Comparison of blastocyst euploidy rates following luteal versus follicular phase stimulation in a GnRH antagonist protocol: a prospective study with repeated ovarian stimulation cycles.

STUDY QUESTION: Is there any difference in the mean number of euploid embryos following luteal phase start (LS) and follicular phase start (FS) of ovarian stimulation? SUMMARY ANSWER: The mean number of euploid blastocysts is equivalent independent of whether the inseminated oocytes are derived from FS or LS. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Starting ovarian stimulation at any time of the cycle ('random-start') is commonly used for emergency fertility preservation in cancer patients. A few retrospective studies have been published evaluating LS in women undergoing ovarian stimulation in the context of IVF, but there is a lack of robust data on the comparative efficacy of LS versus FS.Although 'random start' is commonly used in cancer survivors, few retrospective and uncontrolled studies have been published evaluating luteal phase stimulation in women undergoing ovarian stimulation in the context of IVF. Owing to this evident lack of robust data on the efficacy of LS, guidelines typically recommend the LS approach only for medical reasons and not in the context of IVF. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is a prospective, equivalence study, with repeated stimulation cycles, conducted between May 2018 and December 2021. Overall, 44 oocyte donors underwent two identical consecutive ovarian stimulation cycles, one initiated in the FS and the other in the LS. The primary outcome of the study was to evaluate whether FS and LS in the same patient would result in equivalent numbers of euploid embryos following fertilization of oocytes with the same sperm sample. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Overall, 44 oocyte donors underwent two consecutive ovarian stimulation protocols with 150 µg corifollitropin alpha followed by 200 IU recombinant FSH (rFSH) in a fixed GnRH antagonist protocol. The only difference between the two cycles was the day of initiation of ovarian stimulation, which was in the early follicular phase (FS) in one cycle, and in the luteal phase (LS) in the other. Forty-four oocyte recipients participated in the study receiving a mean of six metaphase II (MII) oocytes from each stimulation cycle (FS and LS). All MIIs were inseminated with the corresponding recipient's partner sperm (which had been previously frozen) or donor sperm, in order to safeguard the use of the same sample for either the FS or LS. Following fertilization and blastocyst culture, all generated embryos underwent genetic analysis for aneuploidy screening (preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: FS resulted in a significantly shorter duration of ovarian stimulation (difference between means (DBM) -1.05 (95% CI -1.89; -0.20)) and a lower total additional dose of daily rFSH was needed (DBM -196.02 (95% CI -319.92; -72.12)) compared with LS. The donors' hormonal profile on the day of trigger was comparable between the two stimulation cycles, as well as the mean number of oocytes (23.70 ± 10.79 versus 23.70 ± 8.81) (DBM 0.00 (95% CI -3.03; 3.03)) and MII oocytes (20.27 ± 9.60 versus 20.73 ± 8.65) (DBM -0.45 (95% CI -2.82; 1.91)) between FS and LS cycles, respectively. Following fertilization, the overall blastocyst formation rate was 60.70% with a euploid rate of 57.1%. Comparisons between the two stimulation cycles did not reveal any significance differences in terms of fertilization rates (71.9% versus 71.4%), blastocyst formation rates (59.4% versus 62%) and embryo euploidy rates (56.9 versus 57.3%) for the comparison of FS versus LS, respectively. The mean number of euploid blastocysts was equivalent between the FS (1.59 ± 1.30) and the LS (1.61 ± 1.17), (DBM -0.02 (90%CI -0.48; 0.44)). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was performed in young, potentially fertile oocyte donors who are patients with high blastocyst euploidy rates. Although results may be extrapolated to young infertile women with good ovarian reserve, caution is needed prior to generalizing the results to infertile women of older age. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The current study provides evidence that initiation of ovarian stimulation in the luteal phase in young potentially fertile women may result in a comparable number of oocytes and comparable blastocyst euploidy rates compared with follicular phase stimulation. This may imply that in case of a freeze-all protocol in young patients with good ovarian reserve, clinicians may safely consider initiation of ovarian stimulation during the luteal phase. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was supported by an unrestricted grant from MSD/Organon. N.P.P. has received Research grants and honoraria for lectures from: Merck Serono, MSD/Organon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Besins Intenational, Roche Diagnostics, IBSA, Theramex, Gedeon Richter. F.M., E.C., M.R. and S.G. declared no conflict of interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study was registered at Clinical Trials Gov (NCT03555942).

Progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation in oocyte donation: a model for elective fertility preservation?

