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

Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The use of progestins as pituitary suppressors has increased progressively, along with more detailed indications for their use, thereby consolidating an alternative approach to the personalization of ovarian stimulation.

RECENT FINDINGS

Based on the ability of progesterone to inhibit ovulation, progestins have been used in ovarian stimulation (OS) follicular protocols to prevent a luteinizing hormone surge in patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF), as an alternative to gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue administration. This review explores the different types of progestogen protocols and their efficacy depending on the type of population or reproductive procedure in which they are administered and in comparison with that of GnRH analogues. Their effect on oocytes and embryos and their safety and cost-effectiveness are also analyzed.

SUMMARY

Progestins have proven their effectiveness as a gonadotropin adjuvant in terms of ovarian response, reproductive outcome, and safety. In addition, they offer the convenience of oral administration and a lower cost than GnRH analogues. Whereas oocytes or embryos should be vitrified as it displaces the receptive period with the consequent asynchrony between embryo and endometrium. The evidence endorses progestins as a more friendly approach to OS, especially when frozen-thawed embryo transfer is planned.

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).

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.

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

STUDY QUESTION

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

SUMMARY ANSWER

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

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

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

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

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

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

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

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

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

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

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

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

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

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

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

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

Cohort trial.

SETTING

A single academic-affiliated private fertility practice.

PATIENTS

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

INTERVENTIONS

Comparison of MPA vs. antagonist IVF stimulation cycles.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

RESEARCH QUESTION

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

DESIGN

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

GnRH antagonist protocol versus progestin-primed ovarian stimulation in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The aim of this meta-analysis was comparing the efficacy of GnRH antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol and progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) in polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) women.

METHODS

A search was conducted from PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases to collect clinical papers regarding GnRH-ant protocol and PPOS protocol from inception to September 2023. Subsequently, the retrieved documents were screened, and the content of the documents that conformed to the requirements was extracted. Moreover, statistical meta-analyses were conducted using the RevMan 5.4 software. Furthermore, with the use of a star-based system and the Cochrane handbook, the methodological quality of the covered papers was evaluated on the Ottawa-Newcastle scale.

RESULTS

A total of eight papers were covered in the meta-analysis, with 2156 PCOS women enrolled (i.e., 1085 patients in the GnRH-ant protocol group and 1071 patients in the PPOS group). As indicated by the meta-analysis results, the PPOS group was correlated with a lower risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (SMD = 9.24, [95% CI: (2.50, 34.21)], P = 0.0009), more gonadotropin (Gn) dose (SMD = - 0.34, [95% CI: (- 0.56, - 0.13)], P = 0.002) compared with GnRH-ant group. No statistical difference was identified on the oocytes condition and pregnancy outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

As revealed by the data of this study, the progesterone protocol is comparable with the GnRH-ant protocol in oocytes condition and clinical outcomes. The progestin-primed ovarian stimulation could serve as an alternative for polycystic ovarian syndrome women who have failed in GnRH antagonist protocol. The above-described conclusions should be verified by more high-quality papers due to the limitation of the number and quality of included papers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration: CRD42023411284.

Non-inferiority of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus GnRH antagonist protocol: A propensity score-weighted analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effectiveness of the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol versus the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol in ovarian stimulation.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we included 804 patients who were treated between January 1st, 2022, and July 1st, 2023. Outcomes of ovarian stimulation were compared between the PPOS (n = 206) and GnRH-ant (n = 598). The primary outcome was the number of good cleavage embryos.

