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.

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)? No impact of LZ was found in follicle recruitment, number of oocytes, quality of embryos, or LBR. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. NCT02939898 and NCT02946684.

Bülow NS ，Warzecha AK ，Nielsen MV ，Andersen CY ，Holt MD ，Petersen MR ，Sopa N ，Zedeler A ，Englund AL ，Pinborg A ，Grøndahl ML ，Skouby SO ，Macklon NS ... -  《-》

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

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? The proportion of women with premature progesterone above 1.5 ng/ml was not significantly affected by letrozole co-treatment. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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). 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. NCT02939898 and NCT02946684. 15 August 2016. 22 August 2016.

Bülow NS ，Skouby SO ，Warzecha AK ，Udengaard H ，Andersen CY ，Holt MD ，Grøndahl ML ，Nyboe Andersen A ，Sopa N ，Mikkelsen ALE ，Pinborg A ，Macklon NS ... -  《-》

The BISTIM study: a randomized controlled trial comparing dual ovarian stimulation (duostim) with two conventional ovarian stimulations in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF.

Is the total number of oocytes retrieved with dual ovarian stimulation in the same cycle (duostim) higher than with two consecutive antagonist cycles in poor responders? Based on the number of total and mature oocytes retrieved in women with poor ovarian response (POR), there is no benefit of duostim versus two consecutive antagonist cycles. Recent studies have shown the ability to obtain oocytes with equivalent quality from the follicular and the luteal phase, and a higher number of oocytes within one cycle when using duostim. If during follicular stimulation smaller follicles are sensitized and recruited, this may increase the number of follicles selected in the consecutive luteal phase stimulation, as shown in non-randomized controlled trials (RCT). This could be particularly relevant for women with POR. This is a multicentre, open-labelled RCT, performed in four IVF centres from September 2018 to March 2021. The primary outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved over the two cycles. The primary objective was to demonstrate in women with POR that two ovarian stimulations within the same cycle (first in the follicular phase, followed by a second in the luteal phase) led to the retrieval of 1.5 (2) more oocytes than the cumulative number of oocytes from two consecutive conventional stimulations with an antagonist protocol. In a superiority hypothesis, with power 0.8 alpha-risk 0.05 and a 35% cancellation rate, 44 patients were needed in each group. Patients were randomized by computer allocation. Eighty-eight women with POR, defined using adjusted Bologna criteria (antral follicle count ≤5 and/or anti-Müllerian hormone ≤1.2 ng/ml) were randomized, 44 in the duostim group and 44 in the conventional (control) group. HMG 300 IU/day with flexible antagonist protocol was used for ovarian stimulation, except in luteal phase stimulation of the duostim group. In the duostim group, oocytes were pooled and inseminated after the second retrieval, with a freeze-all protocol. Fresh transfers were performed in the control group, frozen embryo transfers were performed in both control and duostim groups in natural cycles. Data underwent intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. There was no difference between the groups regarding demographics, ovarian reserve markers, and stimulation parameters. The mean (SD) cumulative number of oocytes retrieved from two ovarian stimulations was not statistically different between the control and duostim groups, respectively, 4.6 (3.4) and 5.0 (3.4) [mean difference (MD) [95% CI] +0.4 [-1.1; 1.9], P = 0.56]. The mean cumulative numbersof mature oocytes and total embryos obtained were not significantly different between groups. The total number of embryos transferred by patient was significantly higher in the control group 1.5 (1.1) versus the duostim group 0.9 (1.1) (P = 0.03). After two cumulative cycles, 78% of women in the control group and 53.8% in the duostim group had at least one embryo transfer (P = 0.02). There was no statistical difference in the mean number of total and mature oocytes retrieved per cycle