormone <1.1 ng/mL). The LPS was started regardless of the outcome of the FPS.Setting: Private in vitro fertilization center.Patient(s): A total of 100 of 297 patients fulfilling the Bologna criteria chose to undergo DuoStim.Intervention(s): The FPS and LPS with the same antagonist protocol and agonist trigger, intracytoplasmic sperm injection with ejaculated sperm, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies, and vitrified-warmed euploid single blastocyst transfer.Main Outcome Measure(s): The contribution of LPS to the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) per intention-to-treat (ITT).Result(s): Patients (100) underwent FPS (maternal age, 42.1 ± 1.4 y; previous in vitro fertilization cycles with ≤3 collected oocytes, 0.7 ± 0.9; antral follicle count, 3.8 ± 1.2 follicles; and antimüllerian hormone, 0.56 ± 0.3 ng/mL). Ninety-one patients completed DuoStim. All patients were included in the analysis. More oocytes were obtained after LPS with similar developmental and chromosomal competence as paired FPS-derived ones. The CLBR per ITT increased from 7% after FPS to 15% after DuoStim. Conversely, the CLBR per ITT among the 197 patients that chose a conventional controlled ovarian stimulation strategy was 8%, as only 17 patients who were not pregnant returned for a second stimulation after the first attempt (drop-out rate, 81%).Conclusion(s): The LPS-derived oocytes increased the CLBR per ITT in a single ovarian cycle in patients fulfilling the Bologna criteria. The DuoStim strategy is promising to manage this thorny population of patients, especially to avoid discontinuation after a first failed attempt. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This systematic review including a meta-analytical approach aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of employing a double ovarian stimulation (DuoStim) and a subsequent double oocyte retrieval in the same menstrual cycle, in poor ovarian reserve (POR) patients. Methods: A systematic search of literature was performed in the databases of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Library up until March 2019. Both prospective and retrospective cohort studies considered suitable for inclusion reported on women with POR undergoing a DuoStim in the follicular (FPS) and luteal phase (LPS) of the same menstrual cycle. Following the systematic review of the literature, a meta-analytical approach was attempted. Results: This study indicates that DuoStim is correlated with a higher number of retrieved oocytes, mature MII oocytes, and good-quality embryos in comparison to conventional stimulation. Additionally, LPS seems to be correlated with an equal or an even higher overall performance in comparison to FPS. Conclusion: DuoStim favors an enhanced clinical outcome in regard to the total number of yielded oocytes, mature oocytes, and available embryos, along with the quality of obtained embryos. Sourced data indicate that LPS is not correlated with a higher aneuploidy rate. This option may present as promising for the time-sensitive nature of POR patients' management, by enabling a higher oocyte yield during a single menstrual cycle. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To detect putative differences in the miRNomic profile of follicular fluids collected after follicular-phase-stimulation (FPS-FFs) and paired luteal-phase-stimulation (LPS-FFs) in the same ovarian cycles (DuoStim). Methods: Exploratory study at a private IVF center and University involving FPS-FFs and paired-LPS-FFs collected from 15 reduced ovarian reserve and advanced maternal age women undergoing DuoStim (n = 30 paired samples). The samples were combined in 6 paired pools (5 samples each) and balanced according to maternal age and number of cumulus-oocyte-complexes. Micro-RNAs were isolated and sequenced. Four miRNAs were then selected for further validation on 6 single pairs of FPS-FFs and LPS-FFs by qPCR. Results: Forty-three miRNAs were detected in both FPS-FFs and paired-LPS-FFs after sequencing and no statistically significant differences were reported. Thirty-three KEGG pathways were identified as regulated from the detected miRNAs. Four miRNAs (miR-146b, miR-191, miR-320a, and miR-483) were selected for qPCR validation since consistently expressed in our samples and possibly involved in the regulation/establishment of a healthy follicular environment. Again, no significant differences were reported between FPS-FFs and paired-LPS-FFs, also when the analysis was corrected for maternal age and number of cumulus-oocyte-complexes in generalized linear models. Conclusions: These data complement the embryological, chromosomal, and clinical evidence of equivalence between FPS and LPS published to date. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

