Comparison of aneuploidy for patients of different ages treated with progestin-primed ovarian stimulation or GnRH antagonist protocols

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does euploidy status differ among patients of different ages treated with progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) or gonadotrophin releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-a) protocols?

DESIGN

Patients undergoing PGT-A (n = 418; 440 cycles) were enrolled and grouped according to female age (<35 years and ≥35 years). Protocols were as follows: PPOS: <35 years (n = 131; 137 cycles); ≥35 years (n = 72; 80 cycles); GnRH-a: <35 years (n = 149; 152 cycles); ≥35 years (n = 66; 71 cycles).

RESULTS

For cycles treated with PPOS in the older group, rates of euploid blastocyst per metaphase Ⅱ oocyte (15.48% versus 10.47%) and per biopsied blastocyst (54.94% versus 40.88%) were significantly higher than those treated with GnRH-a (P < 0.05). The mosaic rate per biopsied blastocyst was significantly lower for cycles treated with PPOS than cycles treated with GnRH-a (8.64% versus 23.36%) (P < 0.001). In the younger group, no significant difference was found between treatments (P > 0.05). In older and younger groups, the drug to inhibit LH surge was cheaper for cycles treated with PPOS compared with GnRH-a (P < 0.001). Generalized estimation equations based on binomial distribution female age and euploidy rate was significantly negatively correlated for all participants (β -0.109, 95% CI -0.183 to -0.035, P = 0.004), and between GnRH-a protocol (reference: PPOS) and the euploidy rate in the older group (β -0.126, 95% CI -0.248 to -0.004, P = 0.042). Multiple logistic regression indicated that ovarian stimulation protocol was not associated with ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 0.652, 95% CI 0.358 to 1.177; P = 0.14).

CONCLUSIONS

PPOS is suitable for patients undergoing PGT-A, particularly older patients for the higher euploid blastocyst rate attained by PPOS protocol.

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.

The comparision among euploidy of preimplantation blastocysts in different controlled ovary stimulation (COH) protocols

PURPOSE

To compare differences in euploidy rates for blastocysts in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) cycles after gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) long and short protocols, GnRH-antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol, progestin-primed ovarian stimulation and mild stimulation protocols, and other ovary stimulation protocols.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study from the Assisted Reproductive Medicine Department of Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital. A total of 1657 PGT-A cycles with intracytoplasmic sperm injection after different controlled ovary hyperstimulation protocols were analyzed, and a total of 3154 embryos were biopsied. Differences in euploidy rate per embryo biopsied, embryo euploidy rate per oocyte retrieved and cycle cancellation rate were compared.

RESULTS

For the PGT-A cycles, the euploidy rate per embryo biopsied was lower in the GnRH-ant protocol than in the GnRH-a long protocol (53.26 vs. 58.68%, respectively). Multiple linear regression showed that the GnRH-ant protocol was associated with a lower euploidy rate per embryo biopsied (β =  -0.079, p = 0.011). The euploidy rate per embryo biopsied was not affected by total gonadotropin dosage, duration of stimulation and number of oocytes retrieved. The embryo euploidy rate per oocyte retrieved was similar in all protocols and was negatively correlated with the total number of oocytes retrieved (β =  -0.003, p = 0.003).

CONCLUSION

Compared with the GnRH-a long protocol, the GnRH-ant protocol was associated with a lower euploidy rate per embryo biopsied. The total gonadotropin dosage, duration of stimulation and number of oocytes retrieved did not appear to significantly influence euploidy rates.

A randomized controlled trial to compare the live birth rate of the first frozen embryo transfer following the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol vs. the antagonist protocol in women with an anticipated high ovarian response

OBJECTIVE

To compare the live birth rate of the first frozen embryo transfer (FET) after ovarian stimulation by the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol vs. the antagonist protocol in women with an anticipated high ovarian response who were undergoing in vitro fertilization.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

A tertiary assisted reproduction center.

PATIENTS

Women with infertility aged <43 years undergoing the first in vitro fertilization cycle and having antral follicle count of >15.

