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

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.

Enhancing students' agency in learning anatomy vocabulary with a formative intervention design.

One of the major challenges for health science students is the rapid acquisition of a new vocabulary in anatomy comprising several hundred new words. Research has shown that vocabulary learning can be improved when students are directed to vocabulary strategies. This paper reported a study with a formative intervention design inspired by Vygotsky's method of double stimulation. In this design, the students were put in a structured situation that invited them to identify the challenges in learning anatomy and then provided them with active guidance and a range of anatomy vocabulary learning strategies that scaffolded them to work out a solution to the challenge and develop their individualized anatomy learning resources. The data were collected from surveys, pre and postquiz results, and group discussion transcripts. The results revealed students perceived one of the main challenges in learning anatomy was learning, memorizing, and remembering many new words. A key finding in our study was that the formative intervention enhanced students' agency in creating resources for learning anatomy vocabulary. In addition, the development of their understanding showed a recursive form: from concrete experiences to abstract concepts and then to concrete new practices.

Investigating Ovulation Induction Outcomes in Patients with Decreased Ovarian Reserve Treated with Double Stimulation during The Follicular and Luteal Phases Compared to The Conventional Antagonist Cycle: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: It is difficult to obtain healthy oocytes in poor ovarian responders with conventional treatment methods. Thus, the need to investigate new methods is essential. This study aims to investigate ovulation induction outcomes in patients with decreased ovarian reserve (DOR) in two groups treated with double stimulation (DuoStim) during the follicular and luteal phases in comparison with the antagonist cycle. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a randomised clinical trial that enrolled the patients with reduced ovarian reserve. The patients referred for in vitro fertilization (IVF) at Molud Infertility Clinic, Ali Ebn Abitalib (AS) Hospital, Zahedan, Iran from 2020 to 2021. Participants were randomly divided into two groups, those who underwent treatment with DuoStim during the follicular and luteal phase (case group) and those who received the conventional antagonist cycle (control group). RESULTS: The mean number of metaphase II (MII) eggs was 7.7 ± 3.1 in the case group and 6.1 ± 3.9 in the control group (P=0.063). The mean total number of retrieved eggs in the case group was 9.2 ± 3.7 and in the control group, it was 6.9 ± 4.4 (P=0.023). The mean number of embryos obtained in the case group was 6.5 ± 3.9; in the control group, it was 4.7 ± 2.8 (P=0.016). CONCLUSION: The DuoStim method can effectively play a role in increasing the total number of retrieved eggs and embryos (registration number: IRCT20120817010617N8).

