Effectiveness of the flexible progestin primed ovarian stimulation protocol compared to the flexible GnRH antagonist protocol in women with decreased ovarian reserve

Health needs, treatment decisions and experience of traditional complementary and integrative medicine use by women with diminished ovarian reserve: A cross-sectional survey

BACKGROUND

Women with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) have fewer eggs than would be expected at their age. It is estimated that 10% of women seeking fertility treatment are diagnosed with DOR. However, the success rate of medically assisted reproduction (MAR) is significantly lower in women with DOR, thus many seek additional approaches.

AIM

To explore the health needs of women with DOR, treatment options and experience of treatment including traditional complementary integrative medicine (TCIM).

METHODS

Anyone with a diagnosis of DOR, living in Australia or New Zealand, aged over 18 were invited to complete an online survey distributed via fertility support networks and social media platforms from April to December 2021.

RESULTS

Data from 67 respondents were included. The main aspects of health that were impacted by DOR were fertility (91.0%) and mental health (52.2%). The main treatment recommended was MAR with most women either currently using MAR (38.8%) or having previously used MAR (37.3%). TCIM was widely used with 88.1% of women utilising supplements, 74.6% consulting with TCIM practitioners, and 65.7% adopting self-care practices. The main reasons for using TCIM were to improve fertility or support pregnancy, and to support general health and well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

Women with DOR have additional health needs apart from infertility, most notably mental health support. The main form of treatment utilised is MAR, despite DOR being challenging for fertility clinicians. TCIM was widely used, and respondents perceived benefits related to improving fertility, supporting pregnancy, or improving well-being through use of acupuncture, meditation, naturopathy, massage, yoga.

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 progestin-primed ovarian stimulation regimen and antagonist regimen in women aged 35 years or older with diminished ovarian reserve: A propensity score-matched study

OBJECTIVE

Diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) has been a major challenge in infertility treatment. The present study aimed to compare the efficacy of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) regimen and antagonist regimen in infertile patients aged 35 years or older with DOR.

METHODS

A retrospective study of 289 in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles from April 2016 to June 2022 was performed. Propensity score matching (PSM) was used to balance the baseline characteristics between the two groups at a ratio of 1:1.

RESULTS

After matching, there were 87 cycles in the PPOS group and 87 cycles in the antagonist group. The primary outcome measures included the incidence of premature LH surge, the number of retrieved oocytes, and the number of mature oocytes, which were comparable between the two groups (all P values >0.05). There were no significant differences in laboratory indicators and final clinical outcomes between the two groups (all P values >0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

For DOR patients aged 35 years or older, the number of retrieved oocytes and the number of mature oocytes were comparable between the PPOS and antagonist groups. Moreover, the two regimens showed no difference in the inhibition of premature LH surge.

Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation: for whom, when and how?

Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is being increasingly used for ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology. Different progestins have been used with similar success. The available studies suggest a similar response to ovarian stimulation with gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues. Any differences in the duration of stimulation or gonadotrophin consumption are minor and clinically insignificant. PPOS has the advantage of oral administration and lower medication costs than GnRH analogues. As such it is clearly more cost-effective for fertility preservation and planned freeze-all cycles, but when fresh embryo transfer is intended PPOS can be less cost-effective depending on the local direct and indirect costs of the additional initial frozen embryo transfer cycle. Oocytes collected in PPOS cycles have similar developmental potential, including blastocyst euploidy rates. Frozen embryo transfer outcomes of PPOS and GnRH analogue cycles seem to be similar in terms of both ongoing pregnancy/live birth rates and obstetric and perinatal outcomes. While some studies have reported lower cumulative live birth rates with PPOS, they have methodological issues, including arbitrary definitions of the cumulative live birth rate. PPOS has been used in all patient types (except progesterone receptor-positive breast cancer patients) with consistent results and seems a patient friendly and cost-effective choice if a fresh embryo transfer is not intended.

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.

