Use of progestins to inhibit spontaneous ovulation during ovarian stimulation: the beginning of a new era?

Cumulative live birth rate of in vitro fertilization cycle via progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in infertile women with normal ovarian reserve: an open-label, randomized controlled trial

This study aimed to evaluate the cumulative live birth rate (cLBR) of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol for in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle in infertile women with normal ovarian reserve (NOR). Infertile women with NOR who underwent their first IVF cycle were enrolled in an open-label randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive a freeze-all strategy with delayed embryo transfer (PPOS group, n = 174) and fresh embryo transfer first (GnRH-ant group, n = 174). The primary outcome was the cLBR per aspiration. The cLBR between the PPOS group and GnRH-ant group were comparable (55.75% vs. 52.87%, p = 0.591). A premature luteinizing hormone surge was not observed in the PPOS group, while there were six cases (3.45%) in the GnRH-ant group, but no premature ovulation in either of the groups. The pregnancy outcomes, including implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate and miscarriage rate, were all comparable. In addition, the number of retrieved oocytes, mature oocytes and viable embryos were similar (all p > 0.05) between the two groups.

Comparison of fixed and flexible progestin-primed ovarian stimulation in women classified in patient-oriented strategies encompassing individualized oocyte number (POSEIDON) group 4

PURPOSE

This study aimed to compare the fixed and flexible protocols for progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) in poor ovarian responders.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 95 poor ovarian responders classified using the Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing Individualized Oocyte Number group 4 criteria. Treatment involved assisted reproductive medicine using fixed and flexible PPOS protocols at Shiga University of Medical Science between July 2019 and August 2023. PPOS cycles were assigned to the fixed and flexible groups at the discretion of attending physicians. The results of assisted reproductive medicine were compared between groups.

RESULTS

The fixed and flexible groups included 68 and 27 patients, respectively. The flexible group obtained more retrieved oocytes and two pro-nuclei than the fixed group, without an early luteinizing hormone surge. Multiple linear regression analysis demonstrated that differences in protocols and anti-müllerian hormone (AMH) levels were related to the number of retrieved oocytes. The differences in protocols were more strongly correlated with the number of oocytes than with the AMH levels.

CONCLUSION

Among poor ovarian responders, the flexible PPOS protocol provided more retrieved oocytes than the fixed PPOS protocol, possibly because the total dosage of progestins was lower in the flexible group and progestins were not administered at the time when ovarian stimulation was initiated.

Programming the onset of ovarian stimulation: from early follicular phase start to oral contraceptive pill, to luteal phase E2, Duostim, and random start oral contraceptive protocols

Ovarian stimulation has been the single most efficient measure ever taken in assisted reproductive technology for improving outcomes by harvesting multiple oocytes and ultimately, embryos. Today, ovarian stimulation protocols consist of administrating exogenous gonadotropins to override the natural mechanisms that control the ovulatory quota to one in humans. For practicality issues, there have been numerous attempts to control, or "program," when ovarian stimulation is initiated to improve functionality and in turn efficacy for assisted reproductive technology programs. The different options for controlling the onset of ovarian stimulation currently available are discussed here, as well as the novel possibility of using progestins for blocking premature ovulation.

Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation with letrozole using different doses of medroxyprogesterone acetate per day: a retrospective cohort study

Background

In the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol, the oral administration of medroxyprogesterone acetate has been observed to effectively inhibit the LH surge during ovarian stimulation in patients experiencing infertility. Nevertheless, the use of utilizing medroxyprogesterone acetate during ovarian stimulation can result in more pronounced pituitary suppression, potentially necessitating increased doses of gonadotropins and extended treatment durations. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the optimal dose of medroxyprogesterone acetate, aiming to use relatively lower concentrations of medroxyprogesterone acetate to effectively and safely suppress early LH surges.

Method

This retrospective cohort study included 710 patients who underwent cycles of in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection and were subjected the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol utilizing letrozole between from 1st January 2021 to 31st December 2021. The study population was divided into low, medium, and high concentration groups based on the daily dosage of medroxyprogesterone acetate.The primary focus of this investigation was on the cumulative live birth rate. Secondary outcomes encompassed the occurrence of a premature surge in luteinizing hormone, the quantity of retrieved oocytes, viable embryos, and high-quality embryos, as well as clinical pregnancy rate, abortion rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, and multiple pregnancy rate.

Results

In this study, significant differences were observed among three groups in various parameters including body mass index, baseline levels of Anti-Müllerian hormone and luteinizing hormone, antral follicle count, total dose of gonadotropin, and duration of gonadotropin administration (p<0.05). The number of oocytes and viable embryos were significantly higher in medium group and higher than those in the low dose group. Following adjustments for confounding factors related to medroxyprogesterone acetate for various outcome measures, we conducted multiple regression analysis to investigate the independent effects of daily medroxyprogesterone acetate dosage within the combined progestin-primed ovarian stimulation and letrozole protocol. Following multivariable regression analysis, no disparities were found in embryo characteristics (number of oocytes retrieved, number of available embryos, number of high-quality embryos) or pregnancy outcomes (clinical pregnancy rate, cumulative live birth rate) among the three groups.

Conclusion

Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation with letrozole using different dose of medroxyprogesterone acetate per day was comparable in terms of the number of oocytes retrieved, the number of high-quality embryos, clinical pregnancy rate and cumulative live birth rate after frozen embryo transfer.

Ovarian response and embryo ploidy following oral micronized progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation versus GnRH antagonist protocol. A prospective study with repeated ovarian stimulation cycles

STUDY QUESTION

Is there any difference in ovarian response and embryo ploidy following progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) using micronized progesterone or GnRH antagonist protocol?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Pituitary downregulation with micronized progesterone as PPOS results in higher number of oocytes retrieved and a comparable number of euploid blastocysts to a GnRH antagonist protocol.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Although the GnRH antagonist is considered by most the gold standard protocol for controlling the LH surge during ovarian stimulation (OS) for IVF/ICSI, PPOS protocols are being increasingly used in freeze-all protocols. Still, despite the promising results of PPOS protocols, an early randomized trial reported potentially lower live births in recipients of oocytes resulting following downregulation with medroxyprogesterone acetate as compared with a GnRH antagonist protocol. The scope of the current prospective study was to investigate whether PPOS with micronized progesterone results in an equivalent yield of euploid blastocysts to a GnRH antagonist protocol.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

In this prospective study, performed between September 2019 to January 2022, 44 women underwent two consecutive OS protocols within a period of 6 months in a GnRH antagonist protocol or in a PPOS protocol with oral micronized progesterone.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Overall, 44 women underwent two OS cycles with an identical fixed dose of rFSH (225 or 300 IU) in both cycles. Downregulation in the first cycles was performed with the use of a flexible GnRH antagonist protocol (0.25 mg per day as soon as one follicle of 14 mm) and consecutively, after a washout period of 1 month, control of LH surge was performed with 200 mg of oral micronized progesterone from stimulation Day 1. After the completion of both cycles, all generated blastocysts underwent genetic analysis for aneuploidy screening (preimplantation genetic testing for aneuplody, PGT-A).

