Search

STUDY QUESTION Is there an increase in the total number of metaphase II (MII) oocytes between a conventional ovarian stimulation (OS) and a double uninterrupted stimulation? SUMMARY ANSWER There is no increase in the total number of MII oocytes when comparing one conventional OS to a continuous stimulation with double oocyte aspiration. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Based on the concept of multiple follicular waves, the combination of two stimulations in the same ovarian cycle has gained interest in patients with a low ovarian reserve. This so-called dual stimulation approach is usually characterized by a discontinuation of FSH administration for ∼5 days and appears to have a favourable impact on the number of retrieved oocytes without affecting the embryo quality or ploidy status. The outcomes of dual uninterrupted OS have not yet been studied. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This was an open-label randomized controlled trial (RCT) with superiority design, performed in a single tertiary centre. Subjects were randomized with a 1:1 allocation into two groups between October 2019 and September 2021. All patients underwent a conventional stimulation with recombinant FSH. When two or more follicles of 17 mm were present, the final inclusion criterion was assessed; randomization occurred only in the presence of ≤9 follicles of ≥11 mm. In Group A, ovulation was triggered with hCG, and oocyte retrieval (OR) was performed 34–36 h later, followed by a fresh single or double embryo transfer (SET or DET) on Day 3/5. In Group B, ovulation was triggered with GnRH agonist, followed by another OS, without discontinuation of the FSH administration. In the presence of one or more follicles of ≥17 mm, the second stimulation was completed with hCG. A freeze-all strategy (Day 3/5) was applied for both retrievals, followed by transfer of one or two embryos in an artificially prepared frozen-thawed cycle. In the absence of one or more follicles of ≥17 mm after 13 additional days of stimulation, the second cycle was cancelled. All ORs were executed by a senior fertility specialist who was blinded for the first treatment, and all follicles >10 mm were aspirated, according to routine clinical practice. The primary outcome was the total number of MII oocytes. Patients were followed up until all embryos were transferred, or until live birth was achieved. Other secondary outcomes included the number of cumulus–oocyte complexes (COCs), the number of good quality embryos (Day 3/5), the ongoing pregnancy rate, and gonadotropin consumption. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Patients between 25 and 40 years old, with an anti-Müllerian hormone level of ≤1.5 ng/ml, antral follicle count of ≤6, or ≤5 oocytes after a previous stimulation, were included. At the start, 70 patients were eligible for participation in the trial, of whom 48 patients fulfilled the final inclusion criterium and were randomized. After drop-out of two patients, 23 patients were randomized to a single round of OS (Group A), and 23 patients were randomized to two uninterrupted rounds of OS (Group B). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE Baseline characteristics were similar between both groups. The cumulative number of COCs and MII oocytes after completion of the second OR was similar in Group A and Group B [5.3 ± 2.7 versus 5.3 ± 3.0 (P  = 0.95); 4.1 ± 2.4 versus 4.3 ± 2.7 (P  = 0.77)]. Likewise, a comparable number of excellent and good quality embryos was available on Day 3 (3.0 ± 2.0 versus 2.7 ± 2.0; P  = 0.63). In Group B, the cancellation rate due to insufficient response to the second round of stimulation was 39.1% (9/23). When focusing on the first stimulation in both groups, there were no significant differences regarding basal FSH, gonadotropin consumption, and the number of preovulatory follicles. After the first OR, the mean number of COC and MII oocytes was significantly higher in Group A (who had hCG triggering), compared to Group B (who had GnRH agonist triggering) [5.3 ± 2.7 versus 3.3 ± 2.2; difference 95% CI (0.54 to 3.45), P  = 0.004 and 4.1 ± 2.4 versus 3.0 ± 2.2; difference 95% CI (−0.15 to 2.6), P  = 0.05, respectively]. Likewise, the number of excellent and good quality embryos on Day 3 was significantly higher (3.0 ± 2.0 versus 1.9 ± 1.7; P  = 0.02) in Group A. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION This study was powered to demonstrate superiority for the number of MII oocytes after dual stimulation. Investigating the impact of dual stimulation on pregnancy rates would have required a larger sample size. Furthermore, the heterogeneity in embryo vitrification and transfer policies precluded a correct comparison of embryologic outcomes between both groups. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This is the first RCT investigating the role of continuous stimulation with double aspiration in low responders. Our results show no statistically significant differences in the cumulative number of MII oocytes between one conventional stimulation with fresh ET and two consecutive stimulations with a freeze-only approach. Furthermore, the observed suboptimal oocyte yield after agonist ovulation triggering in low responders in the dual uninterrupted OS group is a reason for concern and further scrutiny, given that previous RCTs have shown similar outcomes in normal and high responders after hCG and GnRH agonist triggers. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) This work was supported in part by a research grant from Organon. H.T. received honoraria for lectures and presentations from Abbott, Cooper Surgical, Gedeon-Richter, Cook, Goodlife, and Ferring. L.B. received fees for lectures from Merck & Organon and support for attending ESHRE 2023. M.D.V. reports fees for lectures from Ferring, Merck, Organon, IBSA, Gedeon Richter, and Cooper Surgical and support for attending ASRM 2023. S.M. received honoraria for lectures and presentations from Abbott, Cooper Surgical, Gedeon-Richter, IBSA, and Merck. C.B. was on the Advisory board and received consulting fees from Theramex and received honoraria for lectures and presentations from Abbott, Ferring, Gedeon-Richter, IBSA, and Merck. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NCT03846544 TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE 19 February 2019 DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT 28 October 2019 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION Which reproductive treatment outcomes are observed in women who underwent elective oocyte cryopreservation (EOC) and who returned to the clinic with a desire for a child? SUMMARY ANSWER Whether to warm oocytes or to first use fresh own oocytes for ART depends on age upon returning, but both strategies result in favorable reproductive outcomes. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Most affluent countries have observed a trend toward postponement of childbearing, and EOC is increasingly used based on the assumption that oocytes cryopreserved at a younger age may extend a woman's reproductive lifespan and mitigate her age-related fertility decline. Although most follow-up studies after EOC have focused on women who requested oocyte warming, a substantial proportion of women who do not conceive naturally will embark on fertility treatment without using their cryopreserved oocytes. Reports on reproductive outcomes in past EOC users are scarce, and the lack of reproductive treatment algorithms in this group of women hampers counseling toward the most efficient clinical strategy. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This retrospective observational single-center study encompasses 843 women who had elective oocyte vitrification between 2009 and 2019 at our fertility clinic. Women who underwent fertility preservation for medical or oncological reasons were excluded. This study describes the outcomes of the diverse reproductive treatment strategies performed until May 2022 in women returning to our clinic to attempt motherhood. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Using descriptive statistics, patient characteristics and data of ovarian stimulation (OS) of EOC cycles were analyzed, as well as data related to OS and laboratory data of ART in women who pursued fertility treatment with and/or without using their cryopreserved oocytes. The primary outcome was live birth rate (LBR) per patient after oocyte warming and after ART using fresh oocytes. Secondary outcomes were return rate, utilization rate of the cryopreserved oocytes, laboratory outcomes upon return, and LBR per embryo transfer. A multivariable regression model was developed to identify factors associated with the decision to thaw oocytes as the primary strategy and factors associated with ongoing pregnancy upon return to the clinic. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE A total of 1353 EOC cycles (mean ± SD, 1.6 ± 0.9 per patient) were performed. At the time of EOC, the mean age was 36.5 ± 2.8 years, mean anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) was 2.3 ± 2.0 ng/ml, and 174 (20.6%) women had a partner. On average, 13.9 ± 9.2 mature oocytes were cryopreserved. Two hundred thirty-one (27.4%) women returned to the clinic, an average of 39.9 ± 23.4 months after EOC. Upon returning, their mean age was 40.4 ± 3.1 years, mean AMH was 1.5 ± 1.5 ng/ml, and 158/231 (68.3%) patients had a partner. As a primary approach, 110/231 (47.6%) past EOC users embarked on oocyte warming, 50/231 (21.6%) had intrauterine insemination, and 71/231 (30.7%) had ART using fresh own oocytes. Cumulative LBR (CLBR) was 45.9% (106/231) notwithstanding a miscarriage rate (MR) of 30.7% (51/166) in the entire cohort. In total, 141 women performed oocyte warming at some stage in their treatment trajectory. A subset of 90/231 (39.0%) patients exclusively had oocyte warming (41.6 ± 3.0 years, with 10.0 ± 5.2 oocytes warmed per patient). 52/231 (22.5%) patients exclusively had ART using fresh own oocytes (mean age of 39.0 ± 2.8 years, with 9.9 ± 7.4 mature oocytes retrieved per patient). CLBR was 37/90 (41.1%) in the oocyte warming-only group and 25/52 (48.1%) in the OS-only group. MR/transfer was 25.0% and 29.3% in the oocyte warming-only group and the OS-only group, respectively. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Both sample size and the retrospective design are limitations of this study. The decision to embark on a specific reproductive treatment strategy was based on patient preference, after counseling on their treatment options. This precludes direct comparison of the efficiency of reproductive treatment options in past EOC users in this study. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Reporting on clinical outcomes of women who underwent EOC and returned to the clinic to embark on divergent reproductive treatment strategies is mandatory to establish guidelines for best clinical practice in this growing patient population. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) None. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER N/A. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