RESULTS

Baseline characteristics were comparable in both groups. In both unadjusted and adjusted analysis, the mean number of good cleavage embryos in PPOS (6.33) was non-inferior to GnRH-ant (6.44; unadjusted ratio of two means 1.02, 95%CI 0.92, 1.13). The trigger-day estradiol level in patients with PPOS was higher than in patients with GnRH-ant (4,420 vs 3,830 pg/ml, respectively) despite similar total follicle stimulating hormone dose and fewer days of ovarian stimulation. The number of oocytes, MII oocytes, cleavage and blastocyst embryos were comparable between the two protocols. After the first transfer of embryos, the clinical pregnancy rate and implantation rate were higher in the PPOS group, while the pregnancy rate and ongoing pregnancy were not significantly different. None of the PPOS patients had an unexpected LH surge, and serum LH levels decreased slightly during ovarian stimulation.

CONCLUSIONS

The PPOS protocol with dydrogesterone provided similar embryo outcomes to the GnRH-ant protocol, with notable distinctions in clinical pregnancy and implantation rate. The serum LH concentration during ovarian stimulation using PPOS was well-controlled.

Comparing blastocyst euploid rates between the progestin-primed and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist protocols in aneuploidy genetic testing: a randomised trial protocol

INTRODUCTION

Progestin can inhibit the pituitary luteinising hormone (LH) surge during ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and studies show progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is effective in blocking the LH surge in IVF. More and more centres are using PPOS because this regimen appears simpler and cheaper. This study aims to compare the euploidy rate of blastocysts following the PPOS protocol and the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in women undergoing preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A).

METHODS/ANALYSIS

This is a randomised trial. A total of 400 women undergoing PGT-A will be enrolled and randomised according to a computer-generated randomisation list to either (1) the antagonist group: an antagonist given once daily from day 6 of ovarian stimulation till the day of the ovulation trigger; or (2) the PPOS group: dydrogesterone from the first day of ovarian stimulation till the day of ovulation trigger. The primary outcome is the euploidy rate of blastocysts.

ETHICS/DISSEMINATION

An ethical approval was granted from the ethics committee of assisted reproductive medicine in Shanghai JiAi Genetics and IVF institute (JIAIE2020-03). A written informed consent will be obtained from each woman before any study procedure is performed, according to good clinical practice. The results of this randomised trial will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04414748.

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.

Should the trigger to oocyte retrieval interval be different in progestin-primed ovarian stimulation cycles?

RESEARCH QUESTION

Does the trigger to oocyte retrieval interval (TORI) affect oocyte maturation rates differently in progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist cycles?

DESIGN

This was a retrospective cohort study. The interaction between the stimulation protocol and TORI was assessed in a linear mixed effects multivariable regression analysis with oocyte maturation rate as the dependent variable, and stimulation protocol (GnRH antagonist or PPOS), age (continuous), gonadotrophin type (FSH or human menopausal gonadotrophin), trigger (human chorionic gonadotrophin [HCG] or GnRH agonist), TORI (continuous) and days of stimulation (continuous) as the independent variables. Oocyte maturation rate was defined as number of metaphase II oocytes/number of cumulus-oocyte complexes retrieved. The maturation rate was calculated per cycle and treated as a continuous variable.

RESULTS

A total of 473 GnRH antagonist and 205 PPOS cycles (121 conventional PPOS and 84 flexible PPOS) were analysed. The median (quartiles) female age was 36 (32-40) years. Of these cycles, 493 were triggered with HCG and 185 with a GnRH agonist. The TORI ranged between 33.6 and 39.1 h, with a median (quartiles) of 36.2 (36-36.4) hours. Maturation rates were similar between fixed PPOS, flexible PPOS and antagonist cycles (median 80%, 75% and 75%, respectively, P = 0.15). There was no significant interaction between the stimulation protocols and TORI for oocyte maturation.

CONCLUSIONS

PPOS cycles do not seem to require a longer TORI than GnRH antagonist cycles.

Efficacy and safety of follitropin delta versus follitropin alpha/beta in infertility treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Follitropin δ may be an alternative to conventional follitropin α/β for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) within assisted reproductive treatment (ART), but its efficacy and safety remain unknown. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of follitropin δ and follitropin α/β.

