A step forward for IVF patients with low success rates

A step forward for IVF patients with low success rates

Fertility patients who have a poor response to ovarian stimulation
represent a stubborn challenge in IVF. Few eggs are collected, success rates
are low, and several treatments are usually needed to achieve pregnancy. Some
patients eventually abandon treatment without success.

Now, however, a study assessing two cycles of ovarian stimulation and
two egg collections in the same menstrual cycle may yet provide a real advance
for predicted poor responders in IVF, according to researchers in Spain.

A randomised trial has found that this double stimulation approach –
known as ‘DuoStim’ – is just as efficient as two conventional stimulations in
different cycles and, importantly, reduces the time to pregnancy in a group of
patients who rarely have time on their side.

‘This is of great clinical utility,’ said Dr Maria Cerrillo Martinez of IVIRMA
in Madrid who shared her team’s findings at the European Society of Human
Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) online conference. She added that this was
the first randomised trial to compare the efficiency of single-cycle DuoStim
with two conventional treatments in separate cycles.

The study took place throughout 2017 and 2020 in a total of 80 IVF
patients scheduled for embryo testing (PGT-A for chromosomal normality). All
were aged over 38 and their reproductive history and ovarian reserve tests
predicted a low response to ovarian stimulation – with few eggs collected and a
likely poor outcome. They were randomised to two conventional cycles of
stimulation or to DuoStim, and results were significantly in favour of the

While the initial ‘laboratory’ response to stimulation was comparable
between the two groups in terms of eggs collected and healthy embryos
developed, there was a significant difference in the average number of days it
took to develop a chromosomally normal embryo ready for transfer. The DuoStim
group reached this point in an average of 23 days from the start of stimulation,
while the conventional two-treatment group took an average of 44 days. There
was also a trend towards higher fertilisation and blastocyst-formation rate in
the DuoStim group.

Dr Cerrillo emphasised that the dual stimulation strategy was so far
applicable mainly to patients whose ovarian reserve tests indicated a poor
response to stimulation. ‘But we also need to consider the most relevant marker
of prognosis, patient age. The patients we’re looking at are those with poor
ovarian reserve, who are often at an older maternal age,’ she said.

‘So, if the patient is a good responder, we may not need more eggs or
more embryos – and dual stimulation would not be necessary,’ explained Dr
Cerrillo. ‘However, it may be a good alternative in poor responders, in fertility
preservation patients with time constraints, or even in egg donors, whose aim
is to maximise the number of eggs retrieved in a single treatment.’