STUDY QUESTION How do plasma progesterone (P) and dydrogesterone (D) concentrations together with endometrial histology, transcriptomic signatures, and immune cell composition differ when oral dydrogesterone (O-DYD) or micronized vaginal progesterone (MVP) is used for luteal phase support (LPS)? SUMMARY ANSWER Although after O-DYD intake, even at steady-state, plasma D and 20αdihydrodydrogesterone (DHD) concentrations spiked in comparison to P concentrations, a similar endometrial signature was observed by histological and transcriptomic analysis of the endometrium. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY O-DYD for LPS has been proven to be noninferior compared to MVP in two phase III randomized controlled trials. Additionally, a combined individual participant data and aggregate data meta-analysis indicated that a higher pregnancy rate and live birth rate may be obtained in women receiving O-DYD versus MVP for LPS in fresh IVF/ICSI cycles. Little data are available on the pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of O-DYD versus MVP and their potential molecular differences at the level of the reproductive organs, particularly at the endometrial level. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION Thirty oocyte donors were planned to undergo two ovarian stimulation (OS) cycles with dual triggering (1.000 IU hCG + 0.2 mg triptorelin), each followed by 1 week of LPS: O-DYD or MVP, in a randomized, cross-over, double-blind, double-dummy fashion. On both the first and eighth days of LPS, serial blood samples upon first dosing were harvested for plasma D, DHD, and P concentration analyses. On Day 8 of LPS, an endometrial biopsy was collected for histologic examination, transcriptomics, and immune cell analysis. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS All oocyte donors were <35 years old, had regular menstrual cycles, no intrauterine contraceptive device, anti-Müllerian hormone within normal range and a BMI ≤29 kg/m2. OS was performed on a GnRH antagonist protocol followed by dual triggering (1.000 IU hCG + 0.2 mg triptorelin) as soon as ≥3 follicles of 20 mm were present. Following oocyte retrieval, subjects initiated LPS consisting of MVP 200 mg or O-DYD 10 mg, both three times daily. D, DHD, and P plasma levels were measured using liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry. Histological assessment was carried out using the Noyes criteria. Endometrial RNA-sequencing was performed for individual biopsies and differential gene expression was analyzed. Endometrial single-cell suspensions were created followed by flow cytometry for immune cell typing. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE A total of 21 women completed the entire study protocol. Subjects and stimulation characteristics were found to be similar between groups. Following the first dose of O-DYD, the average observed maximal plasma concentrations (C max) for D and DHD were 2.9 and 77 ng/ml, respectively. The C max for D and DHD was reached after 1.5 and 1.6 h (= T max), respectively. On the eighth day of LPS, the first administration of that day gave rise to a C max of 3.6 and 88 ng/ml for D and DHD, respectively. For both, the observed T max was 1.5 h. Following the first dose of MVP, the C max for P was 16 ng/ml with a T max of 4.2 h. On the eighth day of LPS, the first administration of that day showed a C max for P of 21 ng/ml with a T max of 7.3 h. All 42 biopsies showed endometrium in the secretory phase. The mean cycle day was 23.9 (±1.2) in the O-DYD group versus 24.0 (±1.3) in the MVP group. RNA-sequencing did not reveal significantly differentially expressed genes between samples of both study groups. The average Euclidean distance between samples following O-DYD was significantly lower than following MVP (respectively 12.1 versus 18.8, Mann–Whitney P  = 6.98e−14). Immune cell profiling showed a decrease of CD3 T-cell, γδ T-cell, and B-cell frequencies after MVP treatment compared to O-DYD, while the frequency of natural killer (NK) cells was significantly increased. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION The main reason for caution is the small sample size, given the basic research nature of the project. The plasma concentrations are best estimates as this was not a formal PK study. Whole tissue bulk RNA-sequencing has been performed not correcting for bias caused by different tissue compositions across biopsies. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS This is the first study comparing O-DYD/MVP, head-to-head, in a randomized design on a molecular level in IVF/ICSI. Plasma serum concentrations suggest that administration frequency is important, in addition to dose, specifically for O-DYD showing a rapid clearance. The molecular endometrial data are overall comparable and thus support the previously reported noninferior reproductive outcomes for O-DYD as compared to MVP. Further research is needed to explore the smaller intersample distance following O-DYD and the subtle changes detected in endometrial immune cells. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) Not related to this work, C.Bl. has received honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing, educational events, or scientific advice from Abbott, Ferring, Organon, Cooper Surgical, Gedeon-Richter, IBSA, and Merck. H.T. has received honoraria for lectures, presentations, manuscript writing, educational events, or scientific advice from Abbott, Ferring, Cooper Surgical, Gedeon-Richter, Cook, and Goodlife. S.M. has received honoraria for lectures, presentations, educational events, or scientific advice from Abbott, Cooper Surgical, Gedeon-Richter, IBSA, and Merck and Oxolife. G.G. has received honoraria for lectures, presentations, educational events, or scientific advice from Merck, MSD, Organon, Ferring, Theramex, Gedeon-Richter, Abbott, Biosilu, ReprodWissen, Obseva, PregLem, Guerbet, Cooper, Igyxos, and OxoLife. S.V.-S. is listed as inventor on two patents (WO2019115755A1 and WO2022073973A1), which are not related to this work. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER EUDRACT 2018-000105-23 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]