Psychosocial wellbeing shortly after allocation to a freeze-all strategy compared with a fresh transfer strategy in women and men: a sub-study of a randomized controlled trial.

Is the psychosocial wellbeing affected in women and men shortly after allocation to a freeze-all strategy with postponement of embryo transfer compared to a fresh transfer strategy? In general, psychosocial wellbeing (i.e. emotional reactions to the treatment, quality-of-life, infertility-related stress, and marital benefit) was similar in women and men allocated to a freeze-all versus those allocated to a fresh-transfer strategy 6 days after disclosure of treatment strategy (i.e. 4 days after oocyte retrieval), although women in the freeze-all group reported a slightly higher degree of depressive symptoms and mood swings compared to women in the fresh transfer group. The use of a freeze-all strategy, i.e. freezing of the entire embryo cohort followed by elective frozen embryo transfer in subsequent cycles has increased steadily over the past decade in assisted reproductive technology (ART). This strategy essentially eliminates the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome and has proven beneficial regarding some reproductive outcomes in subgroups of women. However, patients experience a longer time interval between oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer, hence a longer time to pregnancy, possibly adding additional stress to the ART treatment. So far, little focus has been on the possible psychosocial strains caused by postponement of embryo transfer. This is a self-reported questionnaire based sub-study of a multicentre randomized controlled trial (RCT) including 460 women and 396 male partners initiating their first, second, or third treatment cycle of invitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) from May 2016 to September 2018. This sub-study was included in the primary project protocol and project plan for the RCT, as psychosocial wellbeing was considered a secondary outcome. Women from eight public fertility clinics in Denmark and Sweden and one private clinic in Spain were randomized in a 1:1 ratio on the day of inclusion (menstrual cycle day 2 or 3) to either a freeze-all strategy with postponement of embryo transfer to a subsequent modified natural menstrual cycle or a fresh transfer strategy with embryo transfer in the hormone stimulated cycle. Treatment allocation was blinded until the day of the ovulation trigger. Women and their male partners were asked to complete a validated self-reported questionnaire 6 days after unblinding of treatment group allocation, corresponding to 4 days after oocyte retrieval, investigating their psychosocial wellbeing related to the treatment defined as emotional reactions to the treatment, quality-of-life, infertility-related stress, and marital benefit. The questionnaire included items from the Copenhagen Multi-Centre Psychosocial Infertility (COMPI) Fertility Problem Stress Scales and the COMPI Marital Benefit Measure. Baseline characteristics were comparable between the two groups for both women and men. In total, response rates were 90.7% for women and 90.2% for men. In the freeze-all group, 207 women and 179 men completed the questionnaire compared with 204 women and 178 men in the fresh transfer group. Men in the two treatment groups did not differ in any of the explored aspects of psychosocial wellbeing (i.e. emotional reactions to the treatment, quality-of-life, infertility-related stress, and marital benefit) 6 days after disclosure of treatment strategy. Women in the freeze-all group