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does type of LH peak suppression (progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation [PPOS] versus gonadotrophin releasing hormone [GnRH] antagonist) affect oocyte competence, embryo development and live birth rates in recipients of vitrified donated oocytes? DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study conducted between 2016 and 2018, involving 187 recipient cycles of donated vitrified oocytes. Oocyte donors were stimulated under LH suppression with desogestrel for PPOS (DSG group) or ganirelix GnRH antagonist (ANT group). Recipients younger than 50 years received vitrified oocytes from DSG donation cycles (DSG-R) or ANT donation cycles (ANT-R). RESULTS: A mean of 10.07 ± 3.54 oocytes per recipient were warmed (survival rate of 80.7%), and 5.90 ± 2.89 were fertilized (fertilization rate 72.6%). Out of 187 recipients, 168 achieved embryo transfers. No significant differences were found in warming survival rates, fertilization rates and embryo development between DSG-R and ANT-R groups. Ninety-four clinical pregnancies and 81 live births were achieved. No statistically significant differences were found in clinical pregnancy rates (47.7% versus 52.5, P = 0.513) and live birth rates (39.5% versus 46.5%, P = 0.336) per recipient cycle between DSG-R and ANT-R, respectively. Multivariable logistic regression was applied to assess the effect of treating oocyte donors. Live birth rate adjusted for associated factors was not statistically different between vitrified oocytes from DSG or ANT (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.47). CONCLUSION: Reproductive outcomes of recipients of vitrified oocytes are not affected by donor PPOS treatment. PPOS is suitable for suppressing LH peak in elective fertility preservation and in freeze-all strategies.

Does LH suppression by progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation compared with GnRH antagonist affect live birth rate among oocyte recipients?

RESEARCH QUESTION: Is live birth rate among recipients of donated oocytes different depending on mode of treatment for endogenous LH suppression administered to oocyte donors during ovarian stimulation? DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of recipients of freshly donated oocytes from oocyte donors who underwent ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophins at a private, university-based infertility clinic between January 2017 and March 2018. For endogenous LH suppression, oocyte donors received daily injections of gonadotrophin releasing hormone antagonist ganirelix (GNR) or daily oral 75 µg desogestrel (DSG) until triggering with 0.2 mg of triptorelin. Three hundred recipient cycles of freshly donated oocytes were included: 154 from oocyte donor DSG cycles and 146 from oocyte donor GNR cycles. RESULTS: Comparison of basal characteristics of oocyte donors showed no differences in mean age, anti-Müllerian hormone levels and body mass index between the oocyte donor DSG p and oocyte donor GNR groups, respectively. Similarly, no differences were observed among mean age of recipients and body mass index. Out of 300 fresh embryo transfers, 190 clinical pregnancies (63.3%) and 150 live births (50%) were achieved. Per embryo transfer clinical pregnancy rate was 66.2% in the DSG recipient group and 60.3% in the GNR recipient group (P = 0.338). Live birth rates were not significantly different between both groups (48.7% among DSG recipient group and 51.4% among GNR recipient group; P = 0.729). CONCLUSIONS: Live birth rate among recipients of donated oocytes does not differ depending on the mode of treatment for endogenous LH suppression administered to the oocyte donors during ovarian stimulation. This information is reassuring and will be of interest to teams using these kinds of protocols, although further research is needed.

Desogestrel versus antagonist injections for LH suppression in oocyte donation cycles: a crossover study.

To study whether ovarian response to corifollitropin among oocyte donors (OD) is different when oral desogestrel (DSG) is used to block the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge when compared to GnRH-antagonist use. This is a retrospective, cohort study at a private, university-based, IVF center including 35 OD. Patients underwent two stimulation cycles under corifollitropin alfa (CFT), one under an antagonist and another under DSG, between February 2015 and May 2017. In antagonist cycles, daily ganirelix was administered since a leading follicle reached 14 mm. In the DSG cycles, daily oral DSG was prescribed. The main outcome measure was oocytes retrieved. Compared to antagonist cycles, cycles under DSG received fewer injections (10.3 ± 2.8 vs. 5.0 ± 2.1, p < .001), nominally lower total supplementary gonadotropin dose (497.4 ± 338.9I U vs. 442.9 ± 332.8 IU, p=.45) with a lower total cost of medication (1018.6 ± 191.0€ vs. 813.8 ± 145.9€, p<.001). There were no differences in the total number of retrieved oocytes between groups (17.4 ± 7.5 vs. 18.6 ± 8.9, p=.34). In the corresponding oocyte recipients, clinical pregnancy rate was similar between groups: 52.0% vs. 58.6%, respectively (p=.78). ODs' stimulation's response under DSG is similar when compared to (17.4 ± 7.5 vs. 18.6 ± 8.9, p=.34) but associated with less injections and lower medication costs. The main advantage of this strategy is its simplicity, an aspect of utmost importance in the management of ODs.

Ovarian response in oocyte donation cycles under LH suppression with GnRH antagonist or desogestrel progestin: retrospective and comparative study.

