Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35128583›Full record

ArticleJournal of assisted reproduction and genetics2022

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

Alberto Vaiarelli, Danilo Cimadomo, Gianluca Gennarelli, Maurizio Guido, Carlo Alviggi, Alessandro Conforti, Claudia Livi, Alberto Revelli, Silvia Colamaria, Cindy Argento and 8 more

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of assisted reproduction and genetics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Alberto VaiarelliGeneraLife IVF, Clinica Valle Giulia, via G. De Notaris, 2b, 00197, Rome, Italy. alberto.vaiarelli@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0873-3925
Danilo CimadomoGeneraLife IVF, Clinica Valle Giulia, via G. De Notaris, 2b, 00197, Rome, Italy.
Gianluca GennarelliGeneraLife IVF, Livet, Turin, Italy.
Maurizio GuidoMeSVA Department, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Carlo AlviggiDepartment of Neuroscience, Reproductive Science and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Alessandro ConfortiDepartment of Neuroscience, Reproductive Science and Odontostomatology, University of Naples Federico II, Naples, Italy.
Claudia LiviGeneraLife IVF, Centro Demetra, Florence, Italy.
Alberto RevelliGeneraLife IVF, Livet, Turin, Italy.
Silvia ColamariaGeneraLife IVF, Clinica Valle Giulia, via G. De Notaris, 2b, 00197, Rome, Italy.
Cindy ArgentoGeneraLife IVF, Clinica Valle Giulia, via G. De Notaris, 2b, 00197, Rome, Italy.
Maddalena GiulianiGeneraLife IVF, Clinica Valle Giulia, via G. De Notaris, 2b, 00197, Rome, Italy.
Carlo De AngelisDepartment of Gynecological, Obstetrical, and Urological Sciences, "Sapienza" University of Rome, Operative Unit of Obstetrics, Fabia Mater Clinic, Rome, Italy.
Maria MatteoDepartment of Medical and Surgical Sciences, University of Foggia, Physiopathology and Reproductive Unit, University Hospital of Foggia, Foggia, Italy.
Stefano CanosaGeneraLife IVF, Livet, Turin, Italy.
Angela D'AlfonsoMeSVA Department, University of L'Aquila, L'Aquila, Italy.
Valentino CimadomoBNY Mellon, Krakow, Poland.
Laura RienziGeneraLife IVF, Clinica Valle Giulia, via G. De Notaris, 2b, 00197, Rome, Italy.
Filippo Maria UbaldiGeneraLife IVF, Clinica Valle Giulia, via G. De Notaris, 2b, 00197, Rome, Italy.
Clinica Valle Giulia · ITUniversity of L'Aquila · ITUniversity of Naples Federico II · ITOspedale Sant'Anna · ITSapienza University of Rome · ITUniversity of Foggia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeOur 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.

methodsAll 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.

resultsThe 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€.

conclusionsDuring 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.

Indexed as

BlastocystEmbryo TransferAneuploidyFemaleFertilization in VitroGenetic TestingHumansMenstrual CyclePregnancyPrognosisAdvanced maternal ageDouble stimulationDuoStimPoor prognosisTreatment personalization

Identifiers

PMID35128583
PMCPMC8995212
OpenAlexW4210614423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.