DuoStim - a reproducible strategy to obtain more oocytes and competent embryos in a short time-frame aimed at fertility preservation and IVF purposes. A systematic review

Alberto Vaiarelli, Danilo Cimadomo, Cecilia Petriglia, Alessandro Conforti, Carlo Alviggi, Nicolò Ubaldi, Sergio Ledda, Susanna Ferrero, Laura Rienzi, Filippo Maria Ubaldi, Alberto Vaiarelli, Danilo Cimadomo, Cecilia Petriglia, Alessandro Conforti, Carlo Alviggi, Nicolò Ubaldi, Sergio Ledda, Susanna Ferrero, Laura Rienzi, Filippo Maria Ubaldi

Abstract

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.

Keywords: Advanced maternal age; Bologna criteria; DuoStim; PGT; double ovarian stimulation; fertility preservation; poor-prognosis patients; poor-responder patients; reduced ovarian reserve.

Conflict of interest statement

AV, FMU, LR, and CA report personal fees and honoraria outside the submitted work. DC, SF, AC, SL, NU, and CP have nothing to disclose.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
PRISMA 2009 flow diagram.

References

    1. Venturella R, Vaiarelli A, Lico D, Ubaldi FM, Zullo F, DI Carlo C. A modern approach to the management of candidates for assisted reproductive technology procedures. Minerva Ginecol. 2018;70:69–83.
    1. Rienzi L, Gracia C, Maggiulli R, LaBarbera AR, Kaser DJ, Ubaldi FM, et al. . Oocyte, embryo and blastocyst cryopreservation in ART: systematic review and meta-analysis comparing slow-freezing versus vitrification to produce evidence for the development of global guidance. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23:139–55.
    1. Patrizio P, Vaiarelli A, Levi Setti PE, Tobler KJ, Shoham G, Leong M, et al. . How to define, diagnose and treat poor responders? Responses from a worldwide survey of IVF clinics. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;30:581–92.
    1. Ubaldi F, Vaiarelli A, D’Anna R, Rienzi L. Management of poor responders in IVF: is there anything new? Biomed Res Int. 2014;2014:1–10.
    1. Baerwald AR, Adams GP, Pierson RA. Ovarian antral folliculogenesis during the human menstrual cycle: a review. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18:73–91.
    1. Massin N. New stimulation regimens: endogenous and exogenous progesterone use to block the LH surge during ovarian stimulation for IVF. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23:211–20.
    1. Vaiarelli A, Venturella R, Vizziello D, Bulletti F, Ubaldi FM. Dual ovarian stimulation and random start in assisted reproductive technologies: from ovarian biology to clinical application. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2017;29:153–9.
    1. Kuang Y, Chen Q, Hong Q, Lyu Q, Ai A, Fu Y, et al. . Double stimulations during the follicular and luteal phases of poor responders in IVF/ICSI programmes (Shanghai protocol). Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29:684–91.
    1. Drakopoulos P, Blockeel C, Stoop D, Camus M, de Vos M, Tournaye H, et al. . Conventional ovarian stimulation and single embryo transfer for IVF/ICSI. How many oocytes do we need to maximize cumulative live birth rates after utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos? Hum Reprod. 2016;31:370–6.
    1. Drakopoulos P, Errazuriz J, Santos-Ribeiro S, Tournaye H, Vaiarelli A, Pluchino N, et al. . Cumulative live birth rates in IVF. Minerva Ginecol. 2019;71:207–10.
    1. Bosch E, Bulletti C, Copperman AB, Fanchin R, Yarali H, Petta CA, et al. . How time to healthy singleton delivery could affect decision-making during infertility treatment: a Delphi consensus. Reprod Biomed Online. 2019;38:118–30.
    1. Mihm M, Austin EJ, Good TE, Ireland JL, Knight PG, Roche JF, et al. . Identification of potential intrafollicular factors involved in selection of dominant follicles in heifers. Biol Reprod. 2000;63:811–9.
    1. Medan MS, Watanabe G, Sasaki K, Sharawy S, Groome NP, Taya K. Ovarian dynamics and their associations with peripheral concentrations of gonadotropins, ovarian steroids, and inhibin during the estrous cycle in goats. Biol Reprod. 2003;69:57–63.
    1. Bartlewski PM, Baby TE, Giffin JL. Reproductive cycles in sheep. Anim Reprod Sci. 2011;124:259–68.
    1. Pieterse MC, Kappen KA, Kruip TA, Taverne MA. Aspiration of bovine oocytes during transvaginal ultrasound scanning of the ovaries. Theriogenology. 1988;30:751–62.
    1. Pieterse MC, Vos PL, Kruip TA, Wurth YA, van Beneden TH, Willemse AH, et al. . Transvaginal ultrasound guided follicular aspiration of bovine oocytes. Theriogenology. 1991;35:857–62.
    1. Galli C, Crotti G, Notari C, Turini P, Duchi R, Lazzari G. Embryo production by ovum pick up from live donors. Theriogenology. 2001;55:1341–57.
    1. Saad M, Sarwar Z, Saleem M, Arshad U, Shahzad M, Hassan Mushtaq M, et al. . Effect of plasma progesterone on oocyte recovery, oocyte quality, and early in-vitro developmental competence of embryos in Bos indicus dairy cows. Anim Reprod Sci. 2019;202:80–6.