reported a slightly higher degree of depressive symptoms (P = 0.045) and mood swings (P = 0.001) (i.e. variables included in 'emotional reactions to treatment') compared to women in the fresh transfer group. When adjusted for multiple testing, depressive symptoms were no longer significantly different between the two groups. No additional differences in psychosocial wellbeing were found. Self-reported quality-of-life during treatment was also rated as similar between the two groups in both women and men, but was slightly lower than they would rate their quality-of-life when not in fertility treatment. Although response rates were high, selection bias cannot be excluded. As this study was an RCT, we assume that psychosocial characteristics of the participants were equally distributed in the two groups, thus it is unlikely that the identified psychosocial differences between the freeze-all and fresh transfer group were present already at baseline. Furthermore, the questionnaire was completed as a one-time assessment 4 days after oocyte retrieval, thus not reflecting the whole treatment process, whereas an assessment after the full completed treatment cycle is needed to draw firm conclusions about the psychosocial consequences of the whole waiting period. However, a question posted that late would be highly biased on whether or not a pregnancy had been achieved. The results indicate that individuals in the freeze-all group exhibited slightly higher levels of depressive symptoms and mood swings compared to those in the fresh transfer group. Nevertheless, it is important to note that any worries related to potential emotional strains stemming from delaying embryo transfer should not overshadow the adoption of a freeze-all approach in cases where it is clinically recommended. As long as patients are provided with comprehensive information about the treatment strategy before initiating the process, it is worth emphasising that other aspects of psychosocial wellbeing were comparable between the two groups. The study is part of the Reprounion collaborative study, co-financed by the European Union, Interreg V Öresund-Kattegat-Skagerrak. L.P. reports financial support from Merck A/S. H.S.N. reports grants from Freya Biosciences ApS, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, BioInnovation Institute, Ministry of Education, Novo Nordic Foundation, Augustinus Fonden, Oda og Hans Svenningsens Fond, Demant Fonden, Ole Kirks Fond and Independent Research Fund Denmark and personal fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S, Astra Zeneca, Cook Medical, IBSA Nordic and Gedeon Richter. H.S.N is founder and chairman of the Maternity Foundation and co-developed the Safe Delivery App (non-profit). N.C.F. reports grants from Gedeon Richter, Merck A/S, Cryos International and financial support from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S and Gedeon Richter. N.C.F. is chairman in the steering committee for the guideline groups for The Danish Fertility Society (non-profit). P.H. reports honoraria from Merch A/S, IBSA Nordic and Gedeon Richter. A.L.M.E. reports grants and financial support from Merck A/S and Gedeon Richter. A.P. reports grants from Gedeon Richter, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Merck A/S and personal fees from Preglem S.A., Novo Nordic Foundation, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Gedeon Richter, Cryos International, Merch A/S, Theramex and Organon and the lend of embryoscope to the institution from Gedeon Richter. All other authors declare no conflict of interest. Clinicaltrials.gov NCT02746562.