Methods

We searched randomized controlled trials comparing follitropin δ and follitropin α/β using MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and WHO-ITCRP on December 14, 2022. The primary outcomes were the live birth rate and the incidence of moderate or severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach. The protocol was registered on the Open Science Framework.

Results

Three studies involving 2682 participants were included in our meta-analysis. The results indicated that follitropin δ may result in little to no difference in live birth rates (risk ratio [RR], 1.12; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.91-1.38; low certainty) and the incidence of moderate or severe OHSS (RR, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.48-1.26; low certainty) compared with follitropin α/β.

Conclusion

Follitropin δ may result in little to no difference in COS compared with follitropin α/β, especially in terms of live births and safety.

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.

Yueliang Yin Ameliorates Endometrial Receptivity in Mice with Embryo Implantation Failure by Reducing Pyroptosis and Activating BDNF/TrkB Pathway

SCOPE

Endometrial receptivity plays a vital role in embryonic implantation. Yueliang Yin is a marketed solid drink in China, also known as Bushen Cuyun Recipe (BCR), that is, assumed to have a therapeutic effect on infertility by improving endometrial receptivity. This study investigates the effects and mechanisms of BCR in protecting the endometrium.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Mice with mifepristone-induced embryo implantation failure that exhibited a decreased implantation sites number, thinner endometrium, reduced endometrial glands number, and poor pinopode expression levels are treated with BCR, and these mentioned conditions significantly improves afterward. Molecular docking shows that the main active components kaempferol, quercetin, and hesperetin of BCR stably bound to gasdermin D (GSDMD). Experimental results demonstrate that levels of GSDMD, cleaved caspase-1 and leucine-rich repeat, and pyrin domain-containing 3 and IL-1β levels in model mice are significantly decreased and expressions of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) and tyrosine protein kinase B (TrkB) expression levels are significantly elevated after BCR treatments, and that the DNA damage is significantly reversed in BCR-treated mice.

CONCLUSIONS

BCR is potent and effective in ameliorating endometrial receptivity. The potential mechanisms of BCR on endometrial receptivity may mediate by activating BDNF/TrkB pathway activation and protecting endometrial cells' protection against pyroptosis.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

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

MAIN RESULTS

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

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

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

Cumulative live birth rate in mild versus conventional stimulation in progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocols for individuals with low prognosis

Objective

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) of mild stimulation and conventional stimulation for the low-prognosis population undergoing PPOS protocols.

Methods

This was a retrospective cohort study. We included women with a low prognosis. All women underwent PPOS protocols, and the starting gonadotropin (Gn) dose was 150 IU or 300 IU. The primary outcome measure was CLBR. The secondary outcome measures were the number of oocytes retrieved, number of 2PN oocytes and number of available embryos.

Results

In total, 171 women with mild stimulation and 1810 women with conventional stimulation met the criteria. In the PSM model, 171 mild stimulation cycles were matched with 513 conventional stimulation cycles. The gonadotropin dosage in the mild stimulation group was significantly lower than that in the conventional stimulation group (1878.6 ± 1065.7 vs. 2854.7 ± 821.0, P<0.001). The numbers of oocytes retrieved, 2PN oocytes, available embryos and high-quality embryos were also higher in the conventional stimulation group than in the mild stimulation group (P<0.05). There was no significant between-group difference in the cumulative clinical pregnancy rate (26.3% vs. 27.5%, P=0.77). The CLBR after mild stimulation was similar to that after conventional stimulation (21.1% vs. 22.0%, P=0.79).

Conclusion

In our study, we found that the CLBRs of mild stimulation and conventional stimulation were similar, despite conventional stimulation resulting in significantly more oocytes and embryos. Thus, mild stimulation can be considered an option for women with a low prognosis in PPOS protocols.

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.

Effect of comprehensive nursing intervention on the outcomes of in vitro fertilization in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome: A randomized controlled study

OBJECTIVE

To explore the effects of comprehensive nursing intervention on in vitro fertilization (IVF) and pregnancy outcomes in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS).