At present, infertility is a key-issue. When applicable, in vitro fertilization (IVF) has become the standard approach to treat this condition but a thorough investigation and, whenever possible, the individual diagnosis of the underlying causes of infertility are required. For many female causes, indeed, efficient medical therapies are available to achieve a fast solution of the problem. This review is based on the relevant literature indexed in PubMed and SCOPUS and is focused on the most recent clinical literature on the treatment of women (and couples) affected from infertility. The reduction in IVF treatment burden and risks are now considered pivotal to set 'patient-friendly' therapies and represent crucial issues for both patients and physicians. To this end, the researchers are now focusing their attention on old drugs with new indications and new compounds with more appropriate functions, to improve the compliance of the women and reduce the burden of infertility, a condition that is becoming an important issue in the modern world, also for the Public Health System. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Research question What are the reproductive outcomes of Bologna criteria poor responders undergoing dual stimulation (DuoStim) and subsequent cryopreserved embryo transfer? Design Case series of patients treated during the period August 2015 to March 2018 in a public fertility clinic. The study included 54 Bologna criteria poor responder IVF patients younger than 42 years receiving a follicular stimulation (DuoStim 1) followed by a luteal phase stimulation (DuoStim 2) within the same cycle, both stimulations being performed with corifollitropin alfa followed by a subsequent cryopreserved embryo transfer cycle. The primary endpoint was the number of oocytes retrieved in DuoStim 1 compared with DuoStim 2. The secondary endpoint was ongoing pregnancy rate (OPR) at 12 weeks of gestation. Results The mean number of oocytes retrieved in DuoStim 1 and DuoStim 2 was 2.4 ± 2.1 versus 3.7 ± 2.6, respectively; thus, a total of 1.2 (95% CI, 0.46–1.96) more oocytes was retrieved in DuoStim 2 compared with DuoStim 1 (P = 0.002). The OPR at 12 weeks was 20% (11/54) in this poor ovarian response population with a mean age of 36.7 years. Conclusions Luteal phase stimulation results in more oocytes in poor responders compared with follicular phase stimulation. DuoStim, using corifollitropin alfa followed by individualized FSH dosing, appears to be an alternative to conventional follicular phase stimulation, decreasing the risk of cycle cancellation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A panel of experts known as the POSEIDON group has recently redefined the spectrum of poor responder patients and introduced the concept of suboptimal response. Since an ideal management for these patients is still missing, they highlighted the importance of tailoring the ovarian stimulation based on the chance of each woman to obtain an euploid blastocyst. Interestingly, a novel pattern of follicle recruitment has been defined: multiple waves may arise during a single ovarian cycle. This evidence opened important clinical implications for the treatment of poor responders. For instance, double stimulation in the follicular (FPS) and luteal phase (LPS) of the same ovarian cycle (DuoStim) is an intriguing option to perform two oocyte retrievals in the shortest possible time. Here, we reported our 2-year experience of DuoStim application in four private IVF centers. To date, 310 poor prognosis patients completed a DuoStim protocol and underwent IVF with blastocyst-stage preimplantation-genetic-testing. LPS resulted into a higher mean number of oocytes collected than FPS; however, their competence (i.e., fertilization, blastocyst, euploidy rates, and clinical outcomes after euploid single-embryo-transfer) was comparable. Importantly, the rate of patients obtaining at least one euploid blastocyst increased from 42.3% (n = 131/310) after FPS to 65.5% (n = 203/310) with the contribution of LPS. A summary of the putative advantages and disadvantages of DuoStim was reported here through a Strengths–Weaknesses–Opportunities–Threats analysis. The strengths of this approach make it very promising. However, more studies are needed in the future to limit its weaknesses, shed light on its putative threats, and realize its opportunities.