Here are investigated the serum hormones in ovarian stimulation cycles of oocyte donors (OD), under endogenous luteinizing hormone (LH) suppression with GnRH antagonist (antGnRH) vs. desogestrel (DSG) (progesterone-primed [PP]). OD underwent ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins at a private, university-based, infertility center between January 2017 and March 2018. Endogenous LH peak was controlled with either daily injections of antGnRH or with daily oral 75 mcg DSG (PP) until triggering. LH and progesterone were measured at trigger and the following day. A total of 404 OD cycles were included. There were no differences in age (26.7 ± 4.9 vs. 27.1 ± 4.8 years), AMH (3.7 ± 2.1 vs. 4.1 ± 2.7 ng/ml), and body mass index (BMI) (22.4 ± 2.8 vs. 22.1 ± 3.0 kg/m2) between PP and antGnRH groups, respectively. On the day of trigger, progesterone was lower in PP compared to antGnRH (0.9 ± 0.7, vs. 1.5 ± 1.2 ng/ml, p < .001), whereas no significant differences existed in estradiol or LH. On the day after trigger, lower progesterone in PP vs. antGnRH (10.8 ± 6.0 vs. 13.4 ± 7.9 ng/ml, p=.002) was observed. No differences were observed in the number of retrieved oocytes or the clinical pregnancies among recipients. Our study shows that endocrine response to DSG differs significantly as compared to antGnRH use for the control of endogenous LH without apparent impact on number of retrieved oocytes or the clinical pregnancies among recipients.

Comparison of starting ovarian stimulation on day 2 versus day 15 of the menstrual cycle in the same oocyte donor and pregnancy rates among the corresponding recipients of vitrified oocytes.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical pregnancy rate per transfer in recipients of embryos from donor oocytes obtained after ovarian stimulation initiated on day 2 (D2) or day 15 (D15) of the menstrual cycle with a secondary end point of comparing the response to stimulation. DESIGN: Prospective observational comparative study. SETTING: Private in vitro fertilization (IVF) program. PATIENT(S): Oocyte donors (OD) and recipients. INTERVENTION(S): Donors stimulated within 3 months, starting on day 2 or day 15 after bleeding, with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, and GnRH agonist trigger, and oocytes vitrified and later assigned to recipients, followed by routine IVF procedures one to two embryos transferred. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Primary outcome pregnancy rate, and secondary outcome number of mature oocytes retrieved. RESULT(S): Nine D2 and nine D15 cycles were performed in nine donors. There were no differences between D2 and D15 in the number of mature oocytes obtained (14.0±6.96 vs. 16.89±7.52). To date, 20 recipients have received vitrified oocytes (8 recipients received D2 oocytes and 12 recipients received D15 oocytes). There were no differences between the groups of recipients in fertilization rate (77.3% vs. 76.5%) or number of embryos transferred (1.50±0.53 vs. 1.67±0.65). Twelve clinical pregnancies were obtained. No differences were noted in pregnancy rates (62.5% vs. 58.3%) or implantation rates (41.67% vs. 45%) between recipients of D2 oocytes and recipients of D15 oocytes. CONCLUSION(S): Donor oocytes obtained after ovarian stimulation initiated on day 15 of the cycle achieve good pregnancy rates. This information is useful for patients with cancer undergoing fertility preservation. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT 01645241.

Investigations into implantation failure in oocyte-donation recipients.

In recent decades, the Western world has been experiencing a societal trend to prioritize the professional careers of women who postpone motherhood to about 40 years of age, when, unfortunately, natural reproductive potential declines. This is the reason why these women increasingly find it necessary to resort to oocyte donation to have a child. Thanks to the young age of the donors, the efficacy of oocyte donation is the highest of all assisted reproduction treatments and pregnancy rates achieved with this technique exceed 50%. Moreover, the large registries from ESHRE and ASRM show live birth rates close to this figure. However, there are patients who experience repeated failures in several oocyte-donation cycles, and so far oocyte-donation repeated implantation failure has not been clearly defined. This study analysed the results obtained from 2531 oocyte-donation cycles carried out in 1990 patients and defines oocyte-donation repeated implantation failure as failure to implant with more than two embryo transfers and more than four high-grade embryos transferred. This study observed this condition in 140 oocyte recipients (7%). Also, oocyte cohort size, uterine factors and systemic thrombophilias as important aetiological factors were identified were to offer new therapeutic strategies to patients.

Is AMH useful to reduce low ovarian response to GnRH antagonist protocol in oocyte donors?