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Comparisons between protocols did not reveal differences between the duration of OS. The hormonal profile on the day of trigger revealed statistically significant differences between protocols in all the tested hormones except for FSH: with significantly higher serum E2 levels, more elevated LH levels and higher progesterone levels in PPOS cycles as compared with antagonist cycles, respectively. Compared with the GnRH antagonist protocol, the PPOS protocol resulted in a significantly higher number of oocytes (12.7 ± 8.09 versus 10.3 ± 5.84; difference between means [DBM] -2.4 [95% CI -4.1 to -0.73]), metaphase II (9.1 ± 6.12 versus 7.3 ± 4.15; DBM -1.8 [95% CI -3.1 to -0.43]), and 2 pronuclei (7.1 ± 4.99 versus 5.7 ± 3.35; DBM -1.5 [95% CI -2.6.1 to -0.32]), respectively. Nevertheless, no differences were observed regarding the mean number of blastocysts between the PPOS and GnRH antagonist protocols (2.9 ± 2.11 versus 2.8 ± 2.12; DBM -0.07 [95% CI -0.67 to 0.53]) and the mean number of biopsied blastocysts (2.9 ± 2.16 versus 2.9 ± 2.15; DBM -0.07 [95% CI -0.70 to 0.56]), respectively. Concerning the euploidy rates per biopsied embryo, a 29% [95% CI 21.8-38.1%] and a 35% [95% CI 26.6-43.9%] were noticed in the PPOS and antagonist groups, respectively. Finally, no difference was observed for the primary outcome, with a mean number of euploid embryos of 0.86 ± 0.90 versus 1.00 ± 1.12 for the comparison of PPOS versus GnRh antagonist.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The study was powered to detect differences in the mean number of euploid embryos and not in terms of pregnancy outcomes. Additionally, per protocol, there was no randomization, the first cycle was always a GnRH antagonist cycle and the second a PPOS with 1 month of washout period in between.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

In case of a freeze-all protocol, clinicians may safely consider oral micronized progesterone to control the LH surge and patients could benefit from the advantages of a medication of oral administration, with a potentially higher number of oocytes retrieved at a lower cost, without any compromise in embryo ploidy rates.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

This research was supported by an unrestricted grant from Theramex. N.P.P. has received Research grants from Merck Serono, Organon, Ferring Pharmaceutical, Roche, Theramex, IBSA, Gedeon Richter, and Besins Healthcare; honoraria for lectures from: Merck Serono, Organon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Besins International, Roche Diagnostics, IBSA, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter; consulting fees from Merck Serono, Organon, Besins Healthcare, and IBSA. M.d.M.V., F.M., and I.R. declared no conflicts of interest.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

The study was registered at Clinical Trials Gov. (NCT04108039).

Oral medroxyprogesterone acetate for the use of ovulation suppression in in vitro fertilization: a cohort trial

OBJECTIVE

To broadly assess the efficacy of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) for ovulatory suppression during in vitro stimulation compared with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist cycles.

DESIGN

Cohort trial.

SETTING

A single academic-affiliated private fertility practice.

PATIENTS

Patients of all diagnoses aged 18-44 years undergoing autologous in vitro fertilization (IVF) for fertility treatment between 2020 and 2023.

INTERVENTIONS

Comparison of MPA vs. antagonist IVF stimulation cycles.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Rates of premature ovulation, oocyte and embryo yield, embryo quality, pregnancy rates, and logistical benefits.

RESULTS

Prospective data was collected on 418 patients who underwent MPA protocol ovarian stimulation (MPA group), which was compared with 419 historical control gonadotropin hormone-releasing hormone antagonist cycles (control group). Age was similar between groups (35.6 ± 4.6 vs. 35.7 ± 4.8 years; P = .75). There were no cases of premature ovulation in the MPA group compared with a total of five cases in the control group (0% vs. 1.2%; risk ratio [RR] = 0.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01, 1.66). No differences were seen between number of oocytes retrieved (14.3 ± 10.2 vs. 14.3 ± 9.7; P = .83), blastocysts (4.9 ± 4.6 vs. 5.0 ± 4.6; P = .89), or euploid blastocysts (2.4 ± 2.6 vs. 2.2 ± 2.4; P = .18) in the MPA vs. control group respectively. Clinical pregnancy rate was similar between groups (70.4% vs. 64.2%; RR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.72, 1.18). There was no difference in length of IVF stimulation or dose of stimulation medications. Patients in the MPA group saved an average of $491 ± $119 on medications, had an average of one less monitoring visit (4.4 ± 0.9 vs. 5.6 ± 1.1; P<.01), and 5.0 ± 1.2 less injections per cycle. When adjusting for age and ovarian reserve, protocol group (MPA vs. control) did not influence having an embryo available for transfer (76.6% vs. 73.4%; adjusted RR = 1.05; 95% CI, 0.94, 1.14).

CONCLUSION

For ovulatory suppression during IVF cycles, MPA was effective at preventing ovulation while demonstrating similar cycle and reproductive outcomes, with the additional benefits of patient cost savings, increased convenience with decreased number of visits, and fewer injections.

Progestin primed ovarian stimulation using dydrogesterone from day 7 of the cycle onwards in oocyte donation cycles: a longitudinal study

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does a progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol with dydrogesterone from cycle day 7 yield similar outcomes compared with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol in the same oocyte donors?

DESIGN

This retrospective longitudinal study included 128 cycles from 64 oocyte donors. All oocyte donors had the same type of gonadotrophin and daily dose in both stimulation cycles. The primary outcome was the number of cumulus-oocyte complexes (COC) retrieved.

RESULTS

The number of COC retrieved (mean ± SD 19.7 ± 10.8 versus 19.2 ± 8.3; P = 0.5) and the number of metaphase II oocytes (15.5 ± 8.4 versus 16.2 ± 7.0; P = 0.19) were similar for the PPOS and GnRH antagonist protocols, respectively. The duration of stimulation (10.5 ± 1.5 days versus 10.8 ± 1.5 days; P = 0.14) and consumption of gonadotrophins (2271.9 ± 429.7 IU versus 2321.5 ± 403.4 IU; P = 0.2) were also comparable, without any cases of premature ovulation. Nevertheless, there was a significant difference in the total cost of medication per cycle: €898.3 ± 169.9 for the PPOS protocol versus €1196.4 ± 207.5 (P < 0.001) for the GnRH antagonist protocol.

CONCLUSION

The number of oocytes retrieved and number of metaphase II oocytes were comparable in both stimulation protocols, with the advantage of significant cost reduction in favour of the PPOS protocol compared with the GnRH antagonist protocol. No cases of premature ovulation were observed, even when progestin was started later in the stimulation.

Progesterone-primed cycles result in slower embryos without compromising implantation potential and with the advantages of oral administration and potential cost reduction

OBJECTIVE

To study the impact of the use of progesterone on embryo morphokinetics and on the outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles.

DESIGN

Cohort study.

SETTING

Private university-affiliated in vitro fertilization center.

PATIENT(S)

This study included 236 freeze-all intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles and the resultant 2,768 injected oocytes cultured in a time-lapse imaging incubation system. Patients were matched by age and divided into groups depending on the protocol used to prevent the luteinizing hormone surge: progestin-primed (144 cycles and 1,360 embryos) and gonadotropin hormone-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist (144 cycles and 1,408 embryos) groups.

INTERVENTION(S)

The kinetic recorded markers were time to pronuclear appearance and fading, time to 2-8 cells, time to morulation, time to start of blastulation, and time to blastulation. The durations of cell cycles and time to complete synchronous divisions were calculated. The Known Implantation Data Score ranking was recorded. Morphokinetics and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Embryo morphokinetics and clinical outcomes.

RESULTS

Slower time to pronuclear appearance, time to 2 cells, time to 7 cells, time to start of blastulation, and time to blastulation were observed in embryos derived from progestin-primed cycles than in those from the GnRH antagonist group. No significant differences were noted in any other morphokinetic milestone. Significantly higher cancellation and implantation rates were observed in the progestin-primed group. However, no significant differences were noted in the pregnancy and miscarriage rates. The expenses for treatment using premature GnRH antagonist and progestins were US$318.18 and US$11.05, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Exogenous progesterone replaces the GnRH antagonist for the prevention of premature luteinizing hormone surge, in freeze-all cycles, with the advantage of oral administration and potential cost reduction.

Comparison of Cumulative Live Birth Rates Between Progestin and GnRH Analogues in Preimplantation Genetic Testing Cycles

CONTEXT

Progestins have recently been used as an alternative for gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues to prevent premature luteinizing hormone surge due to the application of vitrification technology. However, the long-term efficacy and safety of a progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) regimen, including oocyte competence, cumulative live birth rate (LBR), and offspring outcomes, remain to be investigated.