METHOD

A total of 130 patients with PCOS admitted to our hospital from April 2021 to March 2023 were selected as the research subjects. They were evenly divided according to a random number table method. The control group received routine care for the patients, while the study group received comprehensive care for the patients. The IVF, pregnancy outcomes, negative emotional changes, serum and follicular fluid (FF) amyloid-related protein and C-reactive protein (CRP) levels of the 2 groups of patients were compared.

RESULT

The data on IVF rate and pregnancy rate in the study group were significantly better than those in the control group (P < .05). The SAS and SDS scores of the study group patients after intervention were significantly lower than those of the control group (P < .05). After intervention, the levels of serum and FF amyloid associated protein and CRP in the study group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

Patients with PCOS who receive comprehensive care can increase their probability of IVF, improve their pregnancy outcomes, and have a positive significance in reducing negative emotions.

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/.

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.

A delayed ovulation of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) by downregulating the LHCGR/PGR pathway

Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is a new ovulation stimulation protocol, and its role in ovulation and regulatory mechanism is unclear. The clinical PPOS protocol was simulated in mice. The ovulated oocytes, estradiol, progesterone, and luteinizing hormone (LH) levels were analyzed at different hours after trigger. mRNA extraction and real-time PCR, hematoxylin and eosin staining, and immunofluorescence of ovaries were used to explore the involved signaling pathways. The PPOS group had a delayed ovulation at 12.5 h after trigger. Its suppressed LH level reduced the expression of luteinizing hormone/choriogonadotropin receptor (LHCGR) on the preovulatory follicles before trigger and significantly decreased the following progesterone synthesis, blood progesterone level, and progesterone receptor (PGR) expression within 4-6 h after trigger. Furthermore, the important ovulatory genes regulated by PGR including ADAMTS-1, VEGF-A, and EDN2 were downregulated, ultimately delaying the ovulation. PPOS suppresses the LH level before trigger and decreases the synthesis of progesterone after trigger, thus delaying the ovulation by downregulating the LHCGR-PGR pathway.

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).

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.

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.

Comparison of the neonatal outcomes of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation and flexible GnRH antagonist protocols: a propensity score-matched cohort study

Objective

To compare the neonatal outcomes of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) and flexible gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocols.

Methods

This was a retrospective propensity score-matched (PSM) cohort study. Women who underwent their first frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycle with freezing of all embryos followed by PPOS or GnRH antagonist protocols between January 2016 and January 2022 were included. Patients using PPOS were matched with the patients using GnRH antagonist at a 1:1 ratio. The main focus of this study was the neonatal outcomes of singleton live births, including preterm birth (PTB), low birth weight (LBW), small for gestational age (SGA), macrosomia and large for gestational age (LGA).

Results

After 1:1 PSM, a total of 457 PPOS and 457 GnRH antagonist protocols were included for analysis. The average starting dose of gonadotropin (275.1 ± 68.1 vs. 249.3 ± 71.3, P<0.01) and total dose of gonadotropin (2799.6 ± 579.9 vs. 2634.4 ± 729.1, P<0.01) were significantly higher in the PPOS protocol than in the GnRH antagonist protocol. The other baseline and cycle characteristics were comparable between the two protocols. The rates of PTB (P=0.14), LBW (P=0.11), SGA (P=0.31), macrosomia (P=0.11) and LGA (P=0.49) did not differ significantly between the two groups. A total of 4 patients in the PPOS group and 3 patients in the GnRH antagonist group qualified as having congenital malformations.

Conclusion

PPOS resulted in singleton neonatal outcomes similar to those of a GnRH antagonist protocol. The application of the PPOS protocol is a safe option for infertility patients.