    1. Garcia A, Salaheddine M. Effects of repeated ultrasound-guided transvaginal follicular aspiration on bovine oocyte recovery and subsequent follicular development. Theriogenology. 1998;50:575–85.
    1. Cobo A, García-Velasco JA, Coello A, Domingo J, Pellicer A, Remohí J. Oocyte vitrification as an efficient option for elective fertility preservation. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:755–64.e8.
    1. Sunkara SK, Rittenberg V, Raine-Fenning N, Bhattacharya S, Zamora J, Coomarasamy A. Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1768–74.
    1. Cobo A, Garrido N, Pellicer A, Remohi J. Six years’ experience in ovum donation using vitrified oocytes: report of cumulative outcomes, impact of storage time, and development of a predictive model for oocyte survival rate. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:1426–34 e1–8.
    1. Tsampras N, Gould D, Fitzgerald CT. Double ovarian stimulation (DuoStim) protocol for fertility preservation in female oncology patients. Hum Fertil (Camb). 2017;20:248–53.
    1. Moffat R, Pirtea P, Gayet V, Wolf JP, Chapron C, de Ziegler D. Dual ovarian stimulation is a new viable option for enhancing the oocyte yield when the time for assisted reproductive technnology is limited. Reprod Biomed Online. 2014;29:659–61.
    1. Sighinolfi G, Sunkara SK, La Marca A. New strategies of ovarian stimulation based on the concept of ovarian follicular waves: from conventional to random and double stimulation. Reprod Biomed Online. 2018;37:489–97.
    1. Venturella R, Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Pedri S, Lico D, Mazzilli R. State of the art and emerging drug therapies for female infertility. Gynecol Endocrinol 2019; 29:1–7.
    1. Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Trabucco E, Vallefuoco R, Buffo L, Dusi L, et al. . Double stimulation in the same ovarian cycle (DuoStim) to maximize the number of oocytes retrieved from poor prognosis patients: a multicenter experience and SWOT analysis. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 2018;9:317.
    1. Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Ubaldi N, Rienzi L, Ubaldi FM. What is new in the management of poor ovarian response in IVF? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2018;30:155–62.
    1. Conforti A, Esteves SC, Cimadomo D, Vaiarelli A, Di Rella F, Ubaldi FM, et al. . Management of women with an unexpected low ovarian response to gonadotropin. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019;10:387.
    1. Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Argento C, Ubaldi N, Trabucco E, Drakopoulos P, et al. . Double stimulation in the same ovarian cycle (DuoStim) is an intriguing strategy to improve oocyte yield and the number of competent embryos in a short timeframe. Minerva Ginecol. 2019;71:372–6.
    1. Cimadomo D, Fabozzi G, Vaiarelli A, Ubaldi N, Ubaldi FM, Rienzi L. Impact of maternal age on oocyte and embryo competence. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018;9:327.
    1. Gruhn JR, Zielinska AP, Shukla V, Blanshard R, Capalbo A, Cimadomo D, et al. . Chromosome errors in human eggs shape natural fertility over reproductive life span. Science. 2019;365:1466–9.
    1. Maggiulli R, Cimadomo D, Fabozzi G, Papini L, Dovere L, Ubaldi FM, et al. . The effect of ICSI-related procedural timings and operators on the outcome. Hum Reprod. 2020;35:32–43.
    1. Franasiak JM, Forman EJ, Hong KH, Werner MD, Upham KM, Treff NR, et al. . The nature of aneuploidy with increasing age of the female partner: a review of 15,169 consecutive trophectoderm biopsies evaluated with comprehensive chromosomal screening. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:656–63 e1.
    1. Capalbo A, Hoffmann ER, Cimadomo D, Maria Ubaldi F, Rienzi L. Human female meiosis revised: new insights into the mechanisms of chromosome segregation and aneuploidies from advanced genomics and time-lapse imaging. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23:706–22.
    1. Ubaldi FM, Cimadomo D, Vaiarelli A, Fabozzi G, Venturella R, Maggiulli R, et al. . Advanced maternal age in IVF: still a challenge? The present and the future of its treatment. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2019;10:94.
    1. Ubaldi FM, Cimadomo D, Capalbo A, Vaiarelli A, Buffo L, Trabucco E, et al. . Preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy testing in women older than 44 years: a multicenter experience. Fertil Steril. 2017;107:1173–80.
    1. Ubaldi FM, Capalbo A, Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Colamaria S, Alviggi C, et al. . Follicular versus luteal phase ovarian stimulation during the same menstrual cycle (DuoStim) in a reduced ovarian reserve population results in a similar euploid blastocyst formation rate: new insight in ovarian reserve exploitation. Fertil Steril. 2016;105:1488–95.
    1. Chen M, Wei S, Hu J, Quan S. Can comprehensive chromosome screening technology improve IVF/ICSI outcomes? A meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2015;10:e0140779.