OBJECTIVE

To compare cumulative LBR of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) cycles between a PPOS regimen and GnRH analogues.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary academic medical center. A total of 967 patients with good prognosis were categorized into 3 groups, of which 478 patients received a long GnRH agonist, 248 patients received a GnRH antagonist, and 250 received a PPOS regimen. Medroxyprogesterone 17-acetate was the only progestin used in the PPOS regimen. The primary outcome was cumulative LBR. Secondary outcomes included time to live birth, cumulative rates of biochemical and clinical pregnancy and pregnancy loss, and perinatal outcomes.

RESULTS

The PPOS regimen was negatively associated with cumulative LBR compared with GnRH antagonists and GnRH agonists (28.4% vs 40.7% and 42.7%). The average time to live birth was significantly shorter with GnRH antagonists than with the PPOS regimen. The cumulative biochemical and clinical pregnancy rates were also lower in the PPOS regimen than GnRH analogues, while cumulative pregnancy loss rates were similar across groups. Furthermore, the number and ratio of good-quality blastocysts were significantly reduced in the PPOS regimen compared with GnRH analogues. In addition, perinatal outcomes were comparable across 3 groups.

CONCLUSION

A PPOS regimen may be adversely affect cumulative LBR and blastocyst quality in women with good prognosis compared with GnRH analogues in PGT cycles.

Progestogens for prevention of luteinising hormone (LH) surge in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation as part of an assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycle

BACKGROUND

Currently, gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues are used to prevent premature ovulation in ART cycles. However, their costs remain high, the route of administration is invasive and has some adverse effects. Oral progestogens could be cheaper and effective to prevent a premature LH surge.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of using progestogens to avoid spontaneous ovulation in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO in Dec 2021. We contacted study authors and experts to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included progestogens for ovulation inhibition in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane, including the risk of bias (RoB) assessment. The primary review outcomes were live birth rate (LBR) and oocyte pick-up cancellation rate (OPCR). Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), cumulative pregnancy, miscarriage rate (MR), multiple pregnancies, LH surge, total and MII oocytes, days of stimulation, dose of gonadotropins, and moderate/severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate. The primary analyses were restricted to studies at overall low and some concerns RoB, and sensitivity analysis included all studies. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 14 RCTs (2643 subfertile women undergoing ART, 47 women used oocyte freezing for fertility preservation and 534 oocyte donors). Progestogens versus GnRH antagonists We are very uncertain of the effect of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) 10 mg compared with cetrorelix on the LBR in poor responders (odds ratio (OR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 2.13, one RCT, N = 340, very-low-certainty evidence), suggesting that if the chance of live birth following GnRH antagonists is assumed to be 18%, the chance following MPA would be 14% to 32%. There may be little or no difference in OPCR between progestogens and GnRH antagonists, but due to wide Cs (CIs), we are uncertain (OR 0.92, 95%CI 0.42 to 2.01, 3 RCTs, N = 648, I² = 0%, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 4% with progestogens to 2% to 8%. Given the imprecision found, no conclusions can be retrieved on CPR and MR. Low-quality evidence suggested that using micronised progesterone in normo-responders may increase by 2 to 6 the MII oocytes in comparison to GnRH antagonists. There may be little or no differences in gonadotropin doses. Progestogens versus GnRH agonists Results were uncertain for all outcomes comparing progestogens with GnRH agonists. One progestogen versus another progestogen The analyses comparing one progestogen versus another progestogen for LBR did not meet our criteria for primary analyses. The OPCR was probably lower in the MPA 10 mg in comparison to MPA 4 mg (OR 2.27, 95%CI 0.90 to 5.74, one RCT, N = 300, moderate-certainty evidence), and MPA 4 mg may be lower than micronised progesterone 100 mg, but due to wide CI, we are uncertain of the effect (OR 0.81, 95%CI 0.43 to 1.53, one RCT, N = 300, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 5% with MPA 4 mg to 5% to22%, and from 17% with micronised progesterone 100 mg to 8% to 24%. When comparing dydrogesterone 20 mg to MPA, the OPCR is probably lower in the dydrogesterone group in comparison to MPA 10 mg (OR 1.49, 95%CI 0.80 to 2.80, one RCT, N = 520, moderate-certainty evidence), and it may be lower in dydrogesterone group in comparison to MPA 4 mg but due to wide confidence interval, we are uncertain of the effect (OR 1.19, 95%CI 0.61 to 2.34, one RCT, N = 300, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 7% with dydrogesterone 20 to 6-17%, and in MPA 4 mg from 12% to 8% to 24%. When comparing dydrogesterone 20 mg to micronised progesterone 100 mg, the OPCR is probably lower in the dydrogesterone group (OR 1.54, 95%CI 0.94 to 2.52, two RCTs, N=550, I² = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence), changing OPCR from 11% with dydrogesterone to 10% to 24%. We are very uncertain of the effect in normo-responders of micronised progesterone 100 mg compared with micronised progesterone 200 mg on the OPCR (OR 0.35, 95%CI 0.09 to 1.37, one RCT, N = 150, very-low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in CPR and MR between MPA 10 mg and dydrogesterone 20 mg. There may be little or no differences in MII oocytes and gonadotropins doses. No cases of moderate/severe OHSS were reported in most of the groups in any of the comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Little or no differences in LBR may exist when comparing MPA 4 mg with GnRH agonists in normo-responders. OPCR may be slightly increased in the MPA 4 mg group, but MPA 4 mg reduces the doses of gonadotropins in comparison to GnRH agonists. Little or no differences in OPCR may exist between progestogens and GnRH antagonists in normo-responders and donors. However, micronised progesterone could improve by 2 to 6 MII oocytes. When comparing one progestogen to another, dydrogesterone suggested slightly lower OPCR than MPA and micronised progesterone, and MPA suggested slightly lower OPCR than the micronised progesterone 100 mg. Finally, MPA 10 mg suggests a lower OPCR than MPA 4 mg. There is uncertainty regarding the rest of the outcomes due to imprecision and no solid conclusions can be drawn.

Efficacy of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation in women with polycystic ovary syndrome undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a common endocrinopathy causing infertility in childbearing women. Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol has recently been used for infertile women. However, whether PPOS provides a significant benefit over gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue protocols in PCOS is still controversial. The objective of this systematic review is to investigate the efficacy of PPOS in patients with PCOS during in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). We searched Medline, Embase, Google Scholar, ClinicalTrials, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception to April 1, 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies comparing the efficacy between PPOS and conventional GnRH analogue protocols in patients with PCOS in English were included. The primary outcomes included live birth rate, the incidence of moderate or severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), and the number of metaphase II oocytes. The pooled estimates were calculated using the random-effects models as odds ratios (OR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Three RCTs and six cohort studies involving 2289 patients were included. Results from RCTs suggest that PPOS leads to no significant difference in the risk of OHSS, the number of metaphase II oocytes, or the rate of live birth when compared to GnRH analogue protocols. The pooling estimates of cohort studies showed consistent results. Additionally, in cohort studies, PPOS required a higher dose of Gn and tended to improve the implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and ongoing pregnancy rate. For subgroup analyses, the higher implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and ongoing pregnancy rate were found in PPOS compared to the GnRH agonist short protocol. However, the certainty of the evidence for the outcomes was generally low. Overall, There is currently no evidence to support that PPOS could reduce the risk of OHSS, increase oocyte maturation, or improve pregnancy outcomes in women with PCOS undergoing IVF/ICSI when compared to GnRH analogue protocols. Considering its efficiency and safety, this protocol could be a patient-friendly and viable alternative for PCOS patients, especially when frozen-thawed embryo transfer is planned. Future high-quality randomized trials with children's long-term safety and cost-effective analyses are still required.

System Review Registration

NPLASY (202340059). https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2023-4-0059/.

Progestin Primed Ovarian Stimulation (PPOS) protocol yields lower euploidy rate in older patients undergoing IVF

BACKGROUND

To explore if exogenous progestin required for progestin primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol compromises the euploidy rate of patients who underwent preimplantation genetic testing cycles when compared to those who received the conventional gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed 128 preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) cycles performed from January 2018 to December 2021 in a single university hospital-affiliated fertility center. Infertile women aged 27 to 45 years old requiring PGT-A underwent either PPOS protocol or GnRH-antagonist protocol with in-vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for fertilization. Frozen embryo transfers were performed following each PGT-A cycle. Data regarding the two groups were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).