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

STUDY QUESTION: Is there an increase in the total number of metaphase II (MII) oocytes between a conventional ovarian stimulation (OS) and a double uninterrupted stimulation? SUMMARY ANSWER: There is no increase in the total number of MII oocytes when comparing one conventional OS to a continuous stimulation with double oocyte aspiration. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Based on the concept of multiple follicular waves, the combination of two stimulations in the same ovarian cycle has gained interest in patients with a low ovarian reserve. This so-called dual stimulation approach is usually characterized by a discontinuation of FSH administration for ∼5 days and appears to have a favourable impact on the number of retrieved oocytes without affecting the embryo quality or ploidy status. The outcomes of dual uninterrupted OS have not yet been studied. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This was an open-label randomized controlled trial (RCT) with superiority design, performed in a single tertiary centre. Subjects were randomized with a 1:1 allocation into two groups between October 2019 and September 2021. All patients underwent a conventional stimulation with recombinant FSH. When two or more follicles of 17 mm were present, the final inclusion criterion was assessed; randomization occurred only in the presence of ≤9 follicles of ≥11 mm. In Group A, ovulation was triggered with hCG, and oocyte retrieval (OR) was performed 34-36 h later, followed by a fresh single or double embryo transfer (SET or DET) on Day 3/5. In Group B, ovulation was triggered with GnRH agonist, followed by another OS, without discontinuation of the FSH administration. In the presence of one or more follicles of ≥17 mm, the second stimulation was completed with hCG. A freeze-all strategy (Day 3/5) was applied for both retrievals, followed by transfer of one or two embryos in an artificially prepared frozen-thawed cycle. In the absence of one or more follicles of ≥17 mm after 13 additional days of stimulation, the second cycle was cancelled. All ORs were executed by a senior fertility specialist who was blinded for the first treatment, and all follicles >10 mm were aspirated, according to routine clinical practice. The primary outcome was the total number of MII oocytes. Patients were followed up until all embryos were transferred, or until live birth was achieved. Other secondary outcomes included the number of cumulus-oocyte complexes (COCs), the number of good quality embryos (Day 3/5), the ongoing pregnancy rate, and gonadotropin consumption. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Patients between 25 and 40 years old, with an anti-Müllerian hormone level of ≤1.5 ng/ml, antral follicle count of ≤6, or ≤5 oocytes after a previous stimulation, were included. At the start, 70 patients were eligible for participation in the trial, of whom 48 patients fulfilled the final inclusion criterium and were randomized. After drop-out of two patients, 23 patients were randomized to a single round of OS (Group A), and 23 patients were randomized to two uninterrupted rounds of OS (Group B). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Baseline characteristics were similar between both groups. The cumulative number of COCs and MII oocytes after completion of the second OR was similar in Group A and Group B [5.3 ± 2.7 versus 5.3 ± 3.0 (P = 0.95); 4.1 ± 2.4 versus 4.3 ± 2.7 (P = 0.77)]. Likewise, a comparable number of excellent and good quality embryos was available on Day 3 (3.0 ± 2.0 versus 2.7 ± 2.0; P = 0.63). In Group B, the cancellation rate due to insufficient response to the second round of stimulation was 39.1% (9/23). When focusing on the first stimulation in both groups, there were no significant differences regarding basal FSH, gonadotropin consumption, and the number of preovulatory follicles. After the first OR, the mean number of COC and MII oocytes was significantly higher in Group A (who had hCG triggering), compared to Group B (who had GnRH agonist triggering) [5.3 ± 2.7 versus 3.3 ± 2.2; difference 95% CI (0.54 to 3.45), P = 0.004 and 4.1 ± 2.4 versus 3.0 ± 2.2; difference 95% CI (-0.15 to 2.6), P = 0.05, respectively]. Likewise, the number of excellent and good quality embryos on Day 3 was significantly higher (3.0 ± 2.0 versus 1.9 ± 1.7; P = 0.02) in Group A. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: This study was powered to demonstrate superiority for the number of MII oocytes after dual stimulation. Investigating the impact of dual stimulation on pregnancy rates would have required a larger sample size. Furthermore, the heterogeneity in embryo vitrification and transfer policies precluded a correct comparison of embryologic outcomes between both groups. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This is the first RCT investigating the role of continuous stimulation with double aspiration in low responders. Our results show no statistically significant differences in the cumulative number of MII oocytes between one conventional stimulation with fresh ET and two consecutive stimulations with a freeze-only approach. Furthermore, the observed suboptimal oocyte yield after agonist ovulation triggering in low responders in the dual uninterrupted OS group is a reason for concern and further scrutiny, given that previous RCTs have shown similar outcomes in normal and high responders after hCG and GnRH agonist triggers. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This work was supported in part by a research grant from Organon. H.T. received honoraria for lectures and presentations from Abbott, Cooper Surgical, Gedeon-Richter, Cook, Goodlife, and Ferring. L.B. received fees for lectures from Merck & Organon and support for attending ESHRE 2023. M.D.V. reports fees for lectures from Ferring, Merck, Organon, IBSA, Gedeon Richter, and Cooper Surgical and support for attending ASRM 2023. S.M. received honoraria for lectures and presentations from Abbott, Cooper Surgical, Gedeon-Richter, IBSA, and Merck. C.B. was on the Advisory board and received consulting fees from Theramex and received honoraria for lectures and presentations from Abbott, Ferring, Gedeon-Richter, IBSA, and Merck. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03846544. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 19 February 2019. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 28 October 2019.

Influence of the starting day of luteal phase stimulation on double stimulation cycles.