INTERVENTIONS

Medroxyprogesterone 10 mg daily was given from the start of ovarian stimulation until the day of ovulation trigger in the PPOS protocol. In the antagonist protocol, an antagonist 0.25 mg daily was given from the sixth day of ovarian stimulation until the day of ovulation trigger. Blinding was not possible for women or physicians but the biostatistician was blinded to the group assignment.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Live birth rate of the first FET cycle.

RESULTS

A total of 784 women were recruited from June 2020 and October 2021 and assigned randomly in a 1:1 ratio into two groups: PPOS group (n = 392) and antagonist group (n = 392). Embryo transfer was either cancelled or postponed in 62 women (62/392, 15.8%) in the PPOS group and 65 (65/392, 16.6%) in the antagonist group because of no transferable embryos or no FET within 6 months after randomization. The two groups were similar in demographic characteristics and the numbers of oocytes obtained or fertilized, cleaving embryos, good-quality embryos at day 3, blastocysts developed, and embryos or blastocysts frozen. There was no statistically significant difference in the live birth rate of the first FET cycle between the PPOS and antagonist groups on the basis of both the intention-to-treat analysis (37.5.0% [147/392] vs. 32.7% [128/392]; relative risk, 1.148 [95% confidence interval, 0.949-1.390]) and per-protocol analysis (44.5% [147/330] vs. 39.1% [128/327]; relative risk, 1.138 [95% confidence interval, 0.950-1.364]). Both groups showed comparable clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, and cumulative live birth rates.

CONCLUSION

The live birth rates of the first FET following the PPOS and antagonist protocols were comparable in women with an anticipated high ovarian response.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04414761 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

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).

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.

Oocyte competence is comparable between progestin primed ovarian stimulation with Norethisterone acetate (NETA-PPOS) and GnRH-antagonist protocols: A matched case-control study in PGT-A cycles

OBJECTIVE

To outline oocyte competence after progestin primed ovarian stimulation with Norethisterone acetate (NETA-PPOS) compared to conventional GnRH-antagonist protocol.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective matched case-control study involving advanced-maternal-age women undergoing ICSI with PGT-A. 89 NETA-PPOS were matched with 178 control patients based on maternal age and ovarian reserve biomarkers. Both groups underwent recombinant-FSH OS with GnRH-agonist ovulation trigger and collected ≥1 MII. In the study group, NETA (10 mg/day) was administered orally starting from day2 of the menstrual cycle. Euploid blastocyst rate per cohort of metaphase-II oocytes (EBR per MII) was the primary outcome. All other embryological and clinical outcomes were reported. Gestational age, birthweight and length were also assessed.

RESULTS

The EBR per MII was comparable among PPOS and control (13.9 % ± 19.3 % versus 13.3 % ± 17.9 %; the sample size allowed to exclude up to a 10 % difference). Blastocysts morphology and developmental rate were similar. No difference was reported for all clinical outcomes among the 61 and 107 vitrified-warmed euploid single blastocyst transfers respectively conducted. The cumulative live birth delivery rate per concluded cycles was also comparable (24.7 % versus 21.9 %). Neonatal outcomes were analogous.

CONCLUSIONS

Oocyte competence after NETA-PPOS and standard OS is comparable. This evidence is reassuring and, because of its lower cost and possibly higher patients' compliance, supports PPOS administration whenever the patients are indicated to freeze-all (e.g., fertility preservation, PGT-A, oocyte donation). More data are required about follicle recruitment, oocyte yield, gestational and perinatal outcomes. Randomized-controlled-trials are advisable to confirm our evidence.

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.

Verification of the utility of the gonadotropin starting dose calculator in progestin-primed ovarian stimulation: A comparison of empirical and calculated controlled ovarian stimulation

Purpose

To validate the effectiveness of a gonadotropin starting dose calculator for progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS), we conducted a study comparing the outcomes of oocyte retrieval between a group assigned gonadotropin doses via the calculator and a control group, where doses were determined by the clinician's empirical judgment.

