Impact of letrozole co-treatment during ovarian stimulation on oocyte yield, embryo development, and live birth rate in women with normal ovarian reserve: secondary outcomes from the RIOT trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does letrozole (LZ) co-treatment during ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins for in IVF impact follicle recruitment, oocyte number and quality, embryo quality, or live birth rate (LBR)? SUMMARY ANSWER: No impact of LZ was found in follicle recruitment, number of oocytes, quality of embryos, or LBR. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Multi-follicle stimulation for IVF produces supra-physiological oestradiol levels. LZ is an aromatase inhibitor that lowers serum oestradiol thus reducing negative feedback and increasing the endogenous gonadotropins in both the follicular and the luteal phases, effectively normalizing the endocrine milieu during IVF treatment. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: Secondary outcomes from a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial (RCT) investigating once-daily 5 mg LZ or placebo during stimulation for IVF with FSH. The RCT was conducted at four fertility clinics at University Hospitals in Denmark from August 2016 to November 2018 and pregnancy outcomes of frozen-thawed embryo transfers (FET) registered until May 2023. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: One hundred fifty-nine women with expected normal ovarian reserve (anti-Müllerian hormone 8-32 nmol/l) were randomized to either co-treatment with LZ (n = 80) or placebo (n = 79). In total 1268 oocytes were aspirated developing into 386 embryos, and morphology and morphokinetics were assessed. One hundred twenty-nine embryos were transferred in the fresh cycle and 158 embryos in a subsequent FET cycle. The effect of LZ on cumulative clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), LBR, endometrial thickness in the fresh cycle, and total FSH consumption was reported. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The proportion of usable embryos of retrieved oocytes was similar in the LZ group and the placebo group with 0.31 vs 0.36 (mean difference (MD) -0.05, 95% CI (-0.12; 0.03), P = 0.65). The size and number of aspirated follicles at oocyte retrieval were similar with 11.8 vs 10.3 follicles per patient (MD 1.5, 95% CI (-0.5; 3.1), P = 0.50), as well as the number of retrieved oocytes with 8.0 vs 7.9 oocytes (MD 0.1, 95% CI (-1.4; 1.6), P = 0.39) in the LZ and placebo groups, respectively. The chance of retrieving an oocyte from the 13 to 16 mm follicles at trigger day was 66% higher (95% CI (24%; 108%), P = 0.002) in the placebo group than in the LZ group, whilst the chance of retrieving an oocyte from the ≥17 mm follicles at trigger day was 50% higher (95% CI (2%; 98%), P = 0.04) in the LZ group than in the placebo group. The proportion of fertilized oocytes with two-pronuclei per retrieved oocytes or per metaphase II oocytes (MII) (the 2PN rates) were similar regardless of fertilization with IVF or ICSI with 0.48 vs 0.57 (MD -0.09, 95% CI (-0.24; 0.04), P = 0.51), and 0.62 vs 0.64 (MD -0.02, 95% CI (-0.13; 0.07), P = 0.78) in the LZ and placebo groups, respectively. However, the MII rate in the ICSI group was significantly lower with 0.75 vs 0.88 in the LZ vs the placebo group (MD -0.14, 95% CI (-0.22; -0.06), P = 0.03). Blastocysts on Day 5 per patient were similar with 1.5 vs 2.0, P = 0.52, as well as vitrified blastocysts per patient Day 5 with 0.8 vs 1.2 in (MD -0.4, 95% CI (-1.0; 0.2), P = 0.52) and vitrified blastocysts per patient Day 6 with 0.6 vs 0.6 (MD 0, 95% CI (-0.3; 0.3), P = 1.00) in the LZ vs placebo group, respectively. Morphologic evaluation of all usable embryos showed a similar distribution in 'Good', 'Fair', and 'Poor', in the LZ vs placebo group, with an odds ratio (OR) of 0.8 95% CI (0.5; 1.3), P = 0.68 of developing a better class embryo. Two hundred and ninety-five of the 386 embryos were cultured in an embryoscope. Morphokinetic annotations showed that the odds of having a high KIDscore™ D3 Day 3 were 1.2 times higher (CI (0.8; 1.9), P = 0.68) in the LZ group vs the placebo group. The CPR per transfer was comparable with 31% vs 39% (risk-difference of 8%, 95% CI (-25%; 11%), P = 0.65) in the LZ and placebo group, respectively, as well as CPR per transfer adjusted for day of transfer, oestradiol and progesterone levels at trigger, progesterone levels mid-luteal, and number of oocytes retrieved (adjusted OR) of 0.8 (95% CI (0.4; 1.6), P = 0.72). Comparable LBR were found per transfer 28% vs 37% (MD -9%, 95% CI (-26%; 9%), P = 0.60) and per randomized women 24% vs 30% (MD of -6%, CI (-22%; 8%), P = 0.60) in the LZ group and placebo group, respectively. Furthermore, 4.8 years since the last oocyte aspiration, a total of 287 of 386 embryos have been transferred in the fresh or a subsequently FET cycle, disclosing the cumulative CPR, which is similar with 38% vs 34% (MD 95% CI (8%; 16%), P = 0.70) in the LZ vs placebo group. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Both cleavage stage and blastocyst transfer and vitrification were permitted in the protocol, making it necessary to categorize their quality and pool the results. The study was powered to detect hormonal variation but not embryo or pregnancy outcomes. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The similar utilization rate and quality of the embryos support the use of LZ co-treatment for IVF with specific indication as fertility preservation, patients with previous cancer, or poor responders. The effect of LZ on mature oocytes from different follicle sizes and LBRs should be evaluated in a meta-analysis or a larger RCT. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Funding was received from EU Interreg for ReproUnion, Sjaelland University Hospital, Denmark, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Gedeon Ricther. Roche Diagnostics contributed with assays. A.P. has received grants from Ferring, Merck Serono, and Gedeon Richter, consulting fees from Preglem, Novo Nordisk, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Cryos, & Merck A/S, speakers fees from Gedeon Richter, Ferring, Merck A/S, Theramex, & Organon, and travel support from Gedeon Richter. The remaining authors declare that they have no competing interests in the research or publication. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT02939898 and NCT02946684.