comparing Cycle 1 versus Cycle 2, both in control and duostim groups. The time to the second oocyte retrieval was significantly longer in controls, at 2.8 (1.3) months compared to 0.3 (0.5) months in the duostim group (P < 0.001). The implantation rate was similar between groups. The cumulative live birth rate was not statistically different, comparing controls versus the duostim group, 34.1% versus 17.9%, respectively (P = 0.08). The time to transfer resulting in an ongoing pregnancy did not differ in controls 1.7 (1.5) months versus the duostim group, 3.0 (1.6) (P = 0.08). No serious adverse events were reported. The RCT was impacted by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic and the halt in IVF activities for 10 weeks. Delays were recalculated to exclude this period; however, one woman in the duostim group could not have the luteal stimulation. We also faced unexpected good ovarian responses and pregnancies after the first oocyte retrieval in both groups, with a higher incidence in the control group. However, our hypothesis was based on 1.5 more oocytes in the luteal than the follicular phase in the duostim group, and the number of patients to treat was reached in this group (N = 28). This study was only powered for cumulative number of oocytes retrieved. This is the first RCT comparing the outcome of two consecutive cycles, either in the same menstrual cycle or in two consecutive menstrual cycles. In routine practice, the benefit of duostim in patients with POR regarding fresh embryo transfer is not confirmed in this RCT: first, because this study demonstrates no improvement in the number of oocytes retrieved in the luteal phase after follicular phase stimulation, in contrast to previous non-randomized studies, and second, because the freeze-all strategy avoids a pregnancy with fresh embryo transfer after the first cycle. However, duostim appears to be safe for women. In duostim, the two consecutive processes of freezing/thawing are mandatory and increase the risk of wastage of oocytes/embryos. The only benefit of duostim is to shorten the time to a second retrieval by 2 weeks if accumulation of oocytes/embryos is needed. This is an investigator-initiated study supported by a research Grant from IBSA Pharma. N.M. declares grants paid to their institution from MSD (Organon France); consulting fees from MSD (Organon France), Ferring, and Merck KGaA; honoraria from Merck KGaA, General Electrics, Genevrier (IBSA Pharma), and Theramex; support for travel and meetings from Theramex, Merck KGaG, and Gedeon Richter; and equipment paid to their institution from Goodlife Pharma. I.A. declares honoraria from GISKIT and support for travel and meetings from GISKIT. G.P.-B. declares Consulting fees from Ferring and Merck KGaA; honoraria from Theramex, Gedeon Richter, and Ferring; payment for expert testimony from Ferring, Merck KGaA, and Gedeon Richter; and support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. N.C. declares grants from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaA, Ferring, and Gedeon Richter; support for travel and meetings from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaG, MSD (Organon France), Gedeon Richter, and Theramex; and participation on advisory board from Merck KGaA. E.D. declares support for travel and meetings from IBSA pharma, Merck KGaG, MSD (Organon France), Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Theramex, and General Electrics. C.P.-V. declares support for travel and meetings from IBSA Pharma, Merck KGaA, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, and Theramex. M.Pi. declares support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Gedeon Richetr, and Merck KGaA. M.Pa. declares honoraria from Merck KGaA, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter; support for travel and meetings from Merck KGaA, IBSA Pharma, Theramex, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, and MSD (Organon France). H.B.-G. declares honoraria from Merck KGaA, and Gedeon Richter and support for travel and meetings from Ferring, Merck KGaA, IBSA Pharma, MSD (Organon France), Theramex, and Gedeon Richter. S.G. and M.B. have nothing to declare. Registration number EudraCT: 2017-003223-30. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03803228. EudraCT: 28 July 2017. ClinicalTrials.gov: 14 January 2019. 3 September 2018.

