Ovarian response in oocyte donation cycles under LH suppression with GnRH antagonist or desogestrel progestin: retrospective and comparative study

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.

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.

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.

Comparing progesterone primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) to GnRH antagonist protocol in oocyte donation cycles

Background:

Progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol is based on the principle of preventing pre-mature luteinising hormone surge during ovarian stimulation using progesterone.

Aims:

In this study, we aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of PPOS over GnRH antagonist cycles in oocyte donor cycles where freeze all is a norm.

Settings and Design:

It is a prospective cohort study with 130 participants.

Materials and Methods:

We included all women undergoing oocyte donation using PPOS protocol and antagonist protocol at our centre. Fifty-seven belonged to the PPOS group and were given medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) and 73 belonged to the GnRH antagonist group who received cetrorelix. The primary outcome was the number of mature oocyte retrieved at OPU and the cost involved per stimulation cycle.

Statistical Analysis Used:

For normally distributed observations, we used t-test, and for the variables of non-normal distribution, Mann–Whitney U-test was used. The significance was accepted for P < 0.05.

Results:

The baseline clinical characteristics of the donors were comparable with a mean age of 25.42 ± 2.90 years, body mass index of 24.00 ± 4.00 kg/m² and antral follicle count of 18.63 ± 5.23. The duration of stimulation was similar in both the groups as well as the total gonadotropin dose required was not significantly different. The number of mature oocytes retrieved was same in both the groups (10.41 ± 4.04 with antagonist and 10.25 ± 3.23 with PPOS, P = 0.964). There were no reported cases of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in any of the groups. The incidence of mild-to-moderate OHSS in the antagonist group was 5.4% and in the PPOS group was 3.6%, and the difference was not significant (P = 0.69). The cost per mature oocyte (M2) was significantly higher in the antagonist protocol in comparison to the PPOS protocol (INR 9485.69 ± 5751.11 vs. Rs. 5945.86 ± 2848.59, respectively, P < 0.001).

Conclusion:

Our study identifies PPOS protocol using MPA to be more cost-effective and patient-friendly than conventional GnRH antagonist protocol in oocyte donor cycles.

Outcomes of a GnRH Agonist Trigger Following a GnRH Antagonist or Flexible Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Cycle

A suggested explanation for the pituitary-suppressive effects of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation cycles (PPOS) is pituitary luteinizing hormone (LH) depletion with progestin exposure during the follicular phase. The GnRH agonist (GnRHa) trigger releases endogenous LH from the pituitary, and if the LH depletion theory is correct, the response to the agonist trigger would be dampened in PPOS cycles. In this study, we compared the performance of the GnRHa trigger after PPOS and GnRH antagonist ovarian stimulation cycles. All women who underwent ovarian stimulation with the GnRH antagonist or flexible PPOS (fPPOS) and received a GnRH agonist trigger were eligible for inclusion. Outcomes included number of metaphase-II (MII) oocytes retrieved per cycle, rates of empty follicle syndrome, maturation, fertilization, blastulation, and cumulative clinical pregnancy per stimulation cycle. During the screening period, there were 166 antagonists and 58 fPPOS cycles triggered with a GnRH agonist. Groups were matched for potential confounders using propensity score matching. Progestin-downregulated cycles had 19% high mature oocyte yield (median: 14 vs. 19 MII oocytes, P = 0.03). Cumulative ongoing pregnancy or live birth rates were estimated after matching for transferred embryo count, and rates were similar between GnRH antagonist and fPPOS group (57.0% vs. 62.1%, P = 0.68). However, the number of remaining blastocysts was higher in the fPPOS group (median: 5.0 vs. 6.0, P < 0.001). LH levels were higher in fPPOS cycles compared to GnRH antagonist cycles up to the trigger day (P < 0.001). After the GnRHa trigger, fPPOS cycles were associated with a steeper LH surge compared with antagonist cycles (P = 0.02). Higher endogenous gonadotropin levels through the stimulation period and an LH surge of higher magnitude following a GnRHa trigger suggest a milder pituitary suppression by fPPOS, which needs to be confirmed in larger samples. It appears that progestins do not deplete pituitary LH reserves and a GnRHa trigger is usable after PPOS in women with high ovarian reserve.

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.

Comparison of the Cumulative Live Birth Rates of Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation and Flexible GnRH Antagonist Protocols in Patients With Low Prognosis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) of the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol with that of the flexible GnRH antagonist protocol in patients with poor prognosis diagnosed per the POSEIDON criteria.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study. Low-prognosis women who underwent IVF/ICSI at the Reproductive Center of Third Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University between January 2016 and January 2019 were included according to the POSEIDON criteria. The CLBR was the primary outcome of interest. The secondary outcome measures were the numbers of oocytes retrieved, 2PN embryos, available embryos and time to live birth.

RESULTS

A total of 1329 women met the POSEIDON criteria for analysis. For POSEIDON group 1, the dosage of gonadotropin (Gn) was higher in the PPOS group than in the GnRH antagonist group (2757.3 ± 863.1 vs 2419.2 ± 853.1, P=0.01). The CLBR of the PPOS protocols was 54.4%, which was similar to the rate of 53.8% in the GnRH antagonist group. For POSEIDON group 2, the number of available embryos was higher in the PPOS group (2.0 ± 1.7 vs 1.6 ± 1.4, P=0.02) than in the GnRH antagonist group. However, the CLBRs of the two groups were similar (18.1% vs 24.3%, P=0.09). For POSEIDON groups 3 and 4, there were no statistically significant differences in the number of oocytes retrieved, 2PN, available embryos or CLBR between the two protocols. After adjustments for confounding factors, the CLBR remained consistent with the unadjusted rates. In the POSEIDON group 1 population, the GnRH antagonist protocols had a shorter time to live birth (P=0.04).

CONCLUSION

For low-prognosis patients diagnosed per the POSEIDON criteria, the CLBR of PPOS protocols is comparable to that of GnRH antagonist protocols. In the POSEIDON group 1 population, the GnRH antagonist protocols resulted in a shorter time to live birth.

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.