RESULTS

Patients who underwent PPOS treatment had significantly reduced blastocyst formation rate and euploidy rate compared to those who received the GnRH antagonist protocol. Subgroup-analysis was performed by stratifying patients' age into elder and young subgroups (elder: ≥ 38-year-old, young: < 38-year-old). In the elder sub-population, the blastocyst formation rate of the PPOS group was significantly lower than that of the GnRH-antagonist group (45.8 ± 6.1% vs. 59.9 ± 3.8%, p = 0.036). Moreover, the euploidy rate of the PPOS group was only about 20% of that of  the GnRH-antagonist group (5.4% and 26.7%, p = 0.006). In contrast, no significant differences in blastocyst formation rate (63.5 ± 5.7% vs. 67.1 ± 3.2%, p = 0.45) or euploidy rate (30.1% vs. 38.5%, p = 0.221) were observed in the young sub-population. Secondary outcomes, which included implantation rate, biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, live birth rate, and miscarriage rate, were comparable between the two treatment groups, regardless of age.

CONCLUSION

When compared to the conventional GnRH-antagonist approach, PPOS protocol could potentially reduce the euploidy rate in aging IVF patients. However, due to the retrospective nature of this study, the results are to be interpreted with caution. Before the PPOS protocol is widely implemented, further studies exploring its efficacy in larger populations are needed to define the optimal patient selection suitable for this method.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Human Investigation and Ethical Committee of Chang Gung Medical Foundation (202200194B0).

Medroxyprogesterone acetate: an alternative to GnRH-antagonist in oocyte vitrification for social fertility preservation and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy

RESEARCH QUESTION

Can medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) be used as a pituitary suppressor instead of a gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist during ovarian stimulation in elective fertility preservation and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) cycles?

DESIGN

A multicentre, retrospective, observational, cohort study conducted in 11 IVIRMA centres affiliated to private universities. Of a total of 1652 cycles of social fertility preservation, 267 patients were stimulated using a progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol (PPOS), and 1385 patients received a GnRH antagonist. In the PGT-A cycles, 5661 treatments were analysed: 635 patients received MPA and 5026 patients received GnRH antagonist. A further 66 fertility preservation and 1299 PGT-A cycles were cancelled. All cycles took place between June 2019 and December 2021.

RESULTS

In the social fertility preservation cycles, the number of mature oocytes vitrified in MPA was similar to the number of those treated with an antagonist, a trend that was seen regardless of age (≤35 or >35 years). In the PGT-A cycles, no differences were found in number of metaphase II, two pronuclei, number of biopsied embryos (4.4 ± 3.1 versus 4.5 ± 3.1), rate of euploidy (57.9% versus 56.4%) or ongoing pregnancy rate (50.4% versus 47.1%, P = 0.119) between the group receiving MPA versus a GnRH antagonist, whereas the clinical miscarriage rate was higher in the antagonist group (10.4% versus 14.8%, P = 0.019).

CONCLUSIONS

Administration of PPOS yields similar results to GnRH antagonists in oocytes retrieved, rate of euploid embryos and clinical outcome. Hence, PPOS can be recommended for ovarian stimulation in social fertility preservation and PGT-A cycles, as it allows greater patient comfort.

Double stimulation for the management of poor-prognosis patients: where are we going?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The technical improvements in IVF allowed the implementation of nonconventional ovarian stimulation protocols for some specific patients. Where time is crucial, such as with oncologic patients, poor-prognosis patients, patients with low ovarian reserve, and those with advanced maternal age, access to IVF treatment is even more critical. Some of these protocols might start in the late follicular phase, luteal phase, or involve both stimulations within the same ovarian cycle.

RECENT FINDINGS

Until now, published evidence showed that oocytes retrieved from unconventional protocol seem to be developmentally, genetically, and reproductively competent. Second stimulation in the same ovarian cycle after the conventional approach may represent a sound alternative to oocyte accumulation. This can be proposed in progress after careful counselling focused on the patients' chances of finding at least one euploid embryo on account of their age and of the number of blastocysts obtained after the conventional approach.

SUMMARY

The adoption of these new strategies, known as double stimulation protocol, can be conceived as a real full-personalization of ovarian stimulation. Multicentre prospective RCTs are urgently needed to evaluate the efficacy, efficiency, and costs of double stimulation versus two consecutive conventional approaches with standard or mild stimulation and in a different IVF setting.

Comparison of cumulative live birth rates between progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol and gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in different populations

Objective

To compare cumulative live birth rate (LBR) between progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) and GnRH antagonist protocols of preimplantation genetic testing (PGT) cycles in different populations.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study. A total of 865 patients were enrolled and separate analyses were performed for three populations: 498 patients with predicted normal ovarian response (NOR), 285 patients with PCOS, and 82 patients with predicted poor ovarian response (POR). The primary outcome was cumulative LBR for one oocyte retrieval cycle. The results of response to ovarian stimulation were also investigated, including numbers of oocytes retrieved, MII oocytes, 2PN, blastocysts, good-quality blastocysts, and usable blastocysts after biopsy, as well as rates of oocyte yield, blastocyst formation, good-quality blastocysts, and moderate or severe OHSS. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses were used to identify potential confounders that may be independently associated with cumulative live birth.

Results

In NOR, the cumulative LBR of PPOS protocol was significantly lower than that of GnRH antagonists (28.4% vs. 40.7%; P=0.004). In multivariable analysis, the PPOS protocol was negatively associated with cumulative LBR (adjusted OR=0.556; 95% CI, 0.377-0.822) compared to GnRH antagonists after adjusting for potential confounders. The number and ratio of good-quality blastocysts were significantly reduced in PPOS protocol compared to GnRH antagonists (2.82 ± 2.83 vs. 3.20 ± 2.79; P=0.032 and 63.9% vs. 68.5%; P=0.021), while numbers of oocytes, MII oocytes and 2PN did not show any significant difference between GnRH antagonist and PPOS protocols. PCOS patients had similar outcomes as NOR. The cumulative LBR of PPOS group appeared to be lower than that of GnRH antagonists (37.4% vs. 46.1%; P=0.151), but not significantly. Meanwhile, the proportion of good-quality blastocysts in PPOS protocol was also lower compared to GnRH antagonists (63.5% vs. 68.9%; P=0.014). In patients with POR, the cumulative LBR of PPOS protocol was comparable to that of GnRH antagonists (19.2% vs. 16.7%; P=0.772). There was no statistical difference in the number and rate of good-quality blastocysts between the two protocols in POR, while the proportion of good-quality blastocysts appeared to be higher in PPOS group compared to GnRH antagonists (66.7% vs. 56.3%; P=0.182). In addition, the number of usable blastocysts after biopsy was comparable between the two protocols in three populations.

Conclusion

The cumulative LBR of PPOS protocol in PGT cycles is lower than that of GnRH antagonists in NOR. In patients with PCOS, the cumulative LBR of PPOS protocol appears to be lower than that of GnRH antagonists, albeit lacking statistical difference, whereas in patients with diminished ovarian reserve, the two protocols were comparable. Our findings suggest the need for caution when choosing PPOS protocol to achieve live births, especially for normal and high ovarian responders.

Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus GnRH antagonist protocol in poor responders: Risk of premature LH surge and outcome of oocyte retrieval

PURPOSE

For poor ovarian responders (PORs), gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist was commonly used for prevention of premature LH surge during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) over the past two decades. The application of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) recently increased, but the role of PPOS for PORs was uncertain. We aimed to analyze the incidence of premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge and the outcome of oocyte retrieval among PPOS and GnRH antagonist protocol for PORs.

METHODS

This was a single-center retrospective study, which enrolled the PORs (defined by the Bologna criteria) undergoing COS with PPOS or flexible GnRH antagonist protocol during January 2018 to December 2021. We compared the incidence of premature LH surge (LH > 10 mIU/mL) and the outcome of oocyte retrieval between the PPOS group and the GnRH antagonist group.