The Impact of Suppressing Estradiol During Ovarian Stimulation on the Unsupported Luteal Phase: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

CONTEXT: Supraphysiological sex steroid levels at the follicular-luteal phase transition are implicated as the primary cause of luteal insufficiency after ovarian stimulation (OS) for in vitro fertilization. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine the impact of suppressing estradiol levels during OS of multiple dominant follicles on the unsupported luteal phase and markers of endometrial maturation. METHODS: At 2 university hospitals, 25 eligible egg donors were randomized to undergo OS using exogenous gonadotropins with or without adjuvant letrozole 5 mg/day. Final oocyte maturation was triggered with a GnRH agonist. No luteal support was provided. The primary outcome was the duration of the luteal phase. Secondary outcomes were luteal phase hormone profiles and the endometrial transcriptomic signature 5 days after oocyte pick up (OPU + 5). RESULTS: The median (interquartile range [IQR]) luteal phase duration was 8.0 (6.8-11.5) days compared with 5.0 (5.0-6.8) days in the intervention and control group, respectively (P < 0.001). Estradiol levels were effectively suppressed in the letrozole group with a median of 0.86 (0.23-1.24) nmol/L at OPU compared to 2.82 (1.34-3.44) nmol/L in the control group. Median (IQR) progesterone levels at OPU + 5 were 67.05 (15.67-101.75) nmol/L in the letrozole group vs 2.27 (1.05-10.70) nmol/L in the control group (P < 0.001). In the letrozole group, 75% of participants revealed endometrial transcriptomic signatures interpreted as post-receptive. In the control group, 40% were post-receptive and 50% noninformative. CONCLUSION: Suppressing estradiol levels in the follicular phase with adjuvant letrozole significantly reduces the disruption of the unsupported luteal phase after OS.