Background: Double ovarian stimulation is one of the most used strategies in poor-prognosis patients. There is a high heterogeneity between the studies regarding the execution of this stimulation protocol. The aim of this study was to investigate whether the day on which luteal phase stimulation begins after the first oocyte retrieval affects ovarian response in DuoStim cycles. Methods: This observational and retrospective study included 541 DuoStim cycles between January 2018 and December 2021 in a private fertility clinic. Patients were assigned to 4 groups according to the timing of the onset of luteal phase stimulation after oocyte retrieval (0-2nd day, 3rd day, 4th day and 5th-6th day). The primary outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved in the luteal phase in each group. Results: No differences were found between groups in the number of oocytes collected (5.12 ± 3.56 vs. 5.39 ± 3.74 vs. 5.61 ± 3.94 vs. 5.89 ± 3.92; p=0,6), MII or number of follicles. An increase in the duration of stimulation was found when stimulation started on the 4th day (10.42 ± 2.31 vs. 10.68 ± 2.37 vs. 11.27 ± 2.40 vs. 10.65 ± 2.37 days, p=0,033). A lower number of fertilized oocytes was observed when stimulation began before the fourth day (3.36 ± 2.80 vs. 3.95 ± 2.53 vs. 4.03 ± 2.73 vs. 4.48 ± 3.11; p=0,036). The number of blastocysts was higher when the stimulation started 5-6 days after retrieval (1.82 ± 1.74 vs. 2.13 ± 1.61 vs. 2.33 ± 2.06 vs. 2.91 ± 2.39; p= 0,030). Discussion: The number of oocytes retrieved does not differ depending on the day that stimulation begins. However, oocytes competence in terms of fertilized oocytes and blastulation, appears to be lower when the second stimulation starts before the fourth day after oocyte retrieval.

Optimal timing to retrieve oocytes for fertility preservation in patients with acute myeloid leukemia: two cases of controlled ovarian stimulation using DuoStim with a literature review.

Fertility preservation (FP) for hematological malignancies is difficult because immediate chemotherapy is needed after diagnosis. We report two cases of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) treated with controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) and oocyte cryopreservation using DuoStim after first-line chemotherapy. In Cases 1 and 2, COS and oocyte retrieval (OR) were performed using DuoStim 116 and 51 days after first-line chemotherapy, respectively, and 14 and 6 unfertilized oocytes, respectively, were cryopreserved. Another round of COS and OR was performed using the random-start method 82 days after first-line chemotherapy, and 22 unfertilized oocytes were cryopreserved. DuoStim is useful to maximize OR for patients with a short interval for FP. Many oocytes can be retrieved depending on the timing of recruitment from primary to secondary follicles, although ovarian reserve capacity declines immediately after first-line chemotherapy. Aggressive FP should be performed before allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation becomes necessary.

Ultrasonic/electrical dual stimulation response nanocomposite bioelectret for controlled precision drug release.

Electret materials have attracted extensive attention because of their permanent polarization and electrostatic effect. However, it is one of problem that needs to be solved in biological application to manipulate the change of surface charge of electret by external stimulation. In this work, a drug-loaded electret with flexibility and no cytotoxicity was prepared under relatively mild conditions. The electret can release the charge through stress change and ultrasonic stimulation, and the drug release can be accurately controlled with the help of ultrasonic and electric double stimulation response. Here, the dipoles like particles of carnauba wax nanoparticles (nCW) are fixed in the matrix based on the interpenetrating polymer network structure, and "frozen" oriented dipolar particles that are treated by thermal polarization and cooled at high field strength. Subsequently, the charge density of the prepared composite electret can reach 101.1 â€‹nC/m2 at the initial stage of polarization and 21.1 â€‹nC/m2 after 3 weeks. In addition, the stimulated change of electret surface charge flow under cyclic tensile stress and cyclic compressive stress can generate a current of 0.187 â€‹nA and 0.105 â€‹nA at most. The ultrasonic stimulation results show that when the ultrasonic emission power was 90% (Pmax â€‹= â€‹1200 â€‹W), the current of 0.472 â€‹nA can be generated. Finally, the drug release characteristics and biocompatibility of the nCW composite electret containing curcumin were tested. The results showed that it not only had the ability to accurately control the release by ultrasound, but also triggered the electrical effect of the material. The prepared drug loaded composite bioelectret provides a new way for the construction, design and testing of the bioelectret. Its ultrasonic and electrical double stimulation response can be accurately controlled and released as required, and it has broad application prospects.