    1. Dahdouh EM, Balayla J, Garcia-Velasco JA. Comprehensive chromosome screening improves embryo selection: a meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;104:1503–12.
    1. Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BC, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L; on behalf of the ESHRE working group on Poor Ovarian Response Definition ESHRE consensus on the definition of ‘poor response’ to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: the Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1616–24.
    1. Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Conforti A, Schimberni M, Giuliani M, D’Alessandro P, et al. . Luteal phase after conventional stimulation in the same ovarian cycle might improve the management of poor responder patients fulfilling the Bologna Criteria: a case series. Fertil Steril. 2020;113:121–30.
    1. Reynolds KA, Omurtag KR, Jimenez PT, Rhee JS, Tuuli MG, Jungheim ES. Cycle cancellation and pregnancy after luteal estradiol priming in women defined as poor responders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Hum Reprod. 2013;28:2981–9.
    1. Lawrenz B, Garrido N, Samir S, Ruiz F, Melado L, Fatemi HM. Individual luteolysis pattern after GnRH-agonist trigger for final oocyte maturation. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0176600.
    1. Xu B, Li Y. Flexible ovarian stimulation in a poor responder: a case report and literature review. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26:378–83.
    1. Wei LH, Ma WH, Tang N, Wei JH. Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation is a feasible method for poor ovarian responders undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer treatment compared to a GnRH antagonist protocol: a retrospective study. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol. 2016;55:50–4.
    1. Zhang Q, Guo XM, Li Y. Implantation rates subsequent to the transfer of embryos produced at different phases during double stimulation of poor ovarian responders. Reprod Fertil Dev. 2017;29:1178–83.
    1. Cardoso MCA, Evangelista A, Sartorio C, Vaz G, Werneck CLV, Guimaraes FM, et al. . Can ovarian double-stimulation in the same menstrual cycle improve IVF outcomes? JBRA Assist Reprod. 2017;21:217–21.
    1. Liu C, Jiang H, Zhang W, Yin H. Double ovarian stimulation during the follicular and luteal phase in women >/=38 years: a retrospective case-control study. Reprod Biomed Online. 2017;35:678–84.
    1. Jin B, Niu Z, Xu B, Chen Q, Zhang A. Comparison of clinical outcomes among dual ovarian stimulation, mild stimulation and luteal phase stimulation protocols in women with poor ovarian response. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2018;34:694–7.
    1. Rashtian J, Zhang J. Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation increases the number of mature oocytes in older women with severe diminished ovarian reserve. Syst Biol Reprod Med. 2018;64:216–9.
    1. Cimadomo D, Vaiarelli A, Colamaria S, Trabucco E, Alviggi C, Venturella R, et al. . Luteal phase anovulatory follicles result in the production of competent oocytes: intra-patient paired case-control study comparing follicular versus luteal phase stimulations in the same ovarian cycle. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:1442–8.
    1. Madani T, Hemat M, Arabipoor A, Khodabakhshi SH, Zolfaghari Z. Double mild stimulation and egg collection in the same cycle for management of poor ovarian responders. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod. 2019;48:329–33.
    1. Alsbjerg B, Haahr T, Elbaek HO, Laursen R, Povlsen BB, Humaidan P. Dual stimulation using corifollitropin alfa in 54 Bologna criteria poor ovarian responders – a case series. Reprod Biomed Online. 2019;38:677–82.
    1. Hatirnaz S, Ata B, Hatirnaz E, Basbug A, Tannus S. Dual oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer in the same cycle for women with premature ovarian insufficiency. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2019;145:23–7.
    1. Cimadomo D, Carmelo R, Parrotta EI, Scalise S, Santamaria G, Alviggi E, et al. . Similar miRNomic signatures characterize the follicular fluids collected after follicular and luteal phase stimulations in the same ovarian cycle. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2020;37:149–58.
    1. Vaiarelli A, Cimadomo D, Colamaria S, Ferrero S, Giuliani M, Trabucco E, et al. . No evidences that implantation of vitrified euploid blastocysts is influenced by ovarian stimulation conducted in luteal versus follicular phase: interim analysis of a prospective multicentre study. Hum Reprod 2018;33:i138–i9.
    1. Kamath MS, Maheshwari A, Bhattacharya S, Lor KY, Gibreel A. Oral medications including clomiphene citrate or aromatase inhibitors with gonadotropins for controlled ovarian stimulation in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;11:CD008528.
    1. Andersen AN, Devroey P, Arce JC. Clinical outcome following stimulation with highly purified hMG or recombinant FSH in patients undergoing IVF: a randomized assessor-blind controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:3217–27.