Study Question: Are the mean numbers of blastocysts obtained from sibling cohorts of oocytes recruited after follicular phase and luteal phase stimulations (FPS and LPS) in the same ovarian cycle similar?Summary Answer: The cohorts of oocytes obtained after LPS are larger than their paired-FPS-derived cohorts and show a comparable competence, thus resulting in a larger mean number of blastocysts.What Is Known Already: Three theories of follicle recruitment have been postulated to date: (i) the 'continuous recruitment' theory, (ii) the 'single recruitment episode' theory and (iii) the 'wave' theory. Yet, a clear characterization of this crucial biological process for human reproduction is missing. Recent advances implemented in in vitro fertilization (IVF), such as blastocyst culture, aneuploidy testing and vitrification, have encouraged clinicians to maximize the exploitation of the ovarian reserve through tailored stimulation protocols, which is crucial especially for poor prognosis patients aiming to conceive after IVF. LPS has been already successfully adopted to treat poor prognosis or oncological patients through Duostim, LPS-only or random-start ovarian stimulation approaches. Nevertheless, little, and mainly retrospective, evidence has been produced to support the safety of LPS in general. Feasibility of the LPS approach would severely question the classic 'single recruitment episode' theory of follicular development.Study Design, Size, Duration: This case-control study was conducted with paired follicular phase- and luteal phase-derived cohorts of oocytes collected after stimulations in the same ovarian cycle (DuoStim) at two private IVF clinics between October 2015 and December 2017.Participants/materials, Setting, Methods: The study included 188 poor prognosis patients undergoing DuoStim with preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A). FPS and LPS were performed with the same daily dose of recombinant-gonadotrophins in an antagonist protocol. Blastocyst culture, trophectoderm biopsy, vitrification and frozen-warmed euploid single blastocyst transfers were performed. The primary outcome was the mean number of blastocysts obtained per oocyte retrieval from paired-FPS- and LPS-derived cohorts (required sample size = 165 patients; power = 90%). Mean blastulation and euploidy rates were monitored, along with the number of oocytes, euploid blastocysts and clinical outcomes.Main Results and the Role Of Chance: Significantly fewer blastocysts were obtained after FPS than LPS (1.2 ± 1.1 vs. 1.6 ± 1.6, P < 0.01), due to fewer oocytes collected (3.6 ± 2.1 vs. 4.3 ± 2.8, P < 0.01) and a similar mean blastocyst rates per retrieval (33.1% ± 30.3% vs. 37.4% ± 30.8%, P = NS). The number of oocytes collected were correlated (R = 0.5, P < 0.01), while the blastocyst rates were uncorrelated among paired-FPS- and LPS-derived cohorts. Overall, a significantly lower chance of producing blastocyst(s) was reported after FPS than after LPS: 67.6% (n = 127/188, 95%CI: 60.3-74.1) vs. 77.1% (n = 145/188, 95%CI: 70.3-82.8; P = 0.05). The mean euploidy rates per retrieval were similar between FPS- and LPS-derived cohorts of oocytes (13.6% ± 22.8% vs. 16.3% ± 23.4%, P = NS). Therefore, on average fewer euploid blastocysts (0.5 ± 0.8 vs. 0.7 ± 1.0, P = 0.02) resulted from FPS. Similar ongoing-pregnancy/delivery rates were reported, to date, after FPS- and LPS-derived euploid single blastocyst transfers: 42.4% (n = 28/66, 95%CI: 30.5-55.2) vs. 53.8% (n = 35/65, 95%CI: 41.1-66.1; P = NS).Limitations, Reasons For Caution: More studies need to be conducted in the future to confirm the safety of LPS, especially in terms of ovarian and follicular environment, as well as the clinical, peri-natal and post-natal outcomes. Here, we showed preliminary data suggesting a similar ongoing implantation/delivery rate (>22 weeks) between FPS- and LPS-derived euploid blastocysts, that need to be extended in the future, to populations other than poor prognosis patients and using approaches other than DuoStim together with a constant monitoring of the related peri-natal and post-natal outcomes.Wider Implications Of the Findings: These data, from a paired study design, highlight that LPS-derived oocytes are as competent as FPS-derived oocytes, thereby adding some evidence to support the use of LPS for poor prognosis and oncological patients and to question the 'single recruitment episode' theory of follicle recruitment. These findings also encourage additional studies of the basics of folliculogenesis, with direct clinical implications for the management of ovarian stimulation in IVF.Trial Registration: None.Study Funding/competing Interest(s): No external funds were used for this study and there are no conflicts of interest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A panel of experts known as the POSEIDON group has recently redefined the spectrum of poor responder patients and introduced the concept of suboptimal response. Since an ideal management for these patients is still missing, they highlighted the importance of tailoring the ovarian stimulation based on the chance of each woman to obtain an euploid blastocyst. Interestingly, a novel pattern of follicle recruitment