Doble estimulación durante la fase folicular y lútea: una herramienta útil para bajas respondedoras / Dual stimulation during the follicular and luteal phase: a useful tool for low responders

Introducción: La baja respuesta ovárica tiene una incidencia del 5% al 24% y constituye un desafío para el profesional y puede ser motivo de frustración para los pacientes. El concepto de DuoStim o de doble estimulación en un mismo ciclo surge de implementar una estimulación durante la fase lútea a la convencional en fase folicular, con el objetivo de conseguir mayor respuesta ovárica y mayor número de ovocitos sin aumentar las tasas de complicaciones.Material y métodos: búsqueda bibliográfica en la literatura publicada sobre el protocolo de doble estimulación ovárica, enfocado sobre todo a aquellas mujeres que cumplen los criterios de Bolonia, publicados en los últimos 10 años; es decir, desde 2011 a 2021.Resultados: tabla de elaboración propia que recopila algunos de los artículos más interesantes sobre el tema tratado.Discusión: el protocolo DuoStim nos permite limitar el riesgo de cancelación del ciclo y maximiza el número de ovocitos por estimulación, siendo por tanto un procedimiento más costo-efectivo.Conclusiones: El protocolo de Shanghai proporciona una opción aceptable con un régimen de tratamiento más eficiente en el tiempo y menos costoso para los pacientes con baja respuesta ovárica. (AU)

Introduction:Low ovarian response has an incidence of 5% to 24% and is a challenge for the professio-nal and can be a source of frustration for patients. The concept of DuoStim or double stimulation in the same cycle arises from implementing a stimulation during the luteal phase to the conventional one in the follicular phase, with the aim of achieving greater ovarian response and a greater number of oocytes without increasing reaction rates.•Material and methods:bibliographic research in the literature published on the double ovarian stimulation protocol, focused on all those women who meet the Bologna criteria, published in the last 10 years; that is, from 2011 to 2021.•Results:self-made table that compiles some of the most interesting articles on the subject matter.•Discussion:the DuoStim protocol allows us to limit the risk of cycle cancellation and maximizes the number of oocytes per stimulation, thus being a more cost-effective procedure.•Conclusions: The Shanghai protocol provides an acceptable option with a more time-efficient and less expensive treatment regimen for patients with poor ovarian response. (AU)

Pregnancy Outcomes in Double Stimulation versus Two Consecutive Mild Stimulations for IVF in Poor Ovarian Responders.

To compare pregnancy outcomes between double stimulation (DouStim) and two consecutive mild stimulations in poor ovarian responders, this study retrospectively analyzed 281 patients diagnosed as having poor ovarian response (POR) who underwent oocytes retrieval for in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) from January 2018 to December 2020. They were divided into two groups: the DouStim group (n = 89) and the two consecutive mild stimulations group (n = 192). The results illustrated that there were no significant differences in the number of oocytes and 2PNs between the two groups. The number of frozen embryos [1 (0, 2) versus 1(0, 2)] was significantly lower and the proportion of patients without frozen embryos (39.3% versus 26.0%) was significantly higher in the DouStim group than in the two consecutive mild stimulations group (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences in the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) between the two groups (p > 0.05). The intra-subgroup comparison showed that in young POR patients under 35 years old, there were no significant differences in clinical indicators and pregnancy outcomes (p > 0.05). In elderly POR patients aged 35 years and above, the number of frozen embryos [1 (0, 1.5) versus 1 (0.25, 2)] (p < 0.01) was significantly lower in the DouStim group than in the two consecutive mild stimulations group, but the pregnancy outcomes were not significantly different (p > 0.05). In conclusion, the DouStim protocol is inferior to the two consecutive mild stimulations protocol in terms of the number of frozen embryos, which mainly occurs in elderly patients, but there is no difference in pregnancy outcomes between the two protocols.

Second stimulation in the same ovarian cycle: an option to fully-personalize the treatment in poor prognosis patients undergoing PGT-A.