Massin N ，Abdennebi I ，Porcu-Buisson G ，Chevalier N ，Descat E ，Piétin-Vialle C ，Goro S ，Brussieux M ，Pinto M ，Pasquier M ，Bry-Gauillard H ... -  《-》

Pretreatment with luteal estradiol for programming antagonist cycles compared to no pretreatment in advanced age women stimulated with corifollitropin alfa: a non-inferiority randomized controlled trial.

Does luteal estradiol (E2) pretreatment give a similar number of retrieved oocytes compared to no-pretreatment in advanced-aged women stimulated with corifollitropin alfa in an antagonist protocol? Programming antagonist cycles with luteal E2 gave similar number of retrieved oocytes compared to no-pretreatment in women aged 38-42 years. Programming antagonist cycles with luteal E2 pretreatment is a valuable tool to organize the IVF procedure better and is safe without any known impact on cycle outcome. However, variable effects were observed on the number of retrieved oocytes depending on the treated population. In advanced-age women, recruitable follicles tend to decrease in number and to be more heterogeneous in size but it remains unclear if estradiol pretreatment could change the oocyte yield through its negative feed-back effect on FSH intercycle rise. This non-blinded randomized controlled non-inferiority trial was conducted between 2016 and 2022 with centrally computerized randomization and concealed allocation. Participants were 324 women aged 38-42 years undergoing IVF treatment. The primary endpoint was the total number of retrieved oocytes. Statistical analysis was performed with one-sided alpha risk of 2.5% and 95% confidence interval (CI) with the non-inferiority of E2 pretreatment proved by a P value <0.025 and a lower delta margin of the CI within two oocytes compared to no pretreatment. Secondary endpoints were duration and total dosage of recombinant FSH, cancellation rate, percentage of oocyte pick-up (OPU) on working days, total number of metaphase II oocytes and obtained embryos, fresh transfer live birth rate, and cumulative live birth rate. This multicentric study enrolled women with regular cycles, weight >50 kg and body mass index <32, IVF cycle 1-2. According to randomization, micronized estradiol 2 mg twice a day was started on days 20-24 and continued until Wednesday beyond the onset of menses followed by administration of corifollitropin alfa on Friday, i.e. stimulation (S)1 or from D1-3 of a natural cycle in unpretreated patients. GnRH antagonist was started at S6 and additional FSH at S8. Basal characteristics were similar in patients randomized in E2 pretreated (n = 164) and non-pretreated (n = 160) groups (intended to treat (ITT) population). A total of 291 patients started treatment (per protocol (PP) population), 147 in E2 pretreated group with a mean number [SD] of pre-treatment days 9.8 [2.6] and 144 in the non-pretreated group. Despite advanced age, oocyte yields ranged from 0 to 29 in both groups with a median number of 6 retrieved oocytes in accordance with a mean anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level above 1.2 ng/ml. We demonstrated the non-inferiority of E2 pretreatment with a mean difference of -0.1 oocyte 95% CI [-1.5; 1.3] P = 0.004 in the PP population and a mean difference of -0.44 oocyte [-1.84; 0.97] P = 0.014 in the ITT population. Oocyte retrieval was more often on working days in E2 pretreated patients (91.9 versus 74.2%, P < 0.001). In patients reaching OPU, the duration of stimulation was statistically significantly longer (11.7 [1.7] versus 10.8 [1.8] days, P < 0.001) and the extra FSH dosage in addition to corifollitropin alfa was statistically significantly higher (1040 [548] versus 778 [504] IU, P < 0.001) in E2 pretreated than non-pretreated patients. We did not observe any significant differences in the number of retrieved oocytes (8.4 [6.1] versus 9.1 [6.0]), in the number of Metaphase 2 oocytes (7 [5.5] versus 7.3 [5.2]) nor in the number of obtained embryos (5 [4.6] versus 5.2 [4.2]) in E2 pretreated patients compared to non-pretreated patients. The live birth rate after fresh transfer (16.2% versus 18.5%, respectively), and the cumulative live birth rate per patient (17.7% versus 22.9%, respectively) were similar in both groups. Among the PP population, 31.6% of patients fulfilled the criteria for group 4 of Poseïdon classification (AMH <1.2 ng/ml and/or antral follicle count <5). In this sub-group of patients, we observed in contrast a statistically higher number of retrieved oocytes in E2 pretreated patients compared to non-pretreated (5.1 [3.8] versus 3.4 [2.7], respectively, the mean difference of +1.7 oocyte [0.2; 3.2] P = 0.022) but without significant difference in the cumulative live birth rate per patient (15.7% versus 7.3%, respectively). Our stimulated women older than 38 years obtained a wide range of collected oocytes suggesting very different stages of ovarian aging in both groups. E2 pretreatment is more likely to increase oocyte yield at the stage of ovarian aging characterized by asynchrony of a reduced follicular cohort. Another limitation is the sample size in sub-group analysis of patients with AMH <1.2 ng/ml. Finally, the absence of placebo for pretreatment could also introduce possible bias. Programming antagonist cycles with luteal E2 pretreatment seems a useful tool in advanced age women to better schedule oocyte retrievals on working days. However, the potential benefit of the number of collected oocytes remains to be demonstrated in a larger population displaying the characteristics of decreased ovarian reserve encountered in Poseïdon classification. Research grant from (MSD) Organon, France. I.C., S.D., B.B., X.M., S.G., and C.J. have no conflict of interest with this study. I.C.D. declares fees as speaker from Merck KGaA, Gedeon Richter, MSD (Organon, France), Ferring, Theramex, and IBSA and participation on advisory board from Merck KGaA. I.C.D. also declares consulting fees, and travel and meeting support from Merck KGaA. N.M. declares grants paid to their institution from MSD (Organon, France); consulting fees from MSD (Organon, France), Ferring, and Merck KGaA; honoraria from Merck KGaA, General Electrics, Genevrier (IBSA Pharma), and Theramex; support for travel and meetings from Theramex, Merck KGaG, and Gedeon Richter; and equipment paid to their institution from Goodlife Pharma. N.C. declares grants from IBSA Pharma, Merck KGaA, Ferring, and Gedeon Richter; support for travel and meetings from IBSA Pharma, Merck KGaG, MSD (Organon, France), Gedeon Richter, and Theramex; and participation on advisory board from Merck KGaA. A.G.L. declares fees as speaker from Merck KGaA, Gedeon Richter, MSD (Organon, France), Ferring, Theramex, and IBSA. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02884245. 29 August 2016. 4 November 2016.

Cédrin-Durnerin I ，Carton I ，Massin N ，Chevalier N ，Dubourdieu S ，Bstandig B ，Michelson X ，Goro S ，Jung C ，Guivarc'h-Lévêque A ... -  《-》

Does dual oocyte retrieval with continuous FSH administration increase the number of mature oocytes in low responders? An open-label randomized controlled trial.

Boudry L ，Mateizel I ，Wouters K ，Papaleo E ，Mackens S ，De Vos M ，Racca A ，Adriaenssens T ，Tournaye H ，Blockeel C ... -  《-》