RESULTS

A total of 314 women were recruited, with 54 in the PPOS group and 260 in the GnRH antagonist group. The PPOS group had lower incidence of premature LH surges compared with the GnRH antagonist protocol group (5.6% vs 16.9%, P value 0.035). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the number of oocytes retrieved (3.4 vs 3.8, P value 0.066) and oocyte retrieval rates (88.9% vs 88.0%, P value 0.711).

CONCLUSION

Compared with PPOS, GnRH antagonist protocol had higher risk of premature LH surges for PORs but may not affect pregnancy rates. PPOS is suitable for oocyte or embryo cryopreservation, but should not totally replace GnRH antagonist protocol for patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Comparison of the cumulative live birth rates after 1 in vitro fertilization cycle in women using gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol vs. progestin-primed ovarian stimulation: a propensity score-matched study

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol can improve cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) and shorten the time to live birth (TTLB) in unselected patients compared with progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS).

DESIGN

A propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study design.

SETTING

Tertiary-care academic medical center.

PATIENT(S)

A total of 6,520 women with infertility aged 20-50 years were included.

INTERVENTION(S)

Patients underwent either the GnRH antagonist protocol (n = 5,004) or PPOS (n = 1,516) on the basis of the assessment of the attending physicians. One-to-one propensity score matching was performed with a caliper of 0.02. Women who were not matched were excluded from the analyses.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The CLBR of which the ongoing status had to be achieved within 22 months from the day of ovarian stimulation and TTLB.

RESULT(S)

Each group comprised 1,424 couples after propensity score matching, and the baseline demographic characteristics of the couples after matching were comparable between the 2 groups. The cycle cancellation rate was significantly lower in the GnRH antagonist group than in the PPOS group (12.9% vs. 19.6%). The implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, and live birth rate per transfer were comparable between the 2 groups. However, CLBRs after 1 complete IVF cycle were significantly higher in the GnRH antagonist group than in the PPOS group (36.0% vs. 32.2%; Risk ratio = 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.01-1.24). The average TTLB was significantly shorter in the GnRH antagonist group than in the PPOS group (9.3 months vs. 12.4 months). Using the Kaplan-Meier analysis, the cumulative incidence of ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth was significantly higher in the GnRH antagonist group than in the PPOS group (85.1% vs. 66.1%, Log-rank test). A Cox proportional hazard model revealed that women who underwent the antagonist protocol were 2.32 times more likely to achieve a live birth than those who used PPOS (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.32; 95% CI, 1.91-2.83). Subgroup analysis revealed that women who used the antagonist protocol were more likely to achieve a live birth than women who used PPOS across the 3 antral follicle count (AFC) strata (AFC ≤ 5, AFC 6-15, and AFC > 15), 2 age strata (<35 and ≥35 years), and first cycle or repeated cycle. The difference was greatest among women whose AFC was ≤5 and who were aged ≥35 years, effectively becoming smaller in the group with high ovarian reserve and younger age.

CONCLUSION(S)

In unselected women undergoing IVF, the GnRH antagonist protocol was associated with a higher CLBR and a shorter TTLB compared with PPOS.

Progestin primed ovarian stimulation using corifollitropin alfa in PCOS women effectively prevents LH surge and reduces injection burden compared to GnRH antagonist protocol

Utilizing corifollitropin alfa in GnRH antagonist (GnRHant) protocol in conjunction with GnRH agonist trigger/freeze-all strategy (corifollitropin alfa/GnRHant protocol) was reported to have satisfactory outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Although lessening in gonadotropin injections, GnRHant were still needed. In addition to using corifollitropin alfa, GnRHant was replaced with an oral progestin as in progestin primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) to further reduce the injection burden in this study. We try to investigate whether this regimen (corifollitropin alfa/PPOS protocol) could effectively reduce GnRHant injections and prevent premature LH surge in PCOS patients undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles. This is a retrospective cohort study recruiting 333 women with PCOS, with body weight between 50 and 70 kg, undergoing first IVF/ICSI cycle between August 2015 and July 2018. We used corifollitropin alfa/GnRHant protocol prior to Jan 2017 (n = 160), then changed to corifollitropin alfa/PPOS protocol (n = 173). All patients received corifollitropin alfa 100 μg on menstruation day 2/3 (S1). Additional rFSH was administered daily from S8. In corifollitropin alfa/GnRHant group, cetrorelix 0.25 mg/day was administered from S5 till the trigger day. In corifollitropin alfa/PPOS group, dydrogesterone 20 mg/day was given from S1 till the trigger day. GnRH agonist was used to trigger maturation of oocyte. All good quality day 5/6 embryos were frozen, and frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) was performed on subsequent cycle. A comparison of clinical outcomes was made between the two protocols. The primary endpoint was the incidence of premature LH surge and none of the patients occurred. Dydrogesterone successfully replace GnRHant to block LH surge while an average of 6.8 days of GnRHant injections were needed in the corifollitropin alfa/GnRHant group. No patients suffered from ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). The other clinical outcomes including additional duration/dose of daily gonadotropin administration, number of oocytes retrieved, and fertilization rate were similar between the two groups. The implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and live birth rate in the first FET cycle were also similar between the two groups. In women with PCOS undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment, corifollitropin alfa/PPOS protocol could minimize the injections burden with comparable outcomes to corifollitropin alfa/GnRHant protocol.

Dydrogesterone primed luteal phase stimulation may be better than follicular phase stimulation in patients with diminished ovarian reserve

OBJECTIVE

In this study, we aimed to compare the efficacy of luteal phase stimulation (LPS) and follicular phase stimulation (FPS) in two separate menstrual cycles (2-5 months intervals) of the same patient, utilizing LPS with dydrogesteron only.

METHODS

This retrospective case control study was conducted with patients with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) (Group 1) and infertile patients with Anti-Müllerian hormone >1.2 ng/mL (Group 2) undergoing two ovarian stimulations (FPS and LPS with dydrogesteron only) and two oocyte retrievals in two separate menstrual cycles (2-5 months intervals) in the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility of Baskent University, Ankara, between April 2019 and December 2019.

RESULTS

In group 1, the number of frozen embryos was significantly higher in LPS when compared to FPS; 1.71 vs. 0.54, (p < .001), respectively. In group 2, the number of frozen embryos was higher in LPS when compared to FPS (0.8 vs. 0.4) however the difference did not reach a statistical significance (p: 0.157).

CONCLUSION

LPS may be beneficial especially in the patients with diminished ovarian reserve with follicular asynchronization in the menstrual onset. In addition, it should be kept in mind that dydrogesterone only may be used instead of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist to prevent possible luteinizing hormone rise in LPS.

Fertility preservation in breast cancer with oral progestin: is it an option? A pilot study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of oral progestins and injectable gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist medication in cancer fertility preservation in patients with breast cancer.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study with 40 breast cancer patients submitted to cancer fertility preservation, who were divided into two groups according to histochemical analysis of progesterone receptors to define luteinizing hormone block: if positive, use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, if negative, use of oral progestins. The mean age, medication days, antral follicle count, number of oocytes in metaphase II and the occurrence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome were compared.

RESULTS

A total of 20 patients both in the group using gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, and in the group with oral progestins, respectively, had a mean age of 33.9 (32-35.8) and 33.8 (32-35.6) years; days of medications of 11 (9.7-12.3) and 12.8 (11.6-13.9), p=0.037; antral follicle count of 9 (7.11-12) and 8.5 (6-11.9), p=0.370; metaphase II oocyte number of 4 (2.1-9.8) and 7.5 (3.1-10), p=0.348; and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome of 2 (10%) and 5 (25%) cases, p=0.212.

CONCLUSION

The use of oral progestins, in spite of requiring longer treatment time, is effective in relation to the protocol with gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist, and offers greater comfort at a lower cost in breast cancer patients with negative progesterone receptors, submitted to cancer fertility preservation.

Live birth rate with double ovarian stimulation is superior to follicular phase ovarian stimulation per started cycle in poor ovarian responders

AIM

To compare the outcome of double ovarian stimulation (DOS) with follicular phase ovarian stimulation (FPS) per started cycle in poor ovarian responders (PORs).