Methods

Patients underwent controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) using the PPOS method, followed by oocyte retrieval. We assessed and compared the results of COS and oocyte retrieval in both groups. Additionally, we examined the concordance rate between the number of oocytes actually retrieved and the target number of oocytes in each group.

Results

The calculated group demonstrated a significantly higher number of preovulation follicles and a higher ovarian sensitivity index than the control group. Furthermore, the discrepancy between the target and actual number of oocytes retrieved was notably smaller in the calculated group. The concordance rate between the target and actual number of oocytes was significantly greater in the calculated group.

Conclusions

The gonadotropin starting dose calculator proved to be effective within the PPOS protocol, offering a reliable method for predicting the approximate number of oocytes to be retrieved, irrespective of the COS protocol employed.

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.

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.

Outcomes and cost-effectiveness comparisons of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation, GnRH antagonist protocol, and luteal phase stimulation for fertility preservation

OBJECTIVE

To compare the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) and the gonadotropin-releasing hormone-antagonist (GnRH-A) protocol in fertility preservation (FP) in cancer patients. The stimulation option when patients were in the luteal phase was also explored.

METHODS

This retrospective study analyzed clinical data from 163 patients who underwent FP. The number of retrieved oocytes and vitrified oocytes/embryos, total dose of gonadotropin, duration of stimulation, number of injections, and cost were compared among the PPOS, GnRH-A, and luteal phase stimulation (LPS) groups.

RESULTS

No significant differences were noted in the numbers of retrieved oocytes and vitrified oocytes/embryos among the three groups. In the multiple regression model, age (P = 0.02) and antral follicle count (AFC) (P < 0.001), but not the controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocols (P = 0.586), were associated with the number of retrieved oocytes. The number of injections and the cost were all significantly lower in the PPOS and LPS groups than in the GnRH-A group(P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

PPOS had similar clinical results but was superior medically and economically to GnRH-A. For patients in the luteal phase, LPS was an optional protocol with similar outcomes and costs to PPOS.

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/.

The clinical value of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol for women with diminished ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

To determine whether progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is more effective for women with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) than clomiphene citrate (CC)/letrozole (LE) plus gonadotropin in IVF or ICSI treatment.

Methods

Nine databases were searched until May 24, 2023, to identify relevant studies. Forest plots were used to present the results of this meta-analysis. Begg's and Egger's tests were applied to estimate publication bias. Subgroup and sensitivity analysis were performed to check the potential sources of heterogeneity and verify the robustness of the pooled results, respectively.

Results

A total of 14 studies with 4182 participants were included for meta-analysis. There was evidence of a statistically notable increase in clinical pregnancy rate (OR = 1.39, 95%CI [1.01, 1.91], p = 0.05), optimal embryos rate (OR = 1.50, 95%CI [1.20, 1.88], p = 0.0004), and cumulative pregnancy rate (OR = 1.73, 95%CI [1.14, 2.60], p = 0.009), the duration and the amount of gonadotropin required (MD = 1.56, 95%CI [0.47, 2.66], p = 0.005; SMD = 1.51, 95%CI [0.90, 2.12], p < 0.00001), along with decrease cycle cancellation rate (OR = 0.78, 95%CI [0.64, 0.95], p = 0.02), luteinizing hormone (LH) level on the day of hCG (SMD = -0.81, 95%CI [-1.10, -0.53], p < 0.00001), and premature LH surge rate (OR = 0.10, 95%CI [0.07, 0.15], p < 0.00001) when PPOS was used. No evidence for publication bias within results was revealed.

Conclusions

Based on evidence-based results, PPOS protocol seems to improve IVF/ICSI outcomes for women with DOR. More research with larger sample sizes and rigorous designs are required to further explore the value of PPOS among women diagnosed with DOR.

Systematic review registration

www.crd.york.ac.uk, identifier CRD42023430202.

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.

Analysis of euploidy rates in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy cycles with progestin-primed versus GnRH agonist/antagonist protocol

BACKGROUND

Progestins can suppress endogenous luteinising hormone (LH) secretion from the pituitary gland and have shown similar efficacy in terms of collecting competent oocytes and embryos; however, some inconsistencies have been proposed regarding the quality of embryos collected with the use of progestins. This study aimed to evaluate euploidy rates and pregnancy outcomes in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) cycles using the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol versus the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist/antagonist protocol.

METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 608 PGT-A cycles: 146 women in the PPOS group, 160 women in the GnRH agonist group, and 302 women in the GnRH antagonist group. This study was performed at the in vitro fertilisation (IVF) centre of Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital between January 2019 and December 2021. Additionally, 267 corresponding first frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles were analysed to assess pregnancy outcomes.

RESULTS

The euploid blastocyst rate per injected metaphase II(MII) oocytes (14.60% vs. 14.09% vs. 13.94%) was comparable among the three groups (p > 0.05). No significant differences were observed among the three groups regarding pregnancy outcomes, including biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, implantation, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, and live birth rates per transfer in the first FET cycles (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The PPOS protocol had no negative effect on euploid blastocyst formation, and the pregnancy outcomes in FET cycles using the PPOS protocol were similar to those of the GnRH agonist and antagonist protocols. Trial registration This trial was retrospectively registered.

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.

Metaphase-II oocyte competence is unlinked to the gonadotrophins used for ovarian stimulation: a matched case-control study in women of advanced maternal age

PURPOSE

An impact of different gonadotrophins selection for ovarian stimulation (OS) on oocyte competence has yet to be defined. In this study, we asked whether an association exists between OS protocol and euploid blastocyst rate (EBR) per metaphase-II (MII) oocytes.

METHODS

Cycles of first preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies conducted by women ≥ 35 years old with their own metaphase-II oocytes inseminated in the absence of severe male factor (years 2014-2018) were clustered based on whether recombinant FSH (rec-FSH) or human menopausal gonadotrophin (HMG) was used for OS, then matched for the number of fresh inseminated eggs. Four groups were outlined: rec-FSH (N = 57), rec-FSH plus rec-LH (N = 55), rec-FSH plus HMG (N = 112), and HMG-only (N = 127). Intracytoplasmic sperm injection, continuous blastocyst culture, comprehensive chromosome testing to assess full-chromosome non-mosaic aneuploidies and vitrified-warmed euploid single embryo transfers (SETs) were performed. The primary outcome was the EBR per cohort of MII oocytes. The secondary outcome was the live birth rate (LBR) per first SETs.

RESULTS

Rec-FSH protocol was shorter and characterized by lower total gonadotrophin (Gn) dose. The linear regression model adjusted for maternal age showed no association between the Gn adopted for OS and EBR per cohort of MII oocytes. Similarly, no association was reported with the LBR per first SETs, even when adjusting for blastocyst quality and day of full blastulation.

CONCLUSION

In view of enhanced personalization in OS, clinicians shall focus on different endpoints or quantitative effects related to Gn action towards follicle recruitment, development, and atresia. Here, LH and/or hCG was administered exclusively to women with expected sub/poor response; therefore, we cannot exclude that specific Gn formulations may impact patient prognosis in other populations.

Nomogram models to predict low fertilisation rate and total fertilisation failure in patients undergoing conventional IVF cycles

OBJECTIVES

To establish visualised prediction models of low fertilisation rate (LFR) and total fertilisation failure (TFF) for patients in conventional in vitro fertilisation (IVF) cycles.

DESIGN

A retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Data from August 2017 to August 2021 were collected from the electronic records of a large obstetrics and gynaecology hospital in Sichuan, China.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 11 598 eligible patients who underwent the first IVF cycles were included. All patients were randomly divided into the training group (n=8129) and the validation group (n=3469) in a 7:3 ratio.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

The incidence of LFR and TFF.

RESULTS

Logistic regressions showed that ovarian stimulation protocol, primary infertility and initial progressive sperm motility were the independent predictors of LFR, while serum luteinising hormone and P levels before human chorionic gonadotropin injection and number of oocytes retrieved were the critical predictors of TFF. And these indicators were incorporated into the nomogram models. According to the area under the curve values, the predictive ability for LFR and TFF were 0.640 and 0.899 in the training set and 0.661 and 0.876 in the validation set, respectively. The calibration curves also showed good concordance between the actual and predicted probabilities both in the training and validation group.