Ovarian Stimulation with FSH Alone versus FSH plus a GnRH Antagonist for Elective Freezing in an Oocyte Donor/Recipient Programme: A Protocol for a Pilot Multicenter Observational Study

Preliminary data have shown that it is possible to attempt in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment in fresh cycles without the use of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist or any other medication to prevent the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge during ovarian stimulation. To date, there is no information on this topic in the context of a prospective controlled trial. However, as prevention of the LH surge is an established procedure in fresh cycles, the question is whether such a study can be performed in frozen cycles. We aim to perform a pilot study in order to compare the efficacy of a protocol using FSH alone with that of a protocol using follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) plus a GnRH antagonist for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in cycles of elective freezing in the context of a donor/recipient program. This is a seven-center, two-arm prospective pilot cohort study conducted at the respective Assisted Reproductive Units in Greece. The hypothesis to be tested is that an ovarian stimulation protocol that includes FSH alone without any LH surge prevention regimens is not inferior to a protocol including FSH plus a GnRH antagonist in terms of the clinical outcome in a donor/recipient model. The results of the present study are expected to show whether the addition of the GnRH antagonist is necessary in terms of the frequency of LH secretory peaks and progesterone elevations >1 ng/mL during the administration of the GnRH antagonist according to the adopted frequency of blood sampling in all Units.

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.

The impact of the embryo banking on the cumulative live birth rate in women with poor ovarian response according to the Bologna criteria

Purpose

To evaluate the impact of embryo banking on the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) and the time to live birth (TTLB) in poor ovarian responders (POR) according to the Bologna criteria.

Methods

A total of 276 infertile women undergoing IVF with POR were included in this retrospective study. They were divided into two groups with (n = 121) or without (n = 155) embryo banking at the discretion of the attending physicians. A total of 656 and 405 stimulation cycles were started in the two groups respectively during the 24 month follow-up.

Results

The biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, and live birth rate per transfer were comparable between two groups (p > 0.05). The CLBR was significantly lower in the banking group than in the non-banking group (31.4% (38/121) and 43.2% (67/151), p < 0.05). TTLB was significantly longer in the banking group (20.5 months vs. 16.0 months, p < 0.001). In the Kaplan-Meier analysis, the cumulative incidence of live birth was significantly lower in the banking group compared with the non-banking group (Log rank test, chi-square = 21.958, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Embryo banking in women undergoing IVF with POR based on the Bologna criteria reduces CLBR and lengthens TTLB when compared with no embryo banking.

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.

Preventing Growth Stagnation and Premature LH Surge Are the Keys to Obtaining a Viable Embryo in Monofollicular IVF Cycles: A Retrospective Cohort Study

How LH levels influenced the outcomes of monofollicular IVF cycles using different stimulation protocols was controversial. In this single-center, retrospective study, we analyzed 815 monofollicular IVF cycles between 2016−2022 using natural cycle (NC), medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) or clomiphene citrate (CC) in addition to human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG), with or without GnRH antagonist. A viable embryo was obtained in 35.7% of all cycles. Growth stagnation and premature LH surge are two markedly negative factors for obtaining viable embryos (odds ratios of 0.12 [0.08−0.65], p < 0.0001 and 0.33 [0.26,0.42], p < 0.0001, respectively). NC/hMG cycles are prone to premature LH surge (40.4%), yielding a significantly lower opportunity of obtaining embryos (24.7%, p = 0.029). The administration of GnRH antagonist on the background of MPA resulted in a significant decrease in LH levels (from 2.26 IU/L to −0.89 IU/L relative to baseline, p = 0.000214), leading to a higher risk of growth stagnation (18.6%, p = 0.007). We hypothesized that the abrupt decline of LH might increase the risk of apoptosis in granulosa cells. We proposed a “marginal effect” framework to emphasize that the change of LH was the key to its bioactivity, rather than the traditional “window” concept with fixed cutoff values of a threshold and a ceiling.

Comparison of an HCG-only trigger versus dual trigger for final oocyte maturation in a progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is there any difference in clinical outcomes between a human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG)-only trigger and a dual trigger combining gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) and HCG in a progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol?