METHODS

A total of 204 PORs who underwent ovulation induction for in vitro fertilization, cryopreservation of all embryos available, and frozen embryo transfer cycle were retrospectively analyzed. Of those, 146 received single FPS, and 58 received DOS. All viable embryos were cryopreserved and subsequently transferred within 1-6 months.

RESULTS

The number of oocytes collected and the number of mature oocytes per started cycle were higher in the DOS group compared to the FPS group (6.0 ± 1.9 vs. 2.8 ± 1.3 and 4.3 ± 1.3 vs. 2.2 ± 1.2, respectively, p = 0.001). Clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate per started cycle were also significantly higher in the DOS group than the FPS group (41.4% vs. 16.4% and 36.2% vs. 15.1%, respectively, p < 0.001). The cancellation rate of embryo transfer due to no viable embryo was significantly lower in the DOS group (10.3%) than the FPS group (40.4%) (p = 0.001). In the DOS group, numbers of oocytes (3.2 ± 1.2 vs. 2.7 ± 1.1, p = 0.006), MII oocytes (2.6 ± 1.0 vs. 2.1 ± 0.8, p = 0.001), and cryopreserved blastocysts (1.5 ± 0.8 vs. 1.1 ± 0.7, p = 0.002) were significantly higher in the luteal ovarian stimulation compared to follicular ovarian stimulation.

CONCLUSIONS

Live birth per started cycle with DOS is superior to FPS in PORs. Luteal phase stimulation contributes to improving pregnancy rates in these patients.

Dydrogesterone versus medroxyprogesterone acetate co-treatment ovarian stimulation for IVF: a matched cohort study of 236 freeze-all-IVF cycles

This matched cohort study was retrospectively performed, with cycles extracted from freeze-all-IVF treatments performed between March and November 2019, to compare the efficacy of flexible-start dydrogesterone (DYG) co-treatment ovarian stimulations (OS) with flexible-start medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) co-treatment OS. DYG cycles were matched 1:1 with MPA cycles using female age and antral follicle count, resulting in 236 matched cycles. OS durations and total FSH doses were similar in DYG and MPA OS cycles. The numbers of mature oocytes retrieved were similar; however, the mature oocyte retrieval rate was significantly lower (66.7 vs. 78.2%; p = .001) and the cycle cancellation rates were higher (29.2 vs. 21.2%; p = .056) in DYG co-treatments. A linear regression selected OS co-treatment protocol (0.53 DYG (0.356-0.776), p = .001) into the final model to predict a ≥ 80% mature oocyte retrieval rate. The per transfer (47.2 vs. 49.7; p = .721) and per treatment ongoing pregnancy rates (32.2 vs. 38.1%, p = .210) were similar in the two co-treatment groups. Flexible-start DYG co-treatment OS was as effective in blastocyst freeze-all-IVF cycles as MPA co-treatment, with similar ongoing pregnancy rates; however, mature oocyte retrieval was significantly decreased and cycle cancellation increased in DYG cycles.Impact statementWhat is already known on this subject? Progestin (i.e. artificial progesterone) co-treatment has long been known to be a feasible alternative to conventional GnRH-analogue co-treatment in OS for IVF, because of the long-standing evidence that progestin formulations have in oral contraceptive therapies. The recent evolution of effective freeze-all-IVF (in which high mid-cycle progesterone levels is not of concern because of the postponement of embryo transfer) has now made it possible to investigate progestin co-treatment OS in IVF.What do the results of this study add? Ongoing pregnancy rates from blastocyst frozen embryo transfers in flexible-start dydrogesterone (DYG) co-treatment ovarian stimulation (OS) cycles were similar to rates in flexible-start medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) co-treatment OS cycles. The mature oocyte retrieval rate was significantly lower and the cycle cancellation rate higher in DYG than in MPA cycles.What are the implications of these findings for clinical practice and/or further research? The evidence suggests that MPA co-treatment should be preferred in OS for IVF. Further investigation is required to refine progestin co-treatment protocols, because of their potential to reduce the number of viable blastocysts.

Medroxyprogesterone acetate is a useful alternative to a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist in oocyte donation: a randomized, controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To compare ovarian response and reproductive outcomes in oocyte donors undergoing pituitary suppression with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) versus those undergoing conventional treatment with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist.

DESIGN

A prospective, randomized, controlled trial of cycles was conducted from October 2017 to June 2019 to evaluate ovarian response in terms of the number of oocytes. The reproductive outcomes of the recipients were retrospectively analyzed later.

SETTING

A university-affiliated private in vitro fertilization center.

PATIENT(S)

We randomly divided 318 donors into 2 groups in a 1:1 ratio. The oocytes obtained were assigned to 364 recipients. One hundred sixty-one donors were treated with a daily dose of 10 mg of MPA administered orally from the beginning of ovarian stimulation (OS), and 156 were treated with a GnRH antagonist (initiated once the leading follicle reached a diameter of 13 mm). Transvaginal ultrasound was performed, and serum estradiol, luteinizing hormone, and progesterone levels were recorded during monitoring. The following additional parameters were analyzed: endocrine profile (in follicular fluid), number of metaphase II oocytes, and pregnancy outcome.

INTERVENTION(S)

The donors included in the study group were stimulated using recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone and MPA at 10 mg/day, simultaneously begun on cycle day 2 or 3. Ovulation was induced using a GnRH agonist when dominant follicles matured. A short protocol with ganirelix at 0.25 mg/day was used for the control group. Oocytes were assigned to the recipients, followed by routine in vitro fertilization procedures in which 1 embryo was usually transferred.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The primary outcome measure was the numbers of oocytes and metaphase II oocytes retrieved. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of premature luteinizing hormone surge, serum and follicular fluid hormone profiles, and clinical pregnancy outcomes in the recipient group.

RESULT(S)

The number of oocytes retrieved was 21.4 ± 11.7 in the MPA group and 21.2 ± 9.2 in the antagonist group (mean difference 0.14; 95% confidence interval -2.233, 2.517). The total dose of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone, duration of OS, and endocrine profiles of the serum and follicular fluids were comparable in the 2 groups. No early ovulation was observed in either group. No statistically significant differences with respect to implantation rate (68.1% in the MPA group vs. 62% in the antagonist group), clinical pregnancy rate (64.5% in the MPA group vs. 57.8 in the antagonist group), ongoing pregnancy rate (55.4% in the MPA group vs. 48.5% in the antagonist group), live birth rate (55.1% in the MPA group vs. 48.5% in the antagonist group), or cumulative live birth rate (73.8% in the MPA group vs. 70.7% in the antagonist group) were observed between the groups.

CONCLUSION(S)

The administration of MPA resulted in oocyte retrieval rates, endocrine profiles, viable embryo numbers, and pregnancy outcomes similar to those achieved with the GnRH antagonist. Therefore, MPA can be recommended for OS in oocyte donation because it permits a more patient-friendly approach.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03300960.

Exogenous progesterone for LH surge prevention is redundant in ovarian stimulation protocols

During ovarian stimulation for IVF-embryo transfer treatment, a premature LH surge may lead to progesterone elevation that disrupts endometrial maturation and affects the probability of pregnancy following fresh embryo transfer. Preventing this LH surge and progesterone elevation using gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues is considered a standard practice. The same policy applies to cycles in which the 'freeze-all' protocol has been selected from the outset (e.g. donors), but the need for this has not been discussed. Moreover, in 'freeze-all' cycles, exogenous progesterone administration tends to replace GnRH antagonists, without reducing efficacy after embryo transfer in frozen-thawed cycles. Nevertheless, as exogenous progesterone is expected to have the same impact on the endometrium as endogenous progesterone, it is clear that, unlike in fresh cycles, in 'freeze-all' cycles an endogenous LH surge prevention does not seem necessary. Therefore, both GnRH antagonists and exogenous progesterone appear to be redundant in 'freeze-all' cycles, and in this context the indications for the use of GnRH analogues in ovarian stimulation protocols need to be revisited.

Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Versus Mild Stimulation Protocol in Advanced Age Women With Diminished Ovarian Reserve Undergoing Their First In Vitro Fertilization Cycle: A Retrospective Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To assess and compare the feasibility of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol with mild stimulation protocol for advanced age women with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) undergoing their first in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycle.

METHODS

Patients aged ≥35 years and DOR undergoing their first IVF/ICSI cycle were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study: 139 and 600 patients underwent the PPOS and mild stimulation protocols, respectively. The primary outcomes were cumulative clinical pregnancy rate (CCPR) and cumulative live birth rate (CLBR). The secondary outcomes were the number of oocytes retrieved and top-quality embryos.

RESULTS

There was nearly no significant difference of baseline characteristics between the two groups. Although a greater amount of total gonadotropin (1906.61 ± 631.04 IU vs. 997.72 ± 705.73 IU, P<0.001) and longer duration of stimulation (9 (10-7) vs. 6 (8-4), P<0.001) were observed in the PPOS group, the number of retrieved oocytes (3 (6-2) vs. 2 (4-1), P<0.001) and top-quality embryos (1 (2-0) vs. 1 (2-0), P=0.038) was greater in the PPOS group than the mild stimulation group. Meanwhile, the incidence of premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge rate was significantly lower in the PPOS group (0.7% vs.8.3%, P=0.001) than the mild stimulation group. However, there was no significant difference in conservative CCPR, conservative CLBR, optimistic CCPR, and optimistic CLBR between the two groups (all P>0.05). A multivariate logistic regression model showed significant positive effects of the number of retrieved oocytes and number of top-quality embryos on conservative CCPR (OR=1.236, 95%CI: 1.048-1.456, P=0.012, OR=2.313, 95%CI: 1.676-3.194, P<0.001) and conservative CLBR (OR=1.250, 95%CI: 1.036-1.508, P=0.020, OR=2.634, 95%CI: 1.799-3.857, P<0.001) respectively, while significant negative effects of age were identified for conservative CCPR (OR=0.805, 95%CI: 0.739-0.877, P<0.001) and conservative CLBR (OR=0.797, 95%CI: 0.723-0.879, P<0.001).

CONCLUSION

The PPOS protocol is an effective alternative to the mild stimulation protocol for advanced age patients with DOR, as it provides comparable reproductive outcomes and better control of premature LH surge. Further, more oocytes and top-quality embryos were obtained in the PPOS group, which had a positive association with conservative CCPR and CLBR.

Comparison of Cumulative Live Birth Rates Between GnRH-A and PPOS in Low-Prognosis Patients According to POSEIDON Criteria: A Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist regimen and a progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) regimen in low-prognosis patients according to POSEIDON criteria.

DESIGN

Single-center, retrospective, observational study.

SETTING

Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.

PATIENTS

Women aged ≤40 years, with a body mass index <25 kg/m², who underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm microinjection (ICSI) and met POSEIDON low-prognosis criteria.

INTERVENTION

GnRH or PPOS regimen with IVF or ICSI.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

CLBR per oocyte retrieval cycle.

RESULTS

Per oocyte retrieval cycle, CLBR was significantly higher with GnRH antagonist versus PPOS (35.3% vs 25.2%; P<0.001). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, CLBR per oocyte retrieval cycle was significantly lower with PPOS versus GnRH antagonist before (OR 0.62 [95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.46, 0.82; P=0.009]) and after (OR 0.66 [95% CI: 0.47, 0.93; P=0.0172]) adjustment for age, body mass index, infertility type, infertility duration, baseline follicle stimulating hormone, anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), antral follicle count (AFC), and insemination method. CLBR was numerically higher with the GnRH antagonist regimen than with PPOS, across all of the POSEIDON groups, and was significantly higher in patients aged ≥35 years with poor ovarian reserve [AFC <5, AMH <1.2 ng/mL] (unadjusted, P=0.0108; adjusted, P=0.0243).

CONCLUSION

In this single-center, retrospective, cohort study, patients had a higher CLBR with a GnRH antagonist versus PPOS regimen, regardless of other attributes.

How effective are the non-conventional ovarian stimulation protocols in ART? A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness of starting the ovarian stimulation on the early follicular phase ("Conventional") with the newer range of non-conventional approaches starting in the luteal phase ("Luteal"), random-start, and studies implementing them in DuoStim ("Conventional"+"Luteal").

METHODS

Systematic review. We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, and Embase, on March 2020. We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials that compared "Luteal," random-start ovarian stimulation or DuoStim with "Conventional"; we analyzed them by subgroups: oocyte freezing and patients undergoing ART treatments, both, in the general infertile population and among poor responders.

RESULTS

The following results come from a sensitivity analysis that included only the low/moderate risk of bias studies. When comparing "Luteal" to "Conventional," clinically relevant differences in MII oocytes were ruled out in all subgroups. We found that "Luteal" probably increases the COH length both, in the general infertile population (OR 2.00 days, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.19, moderate-quality evidence) and in oocyte freezing cycles (MD 0.85 days, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.18, moderate-quality evidence). When analyzing DuoStim among poor responders, we found that it appears to generate a higher number of MII oocytes in comparison with a single "Conventional" (MD 3.35, 95%CI 2.54-4.15, moderate-quality evidence).

CONCLUSION

Overall, this systematic review of the available data demonstrates that in poor responders, general infertile population and oocyte freezing for cancer stimulation in the late follicular and luteal phases can be utilized in non-conventional approaches such as random-start and DuoStim cycles, offering similar outcomes to the conventional cycles but potentially with increased flexibility, within a reduced time frame. However, more well-designed trials are required to establish certainty.

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.

Progestins for pituitary suppression during ovarian stimulation for ART: a comprehensive and systematic review including meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Progestins are capable of suppressing endogenous LH secretion from the pituitary. Progestins can be used orally and are less expensive than GnRH analogues. However, early endometrial exposure to progestin precludes a fresh embryo transfer (ET), but the advent of vitrification and increasing number of oocyte cryopreservation cycles allow more opportunities for using progestins for pituitary suppression.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

This review summarizes: the mechanism of pituitary suppression by progestins; the effectiveness of progestins when compared with GnRH analogues and with each other; the effect of progestins on oocyte and embryo developmental potential and euploidy status; and the cost-effectiveness aspects of progestin primed stimulation. Future research priorities are also identified.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via PubMed, the Web of Science and Scopus were screened with a combination of keywords related to ART, progesterone, GnRH analogue and ovarian stimulation, in various combinations. The search period was from the date of inception of each database until 1 April 2020. Only full text papers published in English were included.

OUTCOMES

Overall, the duration of stimulation, gonadotrophin consumption and oocyte yield were similar with progestins and GnRH analogues. However, sensitivity analyses suggested that progestins were associated with significantly lower gonadotrophin consumption than the long GnRH agonist protocol (mean difference (MD) = -648, 95% CI = -746 to -550 IU) and significantly higher gonadotrophin consumption than the short GnRH agonist protocol (MD = 433, 95% CI = 311 to 555 IU). Overall, live birth, ongoing and clinical pregnancy rates per ET were similar with progestins and GnRH analogues. However, when progestins were compared with GnRH agonists, sensitivity analyses including women with polycystic ovary syndrome (risk ratio (RR) = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.53) and short GnRH agonist protocols (RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.28) showed significantly higher clinical pregnancy rates with progestins. However, the quality of evidence is low. Studies comparing medroxyprogesterone acetate, dydrogesterone and micronized progesterone suggested similar ovarian response and pregnancy outcomes. The euploidy status of embryos from progestin primed cycles was similar to that of embryos from conventional stimulation cycles. Available information is reassuring regarding obstetric and neonatal outcomes with the use of progestins. Despite the lower cost of progestins than GnRH analogues, the mandatory cryopreservation of all embryos followed by a deferred transfer may increase cost per live birth with progestins as compared to an ART cycle culminating in a fresh ET.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

Progestins can present an effective option for women who do not contemplate a fresh ET, e.g. fertility preservation, anticipated hyper responders, preimplantation genetic testing, oocyte donors, double stimulation cycles.