Pilegaard SP ，Schmidt L ，Stormlund S ，Koert E ，Bogstad JW ，Prætorius L ，Nielsen HS ，la Cour Freiesleben N ，Sopa N ，Klajnbard A ，Humaidan P ，Bergh C ，Englund ALM ，Løssl K ，Pinborg A ... -  《-》

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 ... -  《-》

Does luteal phase progesterone supplementation affect physical and psychosocial well-being among women undergoing modified natural cycle-FET? A sub-study of a randomized controlled trial.

Are there any differences in physical and psychosocial well-being among women undergoing modified natural cycle frozen embryo transfer (mNC-FET) with or without vaginal progesterone as luteal phase support (LPS)? Women undergoing mNC-FET with vaginal progesterone supplementation were more likely to experience physical discomfort but there was no difference in psychosocial well-being between the two groups. mNC-FET can be carried out with or without vaginal progesterone as LPS, which has several side-effects. It is commonly known that fertility treatment can cause stress and psychosocial strain, however, most studies on this subject are conducted in fresh cycle regimes, which differ from NC-FET and results may not be comparable. This is a sub-study of an ongoing RCT investigating whether progesterone supplementation has a positive effect on live birth rate in mNC-FET. The RCT is conducted at eight fertility clinics in Denmark from 2019 and is planned to end primo 2024. The sub-study is based on two questionnaires on physical and psychosocial well-being added to the RCT in August 2019. On the time of data extraction 286 women had answered both questionnaires. Women who had answered both questionnaires were included in the sub-study. Participants were equally distributed, with 143 in each of the two groups. Participants in both groups received the same questionnaires at two time-points: on cycle day 2-5 (baseline) and after blastocyst transfer. Participants in the progesterone group had administered progesterone for 7 days upon answering the second questionnaire. All items in the questionnaires were validated. Items on psychosocial well-being originate from the Copenhagen Multi-Centre Psychosocial Infertility-Fertility Problem Stress Scale (COMPI-FPSS) and from the Mental Health Inventory-5. Women receiving progesterone experienced more vaginal itching and/or burning than women in the non-progesterone group (P < 0.001). Women in the progesterone group also experienced more self-reported vaginal yeast infection, this was, however, not significant after adjustment for multiple testing (P/adjusted P = 0.049/0.881). No differences regarding psychosocial well-being were found between the two groups. Within the progesterone group, a shift toward feeling less 'downhearted and blue' was found when comparing response distribution at baseline and after blastocyst transfer (P < 0.001). All items on physical symptoms were self-reported. The item on vaginal yeast infection was therefore not diagnosed by a doctor. Inclusion in the study required a few extra visits to the clinic, participants who felt more burdened by fertility treatment might have been more likely to decline participation. Women who experienced a lot of side-effects to progesterone prior to this FET cycle, might be less likely to participate. Our results are in line with previous known side-effects to progesterone. Physical side-effects of progesterone should be considered before administration. The RCT is fully supported by Rigshospitalet's Research Foundation and a grant from Gedeon Richter. Gedeon Richter were not involved in the design of protocol nor in the conduction of the study or analysis of results. A.P., L.P., and N.I.-C.F. report grants from Gedeon Richter, Ferring and Merck with no relations to this study. N.I.-C.F. has received travel support from Ferring, Merck A/S, & Gideon Richter, and is the head of the steering committee for the Danish Fertility Guidelines made by the members of from the Danish Fertility Society. A.P. reports consulting fees from Preglem, Novo Nordisk, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Cryos, & Merck A/S, honoraria from Gedeon Richter, Ferring, Merck A/S, Theramex, and Organon, has received travel support from Gedeon Richter (payment to institution), participated on an advisory board for Preglem and was loaned an embryoscope from Gedeon Richter to their institution. A.L.S. has stock options for Novo Nordisk B A/S. B.A. have received unrestricted grant from Gedeon Richter Nordic and Merck and honoraria for lectures from Gedeon Richter, Merck, IBSA, and Marckyrl Pharma. The RCT is registered on ClinicalTrials. gov (NCT03795220) and in EudraCT (2018-002207-34).

Colombo C ，Pistoljevic-Kristiansen N ，Saupstad M ，Bergenheim SJ ，Spangmose AL ，Klajnbard A ，la Cour Freiesleben N ，Løkkegaard EC ，Englund AL ，Husth M ，Breth Knudsen U ，Alsbjerg B ，Prætorius L ，Løssl K ，Schmidt L ，Pinborg A ... -  《-》

Elective freezing of embryos versus fresh embryo transfer in IVF: a multicentre randomized controlled trial in the UK (E-Freeze).