PURPOSE: Our primary objective was to assess whether immediately undergoing a second stimulation in the same ovarian cycle (DuoStim) for advanced-maternal-age and/or poor-ovarian-reserve (AMA/POR) patients obtaining ≤ 3 blastocysts for preimplantation-genetic-testing-for-aneuploidies (PGT-A) is more efficient than the conventional-approach. METHODS: All AMA/POR patients obtaining ≤ 3 blastocysts after conventional-stimulation between 2017 and 2019 were proposed DuoStim, and 143 couples accepted (DuoStim-group) and were matched for the main confounders to 143 couples who did not accept (conventional-group). GnRH-antagonist protocol with recombinant-gonadotrophins and agonist trigger, intra-cytoplasmatic-sperm-injection (ICSI) with ejaculated sperm, PGT-A and vitrified-warmed euploid single-blastocyst-transfer(s) were performed. The primary outcome was the cumulative-live-birth-delivery-rate per intention-to-treat (CLBdR per ITT) within 1 year. If not delivering, the conventional-group had 1 year to undergo another conventional-stimulation. A cost-effectiveness analysis was also conducted. RESULTS: The CLBdR was 10.5% in the conventional-group after the first attempt. Only 12 of the 128 non-pregnant patients returned (165 ± 95 days later; drop-out = 116/128,90.6%), and 3 delivered. Thus, the 1-year CLBdR was 12.6% (N = 18/143). In the DuoStim-group, the CLBdR was 24.5% (N = 35/143; p = 0.01), 2 women delivered twice and 13 patients have other euploid blastocysts after a LB (0 and 2 in the conventional-group). DuoStim resulted in an incremental-cost-effectiveness-ratio of 23,303€. DuoStim was costlier and more effective in 98.7% of the 1000 pseudo-replicates generated through bootstrapping, and the cost-effectiveness acceptability curves unveiled that DuoStim would be more cost-effective than the conventional-approach at a willingness-to-pay threshold of 23,100€. CONCLUSIONS: During PGT-A treatments in AMA/POR women, DuoStim can be suggested in progress to rescue poor blastocyst yields after conventional-stimulation. It might indeed prevent drop-out or further aging between attempts.

On Methodology and Method in Acmeist Psychology.

This article asks what kind of science psychology should be and what new readings of Vygotsky can contribute to answering this question. Methodology and method are key to constituting psychology as a science. Hence, the focus is on three major methodologic-methodic approaches to what Vygotsky referred to in his Notebooks towards the end of his life as his and his colleagues' "acmeist psychology" - the objective-analytical, the method of double stimulation and the semic method. Each will be discussed in its own right, followed by a discussion of the interrelatedness of the three in order to provide stimulation for future possibilities. These possibilities - it will be argued - lie in decisively re-orienting psychology as a science that brings single cases and complex semiotic analyses to the fore and thereby also rethinks psychology's relation towards the arts, especially literature.

Double or dual stimulation in poor ovarian responders: where do we stand?

Recent advances in our recognition of two to three follicular waves of development in a single menstrual cycle has challenged the dogmatic approach of ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization starting in the early follicular phase. First shown in veterinary medicine and thereafter in women, luteal phase stimulation-derived oocytes are at least as competent as those retrieved following follicular phase stimulation. Poor ovarian responders still remain a challenge for many decades simply because they do not respond to ovarian stimulation. Performing follicular phase stimulation and luteal phase stimulation in the same menstrual cycle, named as double stimulation/dual stimulation, clearly increases the number of oocytes, which is a robust surrogate marker of live birth rate in in vitro fertilization across all female ages. Of interest, apart from one study, the bulk of evidence reports significantly higher number of oocytes following luteal phase stimulation when compared with follicular phase stimulation; hence, performing double stimulation/dual stimulation doubles the number of oocytes leading to a marked decrease in patient drop-out rate which is one of the major factors limiting cumulative live birth rates in such poor prognosis patients. The limited data with double stimulation/dual stimulation-derived embryos is reassuring for obstetric and neonatal outcome. The mandatory requirement of freeze-all and lack of cost-effectiveness data are limitations of this novel approach. Double stimulation/dual stimulation is an effective strategy when the need to obtain oocytes is urgent, including patients with malignant diseases undergoing oocyte cryopreservation and patients of advanced maternal age or with reduced ovarian reserve.