Medroxyprogesterone acetate used in ovarian stimulation is associated with reduced mature oocyte retrieval and blastocyst development: a matched cohort study of 825 freeze-all IVF cycles

PURPOSE

To compare the effectivity of flexible-start medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) co-treatment ovarian stimulations (OS) with flexible-start gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) co-treatment OS, in blastocyst freeze-all IVF cycles.

METHOD

This matched cohort study was performed at a single IVF center. Study cycles were extracted from freeze-all IVF cycles performed between February 2015 and June 2018 with cycles grouped according to the co-treatment protocol (MPA and GnRH-ant groups) used. MPA cycles were matched 1:1 using antral follicle count, female age, infertility duration, and female body mass index, with GnRH-ant cycles, resulting in 825 matched cycles. MPA or CET co-treatment was started when leading follicles reached 11-12 mm.

RESULTS

Duration of OS was significantly longer, and total FSH dose was significantly higher in the MPA group. Numbers of mature oocytes retrieved were similar; however, the mature oocyte retrieval rate (83.8 vs. 97.1%; p < 0.001), number of blastocysts, blastocyst rate (36.4 vs. 41.4%; p < 0.001) and > 2 viable blastocyst rate were all significantly lower in the MPA group. The live birth (LB) per transfer rates (51.6 vs. 55.7%; p = 0.155) were similar; however, the LB rate per treatment was significantly lower (40.9 vs. 45.8%; p = 0.05). A linear regression included the OS co-treatment protocol (GnRH-ant; 1.4 (1.07-1.81); p = 0.013) in the final model to predict having > 2 viable blastocysts.

CONCLUSION

Flexible-start MPA co-treatment OS was as effective in freeze-all IVF cycles as GnRH-ant co-treatment, with similar LB per transfer rates; however, increased cycle cancellation and reduced blastocyst numbers reduced LB per treatment rates significantly.

Dydrogesterone-primed ovarian stimulation is an effective alternative to gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol for freeze-all cycles in polycystic ovary syndrome

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effects of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation using dydrogesterone (DYD) and a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol on cycle characteristics and pregnancy rates in freeze-all cycles in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

METHODS

Medical records of PCOS patients who underwent freeze-all in vitro fertilization cycles between April 2017 and April 2019 at the Novafertil in vitro fertilization Center were retrospectively evaluated. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of premature luteinizing hormone surge. Secondary outcome measures were the total number of mature oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate, clinical pregnancy rates and ongoing pregnancy rates.

RESULTS

A total of 525 patients were included in the study. DYD-primed ovarian stimulation and a GnRH antagonist protocol were applied in 258 and 267 patients, respectively. The baseline parameters were similar between the two groups. The numbers of mature and fertilized oocytes were similar in the cetrorelix (CET) group and DYD group (11.43 ± 3.48 vs. 11.29 ± 4.34, respectively, P = 0.692; and 8.98 ± 2.93 vs. 8.62 ± 3.67, respectively, P = 0.208). Premature luteinization was rare in both groups, and the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (2.9% vs. 1.5%, respectively, P = 0.268). There was no significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate of the first frozen embryo transfer cycle between the DYG group and the CET group (56% [120/214] vs. 55.6% [113/203], respectively, P = 0.283). There were no significant differences in biochemical pregnancy rates, implantation rates, miscarriage rates or ongoing pregnancy rates between the two groups (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Dydrogesterone-primed ovarian stimulation seems to be an effective alternative to the GnRH antagonist protocol for freeze-all cycles in PCOS patients.

Comparison of euploidy rates of blastocysts in women treated with progestins or GnRH antagonist to prevent the luteinizing hormone surge during ovarian stimulation

STUDY QUESTION

Does the prevalence of euploid blastocysts differ between patients treated with progestin primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) and those treated with conventional ovarian stimulation?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The numbers of blastocysts and euploid blastocysts per patient and the number of euploid embryos per injected oocyte are similar for patients undergoing progestin-primed ovarian stimulation and for those undergoing conventional ovarian stimulation with GnRH antagonist.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

New approaches to ovarian stimulation have been developed based on the use of drugs administrable by mouth instead of via injections. Attention has been dedicated to progestins to block the LH surge. Previous data regarding the number of oocytes retrieved and the number of good-quality embryos generated in PPOS have demonstrated similar outcomes when compared to conventional ovarian stimulation, even if some concerns regarding the quality of embryos have been advanced.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This is a prospective non-inferiority age-matched case–control study. In a period of 6 months, a total of 785 blastocysts from 1867 injected oocytes obtained from 192 patients were available for analysis.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Infertile women undergoing IVF and preimplanation genetic testing (PGT) cycles were included. Forty-eight patients were treated with PPOS, and for each of them three age-matched historical controls (n = 144) treated with a GnRH antagonist protocol were selected. PGT was performed according to next-generation sequencing technology.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Basal characteristics were similar in the two groups; a substantial similarity of the main outcome measures in the two treatment groups has also been found. The rate of formation of euploid blastocysts per oocyte was 21% in both the two treatment groups. The percentage of patients with euploid embryos and the total number of euploid blastocysts per patient (median and interquartile range, IQR) in the PPOS group were 38.7 (25.5–52.9) and 2 (1.3–3.1), respectively. These figures were not significantly different in women treated with the GnRH antagonist protocol i.e. 42 (28–53.8) and 2.1 (1.3–2.9), respectively.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

This was a case–control study which may limit the reliability of the main findings.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Our results encourage the use of PPOS, especially for oocyte donation, for fertility preservation and for patients in which total freezing of embryos is foreseen, for those expected to be high responders or candidates for preimplantation genetic testing. However, studies aiming to investigate the effect of PPOS on the live birth rate are warranted.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

None.

Impact of progestin ovarian stimulation on newborn outcomes: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To compare progestin ovarian stimulation protocols with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue (agonists and antagonists) protocols on newborn outcomes.

METHODS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and BioMed Central databases were searched for studies comparing progestin prime ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocols with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using a random effects model.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary endpoint was the risk of newborn congenital malformations.

RESULTS

A total of 4 studies involving 9274 live-born infants were included. No important harm was observed with PPOS in terms of congenital malformations (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.63-1.34; p = 0.65) (very low quality of evidence (QOE)) and low birth weight (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.95-1.18; p = 0.29) (very low QOE) as compared with GnRH-a short protocols. In addition, a trend to a lower risk of preterm birth (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.80-1.02; p = 0.10) (very low QOE) was found among patients treated with a PPOS protocol.

CONCLUSIONS

PPOS protocols, compared with GnRH-a protocols, are associated with a similar congenital malformation risk profile. Therefore, PPOS might represent a safe and appealing treatment option for infertile patients.

Progestins versus GnRH analogues for pituitary suppression during ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

This systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies investigated whether progestins are as effective as gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues for pituitary suppression in assisted reproduction. The primary outcome was live birth rate per woman. Secondary outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy per woman and per embryo transfer, ongoing pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, numbers of oocytes and metaphase-two oocytes, duration of stimulation and gonadotrophin consumption. Adverse events included miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and multiple pregnancy rates. The GRADE system was used to assess the quality of evidence. Seven studies involving a total of 2047 women were included. Three studies compared a progestin with a GnRH antagonist and four studies compared a progestin with a GnRH agonist. Most studies are non-randomized and report outcomes per embryo transfer, rather than per woman. Although progestins were similar to GnRH antagonists in effectiveness and safety parameters, they were associated with significantly higher live birth or ongoing pregnancy per embryo transfer compared with the short GnRH agonist protocol (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.91). Progestin primed stimulation lasted significantly longer (mean difference 0.61 days, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.89) and required significantly more gonadotrophins (mean difference 433.2 IU, 95% CI 311.11 to 555.19) than the short GnRH agonist protocol, but the differences were clinically negligible. Safety parameters were similar between progestins and GnRH agonists. In conclusion, progestins can effectively prevent premature ovulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles. If larger and well-designed studies confirm these findings, progestins may be an effective and low-cost alternative to GnRH analogues when a fresh embryo transfer is not planned owing to a medical indication.