DESIGN

This retrospective cohort study included women younger than 40 years old with a normal ovarian reserve who underwent IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment with a PPOS protocol. Participants were allocated to two groups according to the triggering medicines. The clinical outcomes were compared, with cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) being the primary outcome.

RESULTS

In total, 1066 women were included, 565 in the HCG-only group and 501 in the dual trigger group. Demographic parameters were comparable between the groups. Fewer oocytes were retrieved in the HCG-only trigger group (dual trigger 12.56 ± 7.12 versus HCG-only trigger 11.62 ± 6.02, P = 0.020). No significant difference was observed in the numbers of two-pronuclear embryos (7.12 ± 4.90 versus 6.76 ± 4.45, P = 0.208) and high-quality embryos (4.01 ± 3.70 versus 3.96 ± 3.32, P = 0.815). The CLBR after one complete cycle was also similar (40.72% versus 43.72%, P = 0.354). Multivariate logistic analysis confirmed that the trigger method had no association with CLBR (odds ratio [OR] 0.763, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.578-1.005, P = 0.055) in the PPOS-treated patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared with the HCG-only trigger group, comparable embryological and clinical outcomes were achieved, although more oocytes were retrieved in the dual trigger group. This suggests that there may be no extra benefit from dual triggering, and that it should not be recommended for routine use in the general population undergoing PPOS protocols.

Comparable Pregnancy Loss and Neonatal Birthweights in Frozen Embryo Transfer Cycles Using Vitrified Embryos from Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation and GnRH Analogue Protocols: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background: The potential correlation between progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) and the risk of compromised embryo competence still lacks sound evidence. Methods: A large retrospective cohort study was used to compare the incidence of pregnancy loss and neonatal birthweights in frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles using embryos from PPOS and GnRH analogue protocols. Propensity matched scores were used to balance the baseline confounders. Results: A total of 5744 matched cycles with positive hCG test were included to compare the pregnancy outcomes. The incidence of pregnancy loss was similar between PPOS and GnRH analogue groups (19.2% vs. 18.4%, RR 1.02 (0.97, 1.06), p > 0.05). The neonatal birthweights were comparable between two groups, respectively, for singleton births (3337.0 ± 494.4 g vs. 3346.0 ± 515.5 g) and in twin births (2496.8 ± 429.2 g vs. 2533.2 ± 424.2 g) (p > 0.05). Conclusions: The similar incidence of pregnancy loss and neonatal birthweights in FET cycles using embryos from PPOS provided us with a more complete picture about the safety of PPOS.

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.

The optimal time for the initiation of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer among women with atypical endometrial hyperplasia and endometrial carcinoma receiving fertility-sparing treatment

OBJECTIVE

To explore the optimal time for initiating in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET) in women with complete remission after fertility-sparing treatment for grade I endometrial cancer (EC) or atypical endometrial hyperplasia (AEH).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Young women who demonstrated complete remission after fertility-sparing treatment for grade I EC or AEH and underwent IVF-ET treatment were included. A generalized estimating equation (GEE) was used to compare the outcomes of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) and embryo transfer at different times after discontinuing high-dose progesterone therapy, and patients were divided into three groups: ≤ 3 months (time 1), 3-9 months (time 2) and > 9 months (time 3).

RESULTS

Thirty-seven women with complete remission after fertility-sparing treatment for grade I EC or AEH underwent 75 IVF-ET cycles. Regarding initiation of COH, 10 cycles for time 1, 31 cycles for time 2 and 34 cycles for time 3 were included. The odds ratios (95% confidence intervals) for the number of available embryos at time 2 and time 3 were 1.82 (1.08-3.08) and 2.45 (1.39-4.33), and those for the number of high-quality embryos at time 2 and time 3 were, respectively, 3.64 (1.34-9.87) and 3.62 (1.10-11.91), compared with that at time 1. Nineteen (51.4%) women had at least one clinical pregnancy and 13 (35.1%) women had live births. During a median follow-up period of 51 months (range 5-168 months), 10 (27.0%) women had disease relapse, with a median interval of 15.5 months (range 5-104 months).