The comparison between fixed versus degressive doses of medroxyprogesterone acetate combined with letrozole in patients of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol: a propensity score-matched study

Objective

To explore the cycle characteristics and pregnancy outcomes of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) using fixed versus degressive doses of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) in conjunction with letrozole (LE) in infertile women by propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

Design

A retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Tertiary-care academic medical center.

Population

A total of 3173 infertile women undergoing their first in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) treatment within the period from January 2017 to December 2020.

Methods

A total of 1068 and 783 patients who underwent a fixed dose of MPA combined with LE and a degressive dose of MPA combined with LE protocols, respectively, were enrolled in this study. The freeze-all approach and later frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) were performed in both groups. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcomes were the dosage of MPA and the incidence of premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges. The secondary outcomes were the number of oocytes retrieved, the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) and the fetal malformation rate.

Results

We created a perfect match of 478 patients in each group. The dosage of MPA, the LH serum level on the eighth day of stimulation, progesterone (P) level and LH level on the hCG trigger day were significantly higher in the LE + fixed MPA group than in the LE + degressive MPA group (52.1 ± 13.1 mg vs. 44.9 ± 12.5 mg; 5.0 ± 2.7 IU/L vs. 3.7 ± 1.7 IU/L; 0.9 ± 0.5 ng/ml vs. 0.8 ± 0.5 ng/ml; 3.3 ± 2.4 IU/L vs. 2.8 ± 1.9 IU/L; P < 0.01). The duration of Gn, the number of follicles with diameter more than 16 mm on trigger day, the estradiol (E2) level on the hCG trigger day were lower in the LE + fixed MPA group than in the LE + degressive MPA group (9.7 ± 1.7 days vs. 10.3 ± 1.5 days; 5.6 ± 3.0 vs. 6.3 ± 3.0; 1752.5 ± 1120.8 pg/ml vs. 1997.2 ± 1108.5 pg/ml; P < 0.001). No significant difference was found in the incidence of premature LH surge, the number of oocytes retrieved, the number of top-quality embryos, clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), CLBR or fetal malformation rate between the two groups.

Conclusion

The combination of a degressive MPA dose with LE proved effective in reducing the total MPA dosage with comparable premature LH surge and pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing the PPOS protocol.

Role and effectiveness of progestins in pituitary suppression during ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review and a meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Despite the many unknowns about its exact mechanism, progesterone and progestins are being successfully used to prevent luteinizing hormone (LH) surge during ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology (ART). We will review progestin primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocols in comparison with gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues and each other.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

MEDLINE via PubMed; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Scopus; Web of Science were screened with keywords related to assisted reproductive technology, ovarian stimulation progesterone, GnRH analogue and progesterone in several combinations. Search period was from the date of inception of each database until 20 May 2022.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate per embryo transfer (ET) was similar in PPOS and GnRH antagonist cycles (RR=1.16, 95% CI: 0.93-1.44). Clinical pregnancy rate per ET was likewise similar (RR=1.12, 95% CI: 0.92-1.37). Miscarriage rate per pregnancy was similar with PPOS and GnRH antagonists in autologous cycles (RR=1.01, 95% CI: 0.65-1.55). Pooled analyses showed similar live birth rate between progestins and short GnRH agonist protocols (RR=1.01, 95% CI: 0.49-2.09), however, clinical pregnancy rates per ET were significantly higher with progestins (RR=1.31, 95% CI: 1.06-1.62). Miscarriage rate per pregnancy was similar with progestins (RR=0.82, 95% CI: 0.55-1.21).

CONCLUSIONS

Progestins seem to be an efficient option for pituitary suppression during ovarian suppression, providing similar outcomes for stimulation and pregnancy. They can be especially beneficial for women for whom fresh ET is not considered.

Comparison of Cumulative Live Birth Rates between Flexible and Conventional Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol in Poor Ovarian Response Patients According to POSEIDON Criteria: A Cohort Study

RESEARCH QUESTION

To compare the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) per oocyte retrieval cycle of a conventional progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (cPPOS) regimen with a flexible progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (fPPOS) regimen in poor ovarian response patients, according to POSEIDON criteria.

