Inhibition of gonadotropin surge by a brief mid-cycle regimen of ethinyl estradiol and norethindrone: possible role in in vitro fertilization

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.

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

BACKGROUND

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

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

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

SEARCH METHODS

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

OUTCOMES

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

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVE

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

STUDY QUESTION

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

SUMMARY ANSWER

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

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

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

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

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

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

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

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

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

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

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

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

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

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

None.

Lipidomic Components Alterations of Human Follicular Fluid Reveal the Relevance of Improving Clinical Outcomes in Women Using Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Compared to Short-Term Protocol

BACKGROUND Increasing the success rate of in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) is a duty of clinicians that has made many seek a variety of protocols. This study was undertaken to use a liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry (LC-MS) to define the alterations of follicular fluid (FF) lipid metabolites in patients undergoing progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) compared with short-term protocol, revealing potential correlations between the differentially expressed lipids and ameliorative clinical outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS Ninety-three infertile women undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment with PPOS (n=62) or a short-term protocol (n=31) were prospectively enrolled in a randomized controlled trial. FF samples were obtained from dominant follicles at the time of oocyte retrieval. Lipid metabolism profiles were analyzed using LC-MS. RESULTS Twelve lipids were found to be higher in patients treated with the PPOS protocol than in those receiving the short-term protocol, including triacylglycerols (TAG-34: 1+NH4, TAG-58: 0+NH4, TAG-64: 3+NH4, and TAG-64: 8+NH4), diacylglycerol DAG-38: 6+NH4, phosphatidylglycerols (PG-26: 0, PG-30: 2, and PG-40: 5), phosphatidylethanolamine PE-32: 2, lysophosphatidylethanolamine LPE-14: 1, lysophosphatidylinositol LPI-12: 0, and lysophosphatidylcholine LPC-16: 0. CONCLUSIONS Our data demonstrate that the PPOS protocol increases the levels of 12 lipids in FF, which reveals a strong association between the differentially elevated lipids and better IVF/ICSI outcomes.

Effects of clomiphene citrate for prevention of premature luteinizing hormone surge in those undergoing intrauterine insemination outcome: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

The objective of the study is to determine the effects of clomiphene citrate (CC) on preventing premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge in infertile patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI). This was a randomized clinical trial being performed at Shiraz Mother and Child Hospital. We included 162 women with PCOS selected for IUI cycles. Patients were randomly allocated to receive 150 mg/day CC from the 8^th of the cycle though the day of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) injection (n = 81) or nothing in the same period (n = 81). Main outcomes included the incidence of premature LH surge, pregnancy rate, abortion and ongoing pregnancy rates, number of maturing follicles, and endometrial thickness. The incidence of premature LH surge was significantly lower in those who received CC (3.0% vs. 14.9%; P = 0.021). The pregnancy rate was 10 (15.1%) and 6 (8.9%) in CC and control groups, respectively (P = 0.342). The ongoing pregnancy rate found to be comparable between two study groups (12.1% vs. 5.9%; P = 0.068). Serum level of estradiol (E₂) level at the time of hCG administration was significantly higher in those who were treated with CC when compared to control (1153.5 ± 326.4 vs. 943.2 ± 215.3; P < 0.001). Patients who received CC also had higher number of mature follicles >18 mm when compared to controls (3.85 ± 1.3 vs. 2.94 ± 1.01; P < 0.001). Administration of CC from the 8^th day of the cycle to the day of hCG injection in combination with Gonal-f in infertile patients with CC-resistant PCOS undergoing IUI cycles is associated with decreased incidence of premature LH surge, higher E₂levels, and higher number of mature ovarian follicles. This protocol is safe and simple and could be considered to be cost-effective.