    1. Bosch E, Vidal C, Labarta E, Simon C, Remohi J, Pellicer A. Highly purified hMG versus recombinant FSH in ovarian hyperstimulation with GnRH antagonists – a randomized study. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:2346–51.
    1. Hompes PG, Broekmans FJ, Hoozemans DA, Schats R, FIRM group Effectiveness of highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin vs. recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in first-cycle in vitro fertilization-intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients. Fertil Steril. 2008;89:1685–93.
    1. Devroey P, Pellicer A, Nyboe Andersen A, Arce JC. Menopur in GnRH Antagonist Cycles with Single Embryo Transfer Trial Group. A randomized assessor-blind trial comparing highly purified hMG and recombinant FSH in a GnRH antagonist cycle with compulsory single-blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:561–71.
    1. Lehert P, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Schertz J, Saunders H, Arriagada P, et al. . Recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (r-hFSH) plus recombinant luteinizing hormone versus r-hFSH alone for ovarian stimulation during assisted reproductive technology: systematic review and meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2014;12:17.
    1. Levi Setti PE, Alviggi C, Colombo GL, Pisanelli C, Ripellino C, Longobardi S, et al. . Human recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) compared to urinary human menopausal gonadotropin (HMG) for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction: a literature review and cost evaluation. J Endocrinol Invest. 2015;38:497–503.
    1. Santi D, Casarini L, Alviggi C, Simoni M. Efficacy of follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) alone, FSH + luteinizing hormone, human menopausal gonadotropin or FSH + human chorionic gonadotropin on assisted reproductive technology outcomes in the “Personalized; Medicine Era: A Meta-analysis”. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2017;8:114.
    1. Lehert P, Schertz JC, Ezcurra D. Recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone produces more oocytes with a lower total dose per cycle in assisted reproductive technologies compared with highly purified human menopausal gonadotrophin: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2010;8:112.
    1. Shavit T, Shalom-Paz E, Samara N, Aslih N, Michaeli M, Ellenbogen A. Comparison between stimulation with highly purified hMG or recombinant FSH in patients undergoing IVF with GnRH antagonist protocol. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2016;32:629–33.
    1. Mochtar MH, Danhof NA, Ayeleke RO, Van der Veen F, van Wely M. Recombinant luteinizing hormone (rLH) and recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (rFSH) for ovarian stimulation in IVF/ICSI cycles. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;5:CD005070.
    1. Balasch J, Fabregues F, Casamitjana R, Penarrubia J, Vanrell JA. A pharmacokinetic and endocrine comparison of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and human menopausal gonadotrophin in polycystic ovary syndrome. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;6:296–301.
    1. Hill MJ, Levens ED, Levy G, Ryan ME, Csokmay JM, DeCherney AH, et al. . The use of recombinant luteinizing hormone in patients undergoing assisted reproductive techniques with advanced reproductive age: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2012;97:1108–14 e1.
    1. Alviggi C, Conforti A, Esteves SC, Andersen CY, Bosch E, Buhler K, et al. . Recombinant luteinizing hormone supplementation in assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review. Fertil Steril. 2018;109:644–64.
    1. Wex J, Abou-Setta AM. Economic evaluation of highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin versus recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone in fresh and frozen in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm-injection cycles in Sweden. Clinicoecon Outcomes Res. 2013;5:381–97.
    1. Mennini FS, Marcellusi A, Viti R, Bini C, Carosso A, Revelli A, et al. . Probabilistic cost-effectiveness analysis of controlled ovarian stimulation with recombinant FSH plus recombinant LH vs. human menopausal gonadotropin for women undergoing IVF. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2018;16:68.
    1. Zhang W, Wang M, Wang S, Bao H, Qu E, Zhang N, et al. . Luteal phase ovarian stimulation for poor ovarian responders. JBRA Assist Reprod. 2018;22:193–98.
    1. Lin LT, Vitale SG, Chen SN, Wen ZH, Tsai HW, Chern CU, et al. . Luteal phase ovarian stimulation may improve oocyte retrieval and oocyte quality in poor ovarian responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: preliminary results from a single-center prospective pilot study. Adv Ther. 2018;35:847–56.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorzy i współpracownicy

Warunki medyczne

Interwencje lekowe

3
Subskrybuj