Impact of letrozole co-treatment during ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophins for IVF: a multicentre, randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Does letrozole co-treatment during ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophins for IVF reduce the proportion of women with premature progesterone levels above 1.5 ng/ml at the time of triggering final oocyte maturation? SUMMARY ANSWER: The proportion of women with premature progesterone above 1.5 ng/ml was not significantly affected by letrozole co-treatment. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: IVF creates multiple follicles with supraphysiological levels of sex steroids interrupting the endocrine milieu and affects the window of implantation. Letrozole is an effective aromatase inhibitor, normalizing serum oestradiol, thereby ameliorating some of the detrimental effects of IVF treatment. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A randomized, double-blinded placebo-controlled trial investigated letrozole intervention during stimulation for IVF with FSH. The trial was conducted at four fertility clinics at University Hospitals in Denmark from August 2016 to November 2018. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: A cohort of 129 women with expected normal ovarian reserve (anti-Müllerian hormone 8-32 nmol/l) completed an IVF cycle with fresh embryo transfer and received co-treatment with either 5 mg/day letrozole (n = 67) or placebo (n = 62), along with the FSH. Progesterone, oestradiol, FSH, LH and androgens were analysed in repeated serum samples collected from the start of the stimulation to the mid-luteal phase. In addition, the effect of letrozole on reproductive outcomes, total FSH consumption and adverse events were assessed. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The proportion of women with premature progesterone >1.5 ng/ml was similar (6% vs 0% (OR 0.0, 95% CI [0.0; 1.6], P = 0.12) in the letrozole versus placebo groups, respectively), whereas the proportion of women with mid-luteal progesterone >30 ng/ml was significantly increased in the letrozole group: (59% vs 31% (OR 3.3, 95% CI [1.4; 7.1], P = 0.005)). Letrozole versus placebo decreased oestradiol levels on the ovulation trigger day by 68% (95% CI [60%; 75%], P < 0.0001). Other hormonal profiles, measured as AUC, showed the following results. The increase in LH in the letrozole group versus placebo group was 38% (95% CI [21%; 58%], P < 0.0001) and 34% (95% CI [11%; 61%], P = 0.006) in the follicular and luteal phases, respectively. In the letrozole group versus placebo group, testosterone increased by 79% (95% CI [55%; 105%], P < 0.0001) and 49% (95% CI [30%; 72%], P < 0.0001) in the follicular and luteal phases, respectively. In the letrozole group versus placebo group, the increase in androstenedione was by 85% (95% CI [59%; 114%], P < 0.0001) and 69% (95% CI [48%; 94%], P < 0.0001) in the follicular and luteal phases, respectively. The ongoing pregnancy rate was similar between the letrozole and placebo groups (31% vs 39% (risk-difference of 8%, 95% CI [-25%; 11%], P = 0.55)). No serious adverse reactions were recorded in either group. The total duration of exogenous FSH stimulation was 1 day shorter in the intervention group, significantly reducing total FSH consumption (mean difference -100 IU, 95% CI [-192; -21], P = 0.03). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Late follicular progesterone samples were collected on the day before and day of ovulation triggering for patient logistic considerations, and the recently emerged knowledge about diurnal variation of progesterone was not taken into account. The study was powered to detect hormonal variations but not differences in pregnancy outcomes. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Although the use of letrozole has no effect on the primary outcome, the number of women with a premature increase in progesterone on the day of ovulation triggering, the increased progesterone in the mid-luteal phase due to letrozole may contribute to optimizing the luteal phase endocrinology. The effect of letrozole on increasing androgens and reducing FSH consumption may be used in poor responders. However, the effect of letrozole on implantation and ongoing pregnancy rates should be evaluated in a meta-analysis or larger randomized controlled trial (RCT). STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Funding was received from EU Interreg for ReproUnion and Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and Roche Diagnostics contributed with assays. N.S.M. and A.P. have received grants from Ferring, Merck Serono, Anecova and Gedeon Richter, and/or personal fees from IBSA, Vivoplex, ArtPred and SPD, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors have no competing interests. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT02939898 and NCT02946684. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 15 August 2016. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 22 August 2016.

Conventional microscopy versus digital image analysis for histopathologic evaluation of immune cells in the endometrium.

In the search for a reliable biomarker able to diagnose immunological causes of infertility, uterine immune cells have been widely investigated. As a result, heterogeneous methods and cutoff values of what constitutes an aberrant number of immune cells have been reported, and a standardized method for quantification is needed. The objective of this study was to compare methods for quantification of immune cells visualized with immunohistochemistry in the endometrium of women in fertility treatment. Evaluation of the density of CD56+, CD16+ and CD163+ cells by conventional microscopy on a semiquantitative scale (low, medium and high) was compared to a continuous count using digital image analysis (DIA) reported as percentage positive cells out of the total number of stromal cells and number of positive cells per mm2, respectively. We previously reported the CD56/CD16 ratio as a possible prognostic marker, and therefore the ratios of CD56/CD16 were compared using two different methods for selecting fields for counting with DIA: one method using principles of systematic random sampling, where glands were excluded, and one method analyzing large parts of the tissue including glands. A significant association between conventional microscopy and DIA was found when the semiquantitative scale was compared to medians of positive cells in CD56, CD16 and CD163, respectively, p < 0.001. A systematic significant difference in the ratios of CD56/CD16 was found when comparing the two methods for field selection, p < 0.001. To determine the possible use of these methods, more knowledge of the correlation to clinical outcome is warranted.