Comparison of neonatal outcomes following progesterone use during ovarian stimulation with frozen-thawed embryo transfer

Progesterone soft capsules (brand name: Utrogestan) were demonstrated to be an effective oral alternative to prevent premature LH surges both in normal-ovulatory and polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) patients. However, its safety in terms of neonatal outcomes is unclear. To evaluate whether Utrogestan use increase the risk of adverse neonatal outcomes compared with short protocol in patients undergoing IVF/ICSI treatments in combination with frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET), we performed a retrospective analysis including 1008 FET cycles, with embryos originated from either Utrogestan + hMG protocol (n = 499), or short protocol (n = 509), which led to 546 live-born infants. The neonatal characteristics regarding preterm birth (PTB), low birth weight (LBW), gestational age and mode of delivery were comparable in the two groups. The incidence of live-birth defect was 0.68% (2/293) in the Utrogestan + hMG protocol compared with 0.79% (2/253) in the short protocol. No early neonatal death or intrauterine death were recorded in either group. To date, the data do not indicate an elevated rate of abnormality at birth after progesterone use during ovarian stimulation but further study with larger populations is needed to confirm these results.

Oral contraceptive pill, progestogen or oestrogen pretreatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques

BACKGROUND

Among subfertile women undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART), hormone pills given before ovarian stimulation may improve outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether pretreatment with the combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) or with a progestogen or oestrogen alone in ovarian stimulation protocols affects outcomes in subfertile couples undergoing ART.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from inception to January 2017: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and registers of ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of hormonal pretreatment in women undergoing ART.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy and pregnancy loss.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 RCTs (4701 women) of pretreatment with COCPs, progestogens or oestrogens versus no pretreatment or alternative pretreatments, in gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist or antagonist cycles. Overall, evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were risk of bias and imprecision. Most studies did not describe their methods in adequate detail. Combined oral contraceptive pill versus no pretreatmentWith antagonist cycles in both groups the rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy was lower in the pretreatment group (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.95; 6 RCTs; 1335 women; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of pregnancy loss (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.26; 5 RCTs; 868 women; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence), multiple pregnancy (OR 2.21, 95% CI 0.53 to 9.26; 2 RCTs; 125 women; I² = 0%; low quality evidence), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS; OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.40; 2 RCTs; 642 women; I² = 0%, low quality evidence), or ovarian cyst formation (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.75; 1 RCT; 64 women; very low quality evidence).In COCP plus antagonist cycles versus no pretreatment in agonist cycles, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.25; 4 RCTs; 724 women; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence), multiple pregnancy (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.19; 4 RCTs; 546 women; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence), or OHSS (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.96; 2 RCTs; 290 women, I² = 0%), but there were fewer pregnancy losses in the pretreatment group (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.72; 5 RCTs; 780 women; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence). There were no data suitable for analysis on ovarian cyst formation.One small study comparing COCP versus no pretreatment in agonist cycles showed no clear difference between the groups for any of the reported outcomes. Progestogen versus no pretreatmentAll studies used the same protocol (antagonist, agonist or gonadotrophins) in both groups. There was insufficient evidence to determine any differences in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (agonist: OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.65; 2 RCTs; 222 women; I² = 24%; low quality evidence; antagonist: OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.54; 1 RCT; 47 women; low quality evidence; gonadotrophins: OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.09 to 4.23; 1 RCT; 42 women; very low quality evidence), pregnancy loss (agonist: OR 2.26, 95% CI 0.67 to 7.55; 2 RCTs; 222 women; I² = 0%; low quality evidence; antagonist: OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.09; 1 RCT; 47 women; low quality evidence; gonadotrophins: OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 17.12; 1 RCT; 42 women; very low quality evidence) or multiple pregnancy (agonist: no data available; antagonist: OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.06 to 17.76; 1 RCT; 47 women; low quality evidence; gonadotrophins: no data available). Three studies, all using agonist cycles, reported ovarian cyst formation: rates were lower in the pretreatment group (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.32; 374 women; I² = 1%; moderate quality evidence). There were no data on OHSS. Oestrogen versus no pretreatmentIn antagonist or agonist cycles, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (antagonist versus antagonist: OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.17; 2 RCTs; 502 women; I² = 0%; low quality evidence; antagonist versus agonist: OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.50; 2 RCTs; 242 women; I² = 0%; very low quality evidence), pregnancy loss (antagonist versus antagonist: OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.47; 1 RCT; 49 women; very low quality evidence; antagonist versus agonist: OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.62 to 4.06; 1 RCT; 220 women; very low quality evidence), multiple pregnancy (antagonist versus antagonist: no data available; antagonist versus agonist: OR 2.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 53.59; 1 RCT; 22 women; very low quality evidence) or OHSS (antagonist versus antagonist: no data available; antagonist versus agonist: OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.25 to 9.42; 1 RCT; 220 women). Ovarian cyst formation was not reported. Head-to-head comparisonsCOCP was compared with progestogen (1 RCT, 44 women), and with oestrogen (2 RCTs, 146 women), and progestogen was compared with oestrogen (1 RCT, 48 women), with an antagonist cycle in both groups. COCP in an agonist cycle was compared with oestrogen in an antagonist cycle (1 RCT, 25 women). Data were scant but there was no clear evidence that any of the groups differed in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy, pregnancy loss or other adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Among women undergoing ovarian stimulation in antagonist protocols, COCP pretreatment was associated with a lower rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy than no pretreatment. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy were influenced by pretreatment with progestogens or oestrogens, or by COCP pretreatment using other stimulation protocols. Findings on adverse events were inconclusive, except that progesterone pretreatment may reduce the risk of ovarian cysts in agonist cycles, and COCP in antagonist cycles may reduce the risk of pregnancy loss compared with no pretreatment in agonist cycles.