DuoStim: a new option for fertility preservation for a woman with Turner syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Turner syndrome (TS) is associated with hypergonadotropic hypogonadism due to gonadal dysgenesis, which results in premature ovarian failure and subsequent infertility. Therefore, counseling and evaluation for fertility preservation are required as early as possible for women with TS. CASE PRESENTATION: A 23-year-old unmarried woman with mosaic TS (45, X [4/30] 46, XX [26/30]) presented to the pediatric department of our hospital for fertility counseling; she was accompanied by her mother. She was referred to the reproduction center of our hospital for ovarian reserve assessment and counseling regarding fertility preservation. We decided to retrieve oocytes using DuoStim as the controlled ovarian stimulation protocol. During the first and second oocyte retrievals, a total of 17 (9 and 8, respectively) mature metaphase II oocytes were cryopreserved. CONCLUSION: DuoStim may be a useful option for fertility preservation for women with TS and reduced ovarian reserve. This new strategy may obtain the required number of oocytes in the shortest time and preserve the future fertility of women with TS.

Ovarian follicular waves during the menstrual cycle: physiologic insights into novel approaches for ovarian stimulation.

Elucidation of multiple waves of antral ovarian follicular development during the menstrual cycle has challenged traditional concepts of female reproductive physiology and foundations of assisted reproductive therapies. Approximately two-thirds of women develop two follicle waves throughout an interovulatory interval and the remainder exhibit three waves of follicle development. Major and minor waves of follicle development have been observed. Major waves are those in which a dominant follicle develops; dominant follicles either regress or ovulate. In minor waves, physiologic selection of a dominant follicle is not manifest. Knowledge of waves of antral follicular development has led to the global adoption of novel ovarian stimulation strategies in which stimulation can be initiated at various times throughout the cycle. Random-start and luteal-phase ovarian stimulation regimens have had important clinical applications for women requiring urgent oocyte or embryo cryopreservation for fertility preservation prior to chemotherapy. Ovarian stimulation twice in the same cycle, referred to as double stimulation, may be used to optimize clinical outcomes in women with a poor ovarian response to stimulation as well as in those requiring fertility preservation before chemotherapy.

Cumulus cell gene expression in luteal-phase-derived oocytes after double stimulation in one menstrual cycle.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does double stimulation (DuoStim) affect cumulus cell gene expression in luteal-phase-derived oocytes? DESIGN: This prospective observational study included 39 patients with reduced ovarian reserve. Fifteen patients (group 1) underwent IVF with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist in the follicular phase and 24 patients (group 2) underwent DuoStim. A total of 149 cumulus cell samples were divided into two groups according to the phase of the cycle: group 1 included 55 follicular-phase-derived oocytes and group 2 included 94 luteal-phase-derived oocytes. The expression levels of the following genes were assessed using quantitative polymerase chain reaction: HAS2, VCAN, ALCAM, PTGS2, GREM1, ITPKA, TRPM7, SDC4, CALM2, SPSB2, TP53I3, PGR and PFKP. RESULTS: The expression of 10 out of 13 genes in cumulus cells was similar between DuoStim luteal-phase-derived oocytes and follicular-phase-derived oocytes. A significant increase in the mRNA levels of VCAN (15.542 ± 6.8 versus 20.353 ± 10.58; P = 0.001), SDC4 (1.016 ± 0.65 versus 1.318 ± 0.97; P = 0.013), and TP53I3 (0.185 ± 0.09 versus 0.270 ± 0.11; P = 1.19E-05) was observed in group 2. The number of oocytes collected (5.57 ± 2.3 versus 5.7 ± 2.7; P > 0.05) and the number of blastocysts were comparable between the groups (2.1 ± 2.1 versus 2.7 ± 2.2; P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The DuoStim approach leads to changes in the follicular environment. It affects the expression levels of VCAN, SDC4, and TP53I3 in the cumulus cells of luteal-phase-derived oocytes. These results, however, did not correlate with oocyte maturation, embryo quality and pregnancy rate.

The Ovarian Response After Follicular Versus Luteal Phase Stimulation with a Double Stimulation Strategy.