DESIGN

Poor ovarian response women, according to POSEIDON criteria, who underwent the first PPOS protocol for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) between January 2018 and December 2020 were included. The fPPOS group involved 113 participants, and the cPPOS group included 1119 participants. In the cPPOS group, medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) (10 mg/d) was administrated on the gonadotropin injection the same day as gonadotropin injections in the cPPOS group, while MPA was started either on the day when the leading follicle with mean diameter > 12mm was present and/or serum E2 was >300 pg/mL in the fPPOS protocol group. The primary outcome was CLBR.

RESULTS

The fPPOS protocol had higher CLBR per oocyte retrieval cycle compared to the cPPOS group, even without a statistically significant difference (29.6% vs. 24.9%, p = 0.365). The fPPOS group had fewer numbers of retrieved oocytes (2.87 ± 2.03 vs. 3.76 ± 2.32, p < 0.001) but a higher MII oocyte rate (89.8% vs. 84.7%, p = 0.016). In addition, the number of available embryos in the two groups was comparable (1.37 ± 1.24 vs. 1.63 ± 1.38, p = 0.095). There were five women in the fPPOS group, and 86 women in the cPPOS group had a premature LH surge (4.2% vs. 6.8%, p = 0.261). In the fPPOS group, there was one instance of premature ovulation, while in the cPPOS group, there were six occurrences of premature ovulation (0.8 vs. 0.5%, p = 1.000).

CONCLUSION(S)

The novel fPPOS protocol appears to achieve higher CLBR even without significant differences and with MPA consumption compared with cPPOS protocol in low-prognosis patients.

Comparison of fixed and flexible progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocols to prevent premature luteinization in patients with diminished ovarian reserve

PURPOSE

Flexible progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol is demonstrated to be effective in suppressing premature luteinization in few studies. We aimed to compare fixed and flexible PPOS protocols in preventing premature luteinization in patients with diminished ovarian reserve.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included patients with a diminished ovarian reserve who were administered PPOS protocols for pituitary suppression during ovarian stimulation in a tertiary center in between January 2019 and June 2022. At fixed protocol, 20 mg/day dydrogesterone was started in cycle day two or three along with gonadotropins and continued until trigger day. In contrast, at flexible protocol, 20 mg/day dydrogesterone was commenced when the leading follicle reached 12 mm or serum estradiol (E2) level was > 200 pg/mL.

RESULTS

A total of 125 patients, of whom 83 were administered fixed PPOS protocol and 42 were administered flexible PPOS protocol, were included in the analysis. Both groups had similar baseline characteristics and cycle parameters, including total days of gonadotropin administration and total gonadotropin dose (p > 0.05). Premature luteinization occurred at 7.2% and 11.9% of patients in fixed and flexible PPOS protocols, respectively (p = 0.505). Retrieved oocytes numbers, metaphase II oocyte numbers, and 2PN numbers were also similar (p > 0.05). Clinical pregnancy rates per transfer were 52.5% in fixed and 36.4% in flexible protocols (p = 0.499).

CONCLUSION

Both fixed and flexible PPOS protocols had statistically similar outcomes in preventing premature luteinization and other cycle parameters. The flexible PPOS protocol seems to be as effective as the fixed PPOS protocol for patients with diminished ovarian reserve; however, further prospective studies should be conducted to validate the results of our research.

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.

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 Protocol for Patients With Endometrioma

Objective

To evaluate the pregnancy outcomes of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol for patients with endometrioma underwent in vitro fertilization/intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection embryo transfer (IVF/ICSI-ET).

Design

Observational retrospective cohort study.

Setting

University affiliated reproductive center.

Study Participants

605 infertile patients with endometrioma underwent IVF/ICSI-ET from January 2016 to March 2021 were included in this study.

Methods

Multivariable logistic regression analyses were conducted to determine the independent effect of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocols on reproductive outcomes of first embryo transfer (ET) cycles. The live birth was primary outcome, the implantation rate, biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy were secondary outcomes.