Does a policy of elective freezing of embryos, followed by frozen embryo transfer result in a higher healthy baby rate, after first embryo transfer, when compared with the current policy of transferring fresh embryos? This study, although limited by sample size, provides no evidence to support the adoption of a routine policy of elective freeze in preference to fresh embryo transfer in order to improve IVF effectiveness in obtaining a healthy baby. The policy of freezing all embryos followed by frozen embryo transfer is associated with a higher live birth rate for high responders but a similar/lower live birth after first embryo transfer and cumulative live birth rate for normal responders. Frozen embryo transfer is associated with a lower risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), preterm delivery and low birthweight babies but a higher risk of large babies and pre-eclampsia. There is also uncertainty about long-term outcomes, hence shifting to a policy of elective freezing for all remains controversial given the delay in treatment and extra costs involved in freezing all embryos. A pragmatic two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial (E-Freeze) was conducted across 18 clinics in the UK from 2016 to 2019. A total of 619 couples were randomized (309 to elective freeze/310 to fresh). The primary outcome was a healthy baby after first embryo transfer (term, singleton live birth with appropriate weight for gestation); secondary outcomes included OHSS, live birth, clinical pregnancy, pregnancy complications and cost-effectiveness. Couples undergoing their first, second or third cycle of IVF/ICSI treatment, with at least three good quality embryos on Day 3 where the female partner was ≥18 and <42 years of age were eligible. Those using donor gametes, undergoing preimplantation genetic testing or planning to freeze all their embryos were excluded. IVF/ICSI treatment was carried out according to local protocols. Women were followed up for pregnancy outcome after first embryo transfer following randomization. Of the 619 couples randomized, 307 and 309 couples in the elective freeze and fresh transfer arms, respectively, were included in the primary analysis. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in outcomes in the elective freeze group compared to the fresh embryo transfer group: healthy baby rate {20.3% (62/307) versus 24.4% (75/309); risk ratio (RR), 95% CI: 0.84, 0.62 to 1.15}; OHSS (3.6% versus 8.1%; RR, 99% CI: 0.44, 0.15 to 1.30); live birth rate (28.3% versus 34.3%; RR, 99% CI 0.83, 0.65 to 1.06); and miscarriage (14.3% versus 12.9%; RR, 99% CI: 1.09, 0.72 to 1.66). Adherence to allocation was poor in the elective freeze group. The elective freeze approach was more costly and was unlikely to be cost-effective in a UK National Health Service context. We have only reported on first embryo transfer after randomization; data on the cumulative live birth rate requires further follow-up. Planned target sample size was not obtained and the non-adherence to allocation rate was high among couples in the elective freeze arm owing to patient preference for fresh embryo transfer, but an analysis which took non-adherence into account showed similar results. Results from the E-Freeze trial do not lend support to the policy of electively freezing all for everyone, taking both efficacy, safety and costs considerations into account. This method should only be adopted if there is a definite clinical indication. NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme (13/115/82). This research was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (NIHR unique award identifier) using UK aid from the UK Government to support global health research. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the UK Department of Health and Social Care. J.L.B., C.C., E.J., P.H., J.J.K., L.L. and G.S. report receipt of funding from NIHR, during the conduct of the study. J.L.B., E.J., P.H., K.S. and L.L. report receipt of funding from NIHR, during the conduct of the study and outside the submitted work. A.M. reports grants from NIHR personal fees from Merck Serono, personal fees for lectures from Merck Serono, Ferring and Cooks outside the submitted work; travel/meeting support from Ferring and Pharmasure and participation in a Ferring advisory board. S.B. reports receipt of royalties and licenses from Cambridge University Press, a board membership role for NHS Grampian and other financial or non-financial interests related to his roles as Editor-in-Chief of Human Reproduction Open and Editor and Contributing Author of Reproductive Medicine for the MRCOG, Cambridge University Press. D.B. reports grants from NIHR, during the conduct of the study; grants from European Commission, grants from Diabetes UK, grants from NIHR, grants from ESHRE, grants from MRC, outside the submitted work. Y.C. reports speaker fees from Merck Serono, and advisory board role for Merck Serono and shares in Complete Fertility. P.H. reports membership of the HTA Commissioning Committee. E.J. reports membership of the NHS England and NIHR Partnership Programme, membership of five Data Monitoring Committees (Chair of two), membership of six Trial Steering Committees (Chair of four), membership of the Northern Ireland Clinical Trials Unit Advisory Group and Chair of the board of Oxford Brain Health Clinical Trials Unit. R.M. reports consulting fees from Gedeon Richter, honorarium from Merck, support fees for attendance at educational events and conferences for Merck, Ferring, Bessins and Gedeon Richter, payments for participation on a Merck Safety or Advisory Board, Chair of the British Fertility Society and payments for an advisory role to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. G.S. reports travel and accommodation fees for attendance at a health economic advisory board from Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany. N.R.-F. reports shares in Nurture Fertility. Other authors' competing interests: none declared. ISRCTN: 61225414. 29 December 2015. 16 February 2016.

Maheshwari A ，Bell JL ，Bhide P ，Brison D ，Child T ，Chong HY ，Cheong Y ，Cole C ，Coomarasamy A ，Cutting R ，Hardy P ，Hamoda H ，Juszczak E ，Khalaf Y ，Kurinczuk JJ ，Lavery S ，Linsell L ，Macklon N ，Mathur R ，Pundir J ，Raine-Fenning N ，Rajkohwa M ，Scotland G ，Stanbury K ，Troup S ，Bhattacharya S ... -  《-》

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 ... -  《-》