The double-ovarian stimulation strategy has been proposed to optimize the number of oocytes retrieved within the shortest possible timeframe. The objective of this study is to explore the effectiveness of luteal phase (LP) ovarian stimulation as compared to the previous follicular phase (FP) stimulation in a double stimulation strategy. We conducted an observational cohort study of women scheduled for a double stimulation protocol between March 2014 and June 2017, who had completed the FP controlled ovarian stimulation (COS 1) and started the LP stimulation (COS 2) in the same cycle. Women received equivalent daily doses of gonadotropins in combination with GnRH-antagonist protocol for both the COS 1 and the COS 2 performed during the same cycle. Ovulation was triggered using GnRH-agonist in the two stimulations. The primary outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved. A total of 77 patients were included in the analysis. The number of oocytes retrieved after COS 1 was significantly higher than after the COS 2 (5.25 ± 3.38 for COS 1 versus 3.83 ± 3.14 for COS 2; p = 0.001). The duration of the stimulation was significantly shorter, the total dose of injected gonadotropins was significantly lower, and the estradiol level on the trigger day was significantly higher with COS 1 as compared to COS 2. Stimulation during the LP in a double-successive stimulation strategy results in a lower ovarian response as compared to the FP equivalent daily dose stimulation.

Similar miRNomic signatures characterize the follicular fluids collected after follicular and luteal phase stimulations in the same ovarian cycle.

PURPOSE: To detect putative differences in the miRNomic profile of follicular fluids collected after follicular-phase-stimulation (FPS-FFs) and paired luteal-phase-stimulation (LPS-FFs) in the same ovarian cycles (DuoStim). METHODS: Exploratory study at a private IVF center and University involving FPS-FFs and paired-LPS-FFs collected from 15 reduced ovarian reserve and advanced maternal age women undergoing DuoStim (n = 30 paired samples). The samples were combined in 6 paired pools (5 samples each) and balanced according to maternal age and number of cumulus-oocyte-complexes. Micro-RNAs were isolated and sequenced. Four miRNAs were then selected for further validation on 6 single pairs of FPS-FFs and LPS-FFs by qPCR. RESULTS: Forty-three miRNAs were detected in both FPS-FFs and paired-LPS-FFs after sequencing and no statistically significant differences were reported. Thirty-three KEGG pathways were identified as regulated from the detected miRNAs. Four miRNAs (miR-146b, miR-191, miR-320a, and miR-483) were selected for qPCR validation since consistently expressed in our samples and possibly involved in the regulation/establishment of a healthy follicular environment. Again, no significant differences were reported between FPS-FFs and paired-LPS-FFs, also when the analysis was corrected for maternal age and number of cumulus-oocyte-complexes in generalized linear models. CONCLUSIONS: These data complement the embryological, chromosomal, and clinical evidence of equivalence between FPS and LPS published to date.

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.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the clinical contribution of luteal-phase stimulation (LPS) to follicular-phase stimulation (FPS) in a single ovarian cycle (DuoStim) for poor responder patients fulfilling the Bologna criteria. DESIGN: Observational study (years 2015-2017) including women satisfying ≥2 of the following characteristics: maternal age ≥40 years and/or ≤3 oocytes retrieved after previous conventional stimulation and/or reduced ovarian reserve (i.e., antral follicle count <7 follicles or antimüllerian hormone <1.1 ng/mL). The LPS was started regardless of the outcome of the FPS. SETTING: Private in vitro fertilization center. PATIENT(S): A total of 100 of 297 patients fulfilling the Bologna criteria chose to undergo DuoStim. INTERVENTION(S): The FPS and LPS with the same antagonist protocol and agonist trigger, intracytoplasmic sperm injection with ejaculated sperm, preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies, and vitrified-warmed euploid single blastocyst transfer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): The contribution of LPS to the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) per intention-to-treat (ITT). RESULT(S): Patients (100) underwent FPS (maternal age, 42.1 ± 1.4 y; previous in vitro fertilization cycles with ≤3 collected oocytes, 0.7 ± 0.9; antral follicle count, 3.8 ± 1.2 follicles; and antimüllerian hormone, 0.56 ± 0.3 ng/mL). Ninety-one patients completed DuoStim. All patients were included in the analysis. More oocytes were obtained after LPS with similar developmental and chromosomal competence as paired FPS-derived ones. The CLBR per ITT increased from 7% after FPS to 15% after DuoStim. Conversely, the CLBR per ITT among the 197 patients that chose a conventional controlled ovarian stimulation strategy was 8%, as only 17 patients who were not pregnant returned for a second stimulation after the first attempt (drop-out rate, 81%). CONCLUSION(S): The LPS-derived oocytes increased the CLBR per ITT in a single ovarian cycle in patients fulfilling the Bologna criteria. The DuoStim strategy is promising to manage this thorny population of patients, especially to avoid discontinuation after a first failed attempt.