CONCLUSION

The novel nomogram models provided effective methods for clinicians to predict LFR and TFF in traditional IVF cycles.

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.

Luteinizing Hormone Suppression by Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Is Associated With Higher Implantation Rate for Patients With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Who Underwent in vitro Fertilization/Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Cycles: Comparing With Short Protocol

Background

Many studies have demonstrated the positive clinical value of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who underwent assisted reproductive technology. However, the underlying factors contributing to this phenomenon remain unclear. We conducted a retrospective observational study to compare the clinical outcomes of women with PCOS who underwent PPOS or the short protocol to identify possible factors that influence the outcome.

Methods

This study included 304 patients who underwent PPOS and 152 patients who underwent short protocol from April 2014 to July 2019 after propensity-score matching. Human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) dose, hormone profile, embryo development, and clinical outcomes of frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles were compared. The primary outcome measure was the implantation rate. Logistic regression was performed to identify contributing factors, and receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to calculate the cutoff of luteinizing hormone (LH) difference ratio in clinical outcomes.

Results

Compared with the short protocol, PPOS resulted in a higher implantation rate (43.4% vs. 31.9%, P < 0.05), clinical pregnancy rate (61.8% vs. 47.4%, P < 0.05), and live birth rate (48.4% vs. 36.8%, P < 0.05). Similar fertilization, cleavage, and valid embryo rate per oocyte retrieved between groups were observed. The LH difference ratio was positively associated with implantation rate [P = 0.027, odds ratio (OR) = 1.861, 95% CI: 1.074–3.226]. The relationship between the LH difference ratio with clinical outcomes was confirmed by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis and comparisons among patients grouped by the LH difference ratio.

Conclusion

The implantation rate was associated with the LH difference ratio during ovary stimulation in patients with PCOS. Our results provide the explanation why PPOS shows the positive clinical outcomes for patients with PCOS.

Usefulness of random-start progestin-primed ovarian stimulation for fertility preservation

Background

Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) has been used in infertility cases in recent years, and several reports have stated that it has oocyte collection results similar to those of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol. For emergency fertility preservation, random-start ovarian stimulation is usually recommended. Therefore we compared the clinical outcomes of random-start PPOS with those of conventional random-start GnRH-ant protocols in fertility-preserving cases.

Methods

We retrospectively examined 86 cycles of oocyte collection, of which 56 were random-start GnRH-ant and 30 were random-start PPOS for fertility preservation at our hospital between January 2016 and April 2021. The primary outcome was the number of mature oocytes per cycle. The secondary outcome was the number of vitrified blastocysts per cycle for embryo freezing cases.

Results

No significant differences were noted in the number of days of stimulation, total dose of gonadotropin preparation, and the number of mature oocytes and vitrified blastocysts. The number of hospital visits for monitoring was significantly lower in the PPOS group. The start of menstruation before oocyte collection was significantly less in the PPOS group.

Conclusions

Random-start PPOS and GnRH-ant were similar in oocyte collection results. PPOS can reduce the number of hospital visits, thus reducing patient stress. PPOS at the start of the luteal phase can prevent the start of menstruation during ovarian stimulation.

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.

Blastocyst euploidy rates in low-prognosis patients according to the POSEIDON criteria: a retrospective analysis of 3016 embryos

RESEARCH QUESTION

Do embryo euploidy rates differ in the four groups of women with low prognosis as stratified by the POSEIDON criteria?

DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study of low-prognosis patients who met the POSEIDON criteria and underwent preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidies (PGT-A) from January 2013 to June 2020 at the Center for Reproductive Medicine, Shandong University, China. A total of 3016 blastocysts from 1269 PGT-A cycles were included in the study. The primary outcome was the euploidy rate of the blastocysts. For each group, regression analyses were performed to quantitatively describe the relationship between maternal age and embryo euploidy rate.

