Double versus single stimulation in young low prognosis patients followed by a fresh embryo transfer: a randomized controlled trial (DUOSTIM-fresh)

Abstract

Abstract 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.