What is the true place of a double stimulation and double oocyte retrieval in the same cycle for patients diagnosed with poor ovarian reserve? A systematic review including a meta-analytical approach.

PURPOSE: This systematic review including a meta-analytical approach aims to investigate the safety and efficacy of employing a double ovarian stimulation (DuoStim) and a subsequent double oocyte retrieval in the same menstrual cycle, in poor ovarian reserve (POR) patients. METHODS: A systematic search of literature was performed in the databases of PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Library up until March 2019. Both prospective and retrospective cohort studies considered suitable for inclusion reported on women with POR undergoing a DuoStim in the follicular (FPS) and luteal phase (LPS) of the same menstrual cycle. Following the systematic review of the literature, a meta-analytical approach was attempted. RESULTS: This study indicates that DuoStim is correlated with a higher number of retrieved oocytes, mature MII oocytes, and good-quality embryos in comparison to conventional stimulation. Additionally, LPS seems to be correlated with an equal or an even higher overall performance in comparison to FPS. CONCLUSION: DuoStim favors an enhanced clinical outcome in regard to the total number of yielded oocytes, mature oocytes, and available embryos, along with the quality of obtained embryos. Sourced data indicate that LPS is not correlated with a higher aneuploidy rate. This option may present as promising for the time-sensitive nature of POR patients' management, by enabling a higher oocyte yield during a single menstrual cycle.

Construção colaborativa de um fluxo de atendimento a crianças e adolescentes expostos ao trabalho: aplicação do método de estimulação dupla / Construcción colaborativa de un flujo de atención a niños y adolescentes expuestos al trabajo: aplicación del método de estimulación doble / Collective development of a flow of care for children and teenagers exposed to work: using the double stimulation method

Em Limeira, cidade do estado de São Paulo, Brasil, houve o reconhecimento da existência de trabalho infantil ligado ao setor de produção de bijuterias como problema de saúde pública. Uma das iniciativas da sociedade civil e entes governamentais foi a criação da Comissão de Erradicação do Trabalho Infantil (Cometil), para coordenar o processo de atendimento integrado a crianças e adolescentes. O objetivo deste artigo é mostrar como ocorreu a construção de soluções integradas por meio da utilização do método de estimulação dupla usado na intervenção formativa (laboratório de mudança) aplicada na Cometil. Os dados para análise e identificação de ações agentivas e aprendizagem expansiva provêm da transcrição da discussão do caso de ingestão acidental de ácido por uma criança. Os resultados mostram que o método de estimulação dupla permitiu aos atores visualizar lacunas nos serviços prestados pela rede e desenhar novo fluxo de atendimento.(AU)

En la ciudad de Limeira (estado de São Paulo, Brasil) hubo el reconocimiento de la existencia de trabajo infantil vinculado al sector de producción de bisuterías como problema de salud pública. Una de las iniciativas elaboradas por la sociedad civil y entes gubernamentales fue la creación de la Comisión de Erradicación de Trabajo Infantil (COMETIL) para coordinar el proceso de atención integrando a niños y adolescentes. El objetivo de este artículo es mostrar cómo ocurrió la construcción de soluciones integradas a partir de la utilización del método de estimulación doble utilizado en la intervención formativa (laboratorio de cambio) aplicado con el COMETIL. Los datos para análisis e identificación de acciones de agencia y aprendizaje expansivo provienen de la transcripción de la discusión del caso de ingestión accidental de ácido por parte de un niño. Los resultados muestran que el método de estimulación doble permitió que los actores viesen las lagunas en los servicios prestados por la red y diseñasen un nuevo flujo de atención.(AU)

In Limeira, a city in the state of São Paulo, Brazil, child labour in the production of costume jewellery was recognized as a public health issue. One of the actions taken by civil society and government departments was to create a Committee for eradication of child labour (COMETIL), and to coordinate integrated care services for children and teenagers. This article aims to show how integrated solutions were built, using as a starting point the double stimulation method in a formative intervention (Change Laboratory) at the COMETIL. Data for analysis and identification of agentive actions and expansive learning came from transcripts of a case discussion, of accidental ingestion of acid by a child. Results show that the double stimulation method helped actors to see the flaws in services provided by the town's network and to design a new flow of care.(AU)