RESULTS

The euploidy rate of embryos in women with poor ovarian response (POR) was 39.1% in total. There were 727, 1052, 275 and 962 blastocysts in groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively, with corresponding embryo euploidy rates of 57.2%, 34.9%, 52.4% and 26.2% (P < 0.001). Within each group, the euploidy rate decreased with age, especially in women aged 35 years or older (i.e. groups 2 and 4).

CONCLUSIONS

Euploidy rates were more favourable in groups 1 and 3, of a young age, re-emphasizing that oocyte quality is the primary factor determining embryo euploidy rate. The study's findings demonstrated the reasonability of categorizing women with POR by the POSEIDON criteria depending on female age and ovarian reserve biomarkers. These results also provide information for women with POR in different subgroups so they can receive proper counselling on the possible prognosis.

Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol for Patients in Assisted Reproductive Technology: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objectives

Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is a new ovarian stimulation protocol that can block the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge through progesterone instead of traditional down regulating or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, and in order to achieve multi-follicle recruitment. This paper aims to investigate the effectiveness of PPOS and its suitability for infertile patients with different ovarian reserve functions.

Methods

We searched published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about PPOS on Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. The search period spanned from January 1, 2015 to November 16, 2020. The data were extracted, and the meta-analysis was performed on ovarian stimulation as well as embryological and clinical outcomes. The outcomes were pooled by a random effects model, and the risk of heterogeneity was evaluated. Subgroup analysis was performed for different ovarian reserve patients.

Results

The clinical pregnancy rates and live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates with the PPOS protocol were not different from those with the control group. In the diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) subgroup, the PPOS protocol had a lower rate of premature LH surge [RR = 0.03, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.13, p < 0.001]. The PPOS protocol had a lower rate of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) [RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.36 to 0.76, p < 0.001, I2 = 0.00%]. The secondary outcomes showed that the number of oocytes retrieved, MII oocytes, and viable embryos was higher than that of the control protocol in DOR patients [(MD = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.36, p < 0.001), (MD = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.33, p < 0.001), (MD = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.18 to 0.24, p < 0.001)] and normal ovarian reserve (NOR) patients [(MD = 1.41, 95% CI = 0.03 to 2.78, p < 0.001), (MD = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.04 to 2.35, p < 0.001), (MD = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.21 to 1.81, p = 0.01)].

Conclusion

The findings suggest that PPOS is an effective ovarian stimulation protocol and is beneficial for patients with different ovarian reserve functions, which needs to be validated in more RCTs with larger samples.

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.

The best execution of the DuoStim strategy (double stimulation in the follicular and luteal phase of the same ovarian cycle) in patients who are poor ovarian responders

BACKGROUND

Patients found to be poor ovarian responders (POR) are a challenging patient population for any assisted reproduction technology. Despite attempts at various controlled ovarian stimulation schemes, reproductive outcomes in this patient population have not improved. In recent years, the DuoStim protocol (both follicular and luteal phase stimulation during the same menstrual cycle) has shown a potential for use in patients with POR.

METHODS

This retrospective study reviewed the medical records of 304 women who were diagnosed as POR and underwent the DuoStim protocol. We compared follicular phase stimulation (FPS) data and luteal phase stimulation (LPS) data of the same patients. We also compared the effects of different trigger drugs including urine human chorionic gonadotropin (uHCG; 10,000 IU), recombinant human chorionic gonadotropin (rHCG; 250 μg), and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a; 0.2 mg) at the FPS and LPS stages.

RESULTS

POR undergoing the DuoStim protocol resulted in a significantly higher number of oocytes retrieved, normal fertilised oocytes, cleaved embryos, cryopreserved embryos, and good quality embryos at the LPS stage than at the FPS stage. Trigger drugs at the FPS stage did not affect the FPS stage data. Regardless of the stage, rHCG and GnRH-a yielded significantly more cryopreserved embryos and good quality embryos than uHCG.

CONCLUSION

The use of GnRH-a or rHCG as the trigger drug may be better than uHCG in both the FPS and LPS stages for POR undergoing the DuoStim protocol. This will increase the number of good quality embryos at the LPS stage. We found that the LPS stage results in more oocytes (and therefore more embryos) than the FPS stage.

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.