CONCLUSION

Initiating IVF-ET 3 months after ceasing high-dose progesterone therapy can lead to better outcomes of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for women with endometrial cancer or atypical endometrial hyperplasia.

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.

Luteinizing hormone supplementation in women with hypogonadotropic hypogonadism seeking fertility care: Insights from a narrative review

The management of infertile women affected by hypogonadotropic hypogonadism (HH) or conditions mimicking it is particularly challenging. In the present narrative review, we aimed to synthesize the available evidence on the benefit (if any) of exogenous luteinizing hormone (LH) supplementation in this group of patients. Available data support LH supplementation in women with organic or functional HH. On the contrary, the benefit of exogenous LH on reproductive outcomes both in advanced maternal age patients and in cases of depletion of FSH and LH levels induced by GnRH analogues has not been demonstrated. unfortunately, the inhomogeneous study populations as well as the methodological heterogeneity between studies focused on women affected by conditions mimicking HH do not allow reliable conclusions to be drawn.

Effect of serum progesterone levels on hCG trigger day on pregnancy outcomes in GnRH antagonist cycles

OBJECTIVE

The present study analyzed the effect of hCG trigger day progesterone (P) levels on the live birth rate (LBR) in the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was a single-center retrospective study. In vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles performed from January 2017 to December 2020 were included in the analysis. This study included people with a normal ovarian response to fresh embryo transfer of GnRH antagonist protocols. All cycles were divided into 2 groups by P level on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) trigger, P<1.0 ng/ml and P≥1.0 ng/ml. The primary outcome measure was LBR.

RESULT

A total of 867 cycles with P<1.0 ng/ml and 362 cycles with P≥1.0 ng/ml were included in the analysis. The clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) was higher in the P<1.0 ng/ml group than the P≥1.0 ng/ml group (44.9% vs. 37.6%, P=0.02). The early spontaneous abortion rate was comparable between the groups (14.4% vs. 14.7%, P=0.93). For live birth, the rate for the P<1.0 ng/ml group was 35.3%, which was significantly higher than the 29.0% in the P≥1.0 ng/ml group (P=0.03). After binary logistic regression analysis, the P level on the hCG trigger day (adjusted odds ratio=0.74, 95% CI=0.55-0.99, P=0.04) was an independent risk factor for LBR. For the P level on the hCG trigger day, the LBR was lower in the P≥1.0 ng/ml group compared to the P<1.0 ng/ml group.

CONCLUSION

For normal ovarian response patients using the GnRH antagonist protocol, serum P≥1.0 ng/ml on the hCG trigger day resulted in a lower LBR than the P<1.0 ng/ml group. When P≥1.0 ng/ml, whole embryo freezing may be considered.

Analysis of cumulative live birth rate and perinatal outcomes in young patients with low anti-müllerian hormone levels using two ovulation promotion protocols: A cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To compare cumulative live birth rates and perinatal outcomes of young IVF/ICSI patients with low anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) levels on a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) regimen with those on a high progesterone state of ovulation (PPOS) regimen.

METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed 798 patients who underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm microinjection (ICSI) between January 2015 and December 2020 at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University. A total of 798 cycles of complete clinical data from patients who underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) at the Reproductive Medicine Center of Zhengzhou University Hospital between January 2015 and December 2020 and were eligible for AMH < 1.2 ng/ml at age < 35 years, Group A1: very low AMH levels (AMH < 0.5 ng/mL) and GnRH antagonist regimen; Group A2, very low AMH level (AMH < 0.5 ng/mL) and PPOS regimen; Group B1, low AMH level (0.5 ng/mL ≤ AMH < 1.2 ng/mL) and GnRH antagonist regimen; and Group B2, low AMH level (0.5 ng/mL ≤ AMH < 1.2 ng/mL), and the PPOS regimen.