has been defined: multiple waves may arise during a single ovarian cycle. This evidence opened important clinical implications for the treatment of poor responders. For instance, double stimulation in the follicular (FPS) and luteal phase (LPS) of the same ovarian cycle (DuoStim) is an intriguing option to perform two oocyte retrievals in the shortest possible time. Here, we reported our 2-year experience of DuoStim application in four private IVF centers. To date, 310 poor prognosis patients completed a DuoStim protocol and underwent IVF with blastocyst-stage preimplantation-genetic-testing. LPS resulted into a higher mean number of oocytes collected than FPS; however, their competence (i.e., fertilization, blastocyst, euploidy rates, and clinical outcomes after euploid single-embryo-transfer) was comparable. Importantly, the rate of patients obtaining at least one euploid blastocyst increased from 42.3% (n = 131/310) after FPS to 65.5% (n = 203/310) with the contribution of LPS. A summary of the putative advantages and disadvantages of DuoStim was reported here through a Strengths–Weaknesses–Opportunities–Threats analysis. The strengths of this approach make it very promising. However, more studies are needed in the future to limit its weaknesses, shed light on its putative threats, and realize its opportunities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The advent of embryo and oocyte vitrification today gives reproductive specialists an opportunity to consider new strategies for improving the practice and results of IVF attempts. As the freezing of entire cohorts does not compromise, and may even improve, the results of IVF attempts, it is possible to break away from the standard sequence of stimulation-retrieval-transfer. The constraints associated with ovarian stimulation in relation to the potential harmful effects of the hormonal environment on endometrial receptivity can be avoided.Objective and Rationale: This review will look at the new stimulation protocols where progesterone is used to block the LH surge. Thanks to 'freeze all' strategies, the increase in progesterone could actually be no longer a cause for concern. There are two ways of using progesterone, whether it be endogenous, as in luteal phase stimulation, or exogenous, as in the use of progesterone in the follicular phase i.e. progestin primed ovarian stimulation.Search Methods: A literature search was carried out (until September 2016) on MEDLINE. The following text words were utilized to generate the list of citations: progestin primed ovarian stimulation, luteal phase stimulation, luteal stimulation, duostim, double stimulation, random start. Articles and their references were then examined in order to identify other potential studies. All of the articles are reported in this review.Outcomes: The use of progesterone during ovarian stimulation is effective in blocking the LH surge, whether endogenous or exogenous, and it does not affect the number of oocytes collected or the quality of the embryos obtained. Its main constraint is that it requires total freezing and delayed transfer. A variety of stimulation protocols can be derived from these two methods, and their implications are discussed, from fertility preservation to ovarian response profiles to organization for the patients and clincs. These new regimens enable more flexibility and are of emerging interest in daily practice. However, their medical and economic significance remains to be demonstrated.Wider Implications: The use of luteal phase or follicular phase protocols with progestins could rapidly develop in the context of oocyte donation and fertility preservation not related to oncology. Their place could develop even more in the general population of patients in IVF programs. The strategy of total freezing continues to develop, thanks to technical improvements, in particular vitrification and PGS on blastocysts, and thanks to studies showing improvements in embryo implantation when the transfer take place far removed from the hormonal changes caused by ovarian stimulation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Improvement of cryopreservation's techniques with oocyte and embryo vitrification allows reproductive physicians to rethink their controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocols before in vitro fertilization. As frozen embryo transfer gives the same rate of succes, or even better results, as fresh transfer, the physician is no more linked to the following sequence: controlled ovarian hyperstimulation - pick up - transfer. This leads to the "freeze all" strategy and no more worries about the deleterious impact on endometrium of hormonal environment during follicular stimulation. In this paper, we review all the new protocols using progesterone to prevent the LH surge during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. There are 2 different sources of progesterone: endogenous with the luteal stimulation protocols and exogenous with the progestin primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS). Different protocols are derived of these and the application in clinical practice is discuss in this review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]