Results

Compared to PPOS protocol, the probability of implantation showed no significant difference with ultra-long gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) protocol and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRHant) protocol (OR 1.7, 95% CI 0.9-3.1, OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.7-2.1, respectively). The PPOS protocol was correlated with a significantly lower biochemical pregnancy and clinical pregnancy than ultra-long GnRHa protocol in the multivariable logistic regression analysis (OR 2.3, 95% CI 1.1-4.9, OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.1-5.3, respectively). However, there was no significant difference in terms of biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy between PPOS and GnRHant protocol (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.7-2.7, OR 1.3, 95% CI 0.7-2.4, OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.6-2.3, respectively). In addition, compared to PPOS protocol, ultra-long GnRHa protocol and GnRHant protocol demonstrated no statistical difference in ongoing pregnancy (OR 2.0, 95% CI 0.9-4.5, OR 2.1, 95% CI 0.6-2.3, respectively). Notably, the ultra-long GnRHa protocol was associated with a significant higher probability of live birth than PPOS protocol both in crude analysis and multivariable logistic regression analysis (OR 2.6, 95% CI 1.3-5.1, OR 2.5, 95% CI 1.1-5.7, respectively). Nevertheless, no statistical difference was found in live birth between PPOS and GnRHant protocol either in crude analysis and multivariable logistic regression analysis (OR1.2, 95% CI 0.6-2.3, OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.6-2.5, respectively).

Conclusions

Based on the reproductive outcomes of the first ET cycles in patients with endometrioma, PPOS protocol may associated with inferior reproductive outcomes in terms of biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy and live birth than ultra-long GnRHa protocol. However, there was no significant difference in implantation rate, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy and live birth between PPOS and GnRHant protocol.

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.

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.

The Comparison of Fixed and Flexible Progestin Primed Ovarian Stimulation on Mature Oocyte Yield in Women at Risk of Premature Ovarian Insufficiency

While gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists have been the standard of pituitary suppression during ovarian stimulation for ART, progestin primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) has emerged as an alternative. Progestins can be started simultaneously with gonadotrophins (fixed PPOS) or later in the cycle depending on follicle growth (flexible PPOS). However, the flexible and fixed PPOS regimens have not been directly compared as of yet. This was a retrospective cohort study including women with diminished ovarian reserve who underwent oocyte cryopreservation. All women underwent ovarian stimulation with a fixed 300 IU daily dose of FSH. The primary outcome was the number of MII oocyte retrieved per cycle. Secondary outcome measures included the incidence of premature LH surge (>10ng/mL) and number of follicles larger than 14mm on the day of maturation trigger. During the screening period 2 out of 97 cycles were cancelled before oocyte retrieval, one in each group yielding an overall cancelation rate of 2%. Among women who had oocyte retrieval, 65 underwent flexible and 30 fixed PPOS. At baseline women on fixed and flexible PPOS had similar age (mean difference: -2.17 years, 95% CI: -4.46 to 0.11) and serum AMH levels (mean difference: 0.10 ng/mL, 95% CI: -0.24 to 0.47). Slight imbalances between the groups were rectified with propensity score matching using age and AMH levels. The incidence of premature LH surge (RR: 1.47, 95% CI: 0.51 - 5.27, p = 0.50), follicle count larger than 14mm on hCG day (RR: 1.14, 95% CI: 0.93 - 1.42, p = 0.22), number of MII oocytes retrieved (RR: 0.95, 95% CI: 0.79 - 1.15, p = 0.61) were similar between flexible and fixed PPOS. The rate of no oocyte retrieval was same between the groups (0.0% both) but no formal estimation was possible. Flexible and fixed PPOS regimens had no appreciable differences regarding MII oocyte yield and the incidence of premature LH surges. Cycles without oocyte retrieval were rare in both groups and ultrasonographic parameters of gonadotropin response were similar. Our study suggests the performances of either progestin regimen are comparable in this group of women.