RESULTS

At very low levels of AMH (< 0.5 ng/mL), the CLBR of the GnRH antagonist regimen was not significantly different from that of the PPOS regimen (P > 0.05), at 0.5 ng/mL ≤ AMH < 1.2 ng/mL. Statistics showed that the CLBR of the GnRH antagonist regimen was significantly higher than that of the PPOS regimen (49.7% vs. 35.7%, P=0.002). Logistic regression analysis showed that in Group A: the younger the female partner, the higher the CLBR (OR = 0.972, 95% CI = 0.923-1.042, P = 0.022), and the more the AFC, the higher the CLBR (OR = 1.166, 95% CI = 1.091-1.336, P < 0.001). Group B: the higher the number of good-quality embryos, the higher the CLBR (OR = 2.227, 95% CI = 1.869-2.654, P < 0.001). Compared with PPOS regimens, the antagonist regimen was able to increase the CLBR. The analysis of Group A showed that the antagonist regimen had a shorter TTP than the PPOS regimen (P < 0.001); however, the PPOS regimen had a lower cost of ovulation (4311.91 vs. 4903.81, P = 0.023). The antagonist regimen in Group B had a shorter TTP than the PPOS regimen, and there was no significant difference in the cost of ovulation. In the analysis of perinatal outcomes, there were no statistically significant differences in preterm birth, low birth weight, very low birth weight, and pregnancy complications among the four groups.

CONCLUSION

Young patients with very low AMH levels (< 0. 5 ng/mL), the GnRH antagonist regimen was comparable to the PPOS regimen in CLBR outcomes; the antagonist regimen shortens the time to clinical pregnancy, and the PPOS regimen is more cost-effective. In young patients with low AMH levels of 0.5 ng/mL and <1.2 ng/mL, the GnRH antagonist regimen can more appropriate to improve CLBR, and the perinatal outcomes were similar for both regimens.

Dexamethasone application for in vitro fertilisation in non-classic 17-hydroxylase/17,20-lyase-deficient women

CONTEXT

High progesterone levels in the follicular stage interfere with the implantation window, causing infertility in women with 17-hydroxylase/17,20-lyase deficiency (17OHD). Dexamethasone can restore cortisol deficiency and suppress inappropriate mineralocorticoid secretion to control hypertension in 17OHD patients, but poses risks to the foetus if administered during pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE

We prospectively explored a rational glucocorticoid use protocol for assistive reproduction in a woman with non-classic 17OHD that reduced glucocorticoid side effects.

METHOD

In this study, the treatment protocol for this 17OHD patient included the following steps. First, the appropriate type and dose of glucocorticoid for endogenous progesterone suppression was determined. Then, glucocorticoid was discontinued to increase endogenous progesterone levels for ovarian stimulation. Next, dexamethasone plus GnRHa were used to reduce progesterone levels in frozen embryos for transfer. Once pregnancy was confirmed, dexamethasone was discontinued until delivery.

RESULTS

Dexamethasone, but not hydrocortisone, reduced progesterone levels in the 17OHD woman. After endogenous progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation, 11 oocytes were retrieved. Seven oocytes were 2PN fertilised and four day-3 and two day-5 embryos were cryopreserved. After administering dexamethasone plus gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) to reduce progesterone levels to normal, hormone replacement therapy was administered until the endometrial width reached 9 mm. Exogenous progesterone (60 mg/day) was used for endometrial preparation. Two thawed embryos were transferred on day 4. Dexamethasone was continued until pregnancy confirmation on the 13^th day post-transfer. Two healthy boys, weighing 2100 and 2000 g, were delivered at 36 weeks' gestation.

CONCLUSION

Rational use of dexamethasone synchronised embryonic development with the endometrial implantation window, while not using in post-implantation avoided its side effects and promoted healthy live births in women non-classic 17OHD undergoing in vitro fertilisation.

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.

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

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