We aimed to establish the reference values of Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) in our oocyte donor population and correlate them with the ovarian response to an antagonist stimulation protocol and to study the predictive capacity of AMH for poor response (PR). Normal AMH curves were obtained for 172 candidates. AMH levels decreased with age although they showed great heterogeneity and spread in absolute values at any age range. AMH levels showed a positive correlation, statistically significant, with the Antral Follicle Count (r = 0,705), and number of oocytes retrieved (r = 0,356). In receiver operating characteristic curve analysis a threshold value of AMH = 2.31 ng/ml predictive for retrieval <6 MII (area under the curve (AUC) 0.675) was identified. This cut-off predicted PR with a sensitivity of 70.4% and a specificity of 61.8%, (PPV = 39.6%; NPV = 85.5%, p = 0.004). When performing a multiple logistic regression analysis including age, AFC and FSH, an AUC = 0.668 for PR was obtained whereas if AMH was added to the model it resulted in an AUC = 0.713. In oocyte donors aged 18 to 35 with an AFC ≥ 10 and basal FSH <10 mIU/ml, measuring AMH levels improved just slightly the prediction for PR.

Replacing GnRH agonists with GnRH antagonists in oocyte recipient cycle did not adversely affect the pregnancy rates.

UNLABELLED: The synchronization of the donor stimulation with the endometrial preparation of the recipient is usually done by downregulating the recipient's pituitary with a GnRH analog. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to compare pregnancy and implantation rates among premenopausal oocyte recipients synchronized by pituitary suppression with GnRH agonist (Group AGO) or antagonist (Group ANTAG) and standard endometrial preparation with estrogen and gestagen. STUDY DESIGN: Prospective, observational, transversal, comparative study. Consecutive recipients treated at Institut Universitari Dexeus between July 2008 and December 2009. RESULTS: One hundred and eighty-three premenopausal women were included. No differences were found regarding the age of donors nor the age of recipients, fertilization rates, number of embryos transferred and embryo quality. No differences were found in clinical pregnancy rates (56.1% Group AGO vs. 52.4% Group ANTAG). CONCLUSION: The administration of GnRH antagonists during endometrial preparation in oocyte recipients facilitates synchronization without affecting the pregnancy rate.

Heterotopic pregnancy in a cross border oocyte donation patient: the importance of cooperation between centers.

OBJECTIVE: To report a case of tubal heterotopic pregnancy after oocyte donation in a cross border patient. DESIGN: Case report. SETTING: Private University Clinic, Spain, and Public University Hospital, Italy. PATIENT(S): A woman with a tubal heterotopic pregnancy after oocyte donation. INTERVENTION(S): Oocyte donation and ET (Spain), laparoscopic removal of the tubal heterotopic pregnancy (Italy). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Diagnosis and treatment of the heterotopic pregnancy. RESULT(S): Laparoscopic treatment of the heterotopic pregnancy resulting in a single ongoing intrauterine pregnancy. CONCLUSION(S): Cross border reproductive care is increasing in Europe. When patients go back to their respective countries of origin they may not inform their doctors about having undergone fertility treatments abroad. This can lead to a delayed diagnosis in case of complications arising after treatment or during pregnancy. It is of vital importance that clinicians are aware of this possibility to speed up the diagnosis and treatment of potentially fatal situations such as the one described in the present case report.

Prospective, randomized, comparative study of leuprorelin + human menopausal gonadotropins versus ganirelix + recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in oocyte donors and pregnancy rates among the corresponding recipients.

AIM: To compare the clinical pregnancy rate in recipients of oocytes from donors treated with leuprorelin + human menopausal gonadotropins (hMG) with that obtained when the donors were treated with ganirelix + recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH). The secondary aim was to compare the donors' response to the two treatments. METHOD: A prospective, randomized, comparative study was conducted between January 2005 and November 2006 in a private hospital. Donors were randomized to receive a long protocol of leuprorelin + hMG (group DI) or ganirelix + rFSH (group DII). Their respective recipients were randomized to group RI or group RII, respectively. RESULTS: The characteristics of the donors were similar in both groups. More cycles were cancelled in group DI than in group DII (28.1% vs. 2.5%; p < 0.05). Compared with donors in group DII, the donors in group DI required a significantly higher dose of gonadotropins (2794 +/- 957 U vs. 1777 +/- 1043 U; p < 0.05) and more days of stimulation (11.7 +/- 2.3 vs. 9.5 +/- 1.5; p < 0.05); they also yielded fewer oocytes (15.0 +/- 6.1 vs. 17.9 +/- 8.6; p < 0.05). There were no differences in the characteristics of the recipients, in the fertilization rate or in the number of embryos transferred. The quality of transferred embryos was better in group RI (8.0 +/- 1.2 vs. 7.5 +/- 1.6; p < 0.05), and this group also achieved a better pregnancy rate per embryo transfer than did group RII (62.3% vs. 48.4%; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Treating oocyte donors with leuprorelin + hMG produces among recipients a greater probability of clinical pregnancy per embryo transfer than when donors are treated with ganirelix + rFSH; however, more cycles are cancelled and the former treatment is more unpleasant for donors.