Medroxyprogesterone acetate is an effective oral alternative for preventing premature luteinizing hormone surges in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the use of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) to prevent LH surge during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) and to compare cycle characteristics and pregnancy outcomes in subsequently frozen-thawed ET (FET) cycles.

DESIGN

A prospective controlled study.

SETTING

Tertiary-care academic medical center.

PATIENT(S)

Three hundred patients undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment.

INTERVENTION(S)

In the study group, hMG and MPA were administered simultaneously beginning on cycle day 3. Ovulation was induced with a GnRH agonist or cotriggered by a GnRH agonist and hCG when dominant follicles matured. A short protocol was used in the control group. Viable embryos were cryopreserved for later transfer in both protocols.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

The primary outcome measure was the number of oocytes retrieved. Secondary outcomes included the number of mature oocytes, the incidence of premature LH surge, and clinical pregnancy outcomes from FETs.

RESULT(S)

The number of oocytes retrieved in the study group was similar to those in the controls (9.9 ± 6.7 vs. 9.0 ± 6.0), and higher doses of hMG were administered. In the study group, LH suppression persisted during ovarian stimulation, and the incidence of premature LH surge was 0.7% (1/150). No statistically significant differences were found in the clinical pregnancy rates (47.8% vs. 43.3%), implantation rates (31.9% vs. 27.7%), and live-birth rates (42.6% vs. 35.5%) in the study group and controls.

CONCLUSION(S)

The results show that MPA is an effective oral alternative for the prevention of premature LH surge in woman undergoing COH. This finding will help establish a new regimen for ovarian stimulation in combination with embryo cryopreservation.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ChiCTR-ONRC-14004419.

Utrogestan as an effective oral alternative for preventing premature luteinizing hormone surges in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization

A major cause of cycle cancellation during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) is the occurrence of premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges. Steroidal preparations can modulate the secretion of gonadotropins (Gn); however, few studies using progesterone to inhibit the premature LH surges in COH have been published. The purpose of the study was to evaluate the oral delivery of progesterone soft capsules (Utrogestan) to prevent LH surges from the follicular phase and to compare cycle characteristics as well as to evaluate pregnancy outcomes in subsequent frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) cycles. A total of 374 patients were enrolled in this retrospective study, among which 187 patients were simultaneously administered Utrogestan and human menopausal gonadotrophin (hMG) from cycle day 3 until the trigger day. A short protocol including 187 controls with comparable age, body mass index (BMI), infertility duration, and antral follicle count was also used. GnRH agonist (0.1 mg) or hCG (3000 IU) was used for a trigger when the dominant follicles matured. Viable embryos were cryopreserved for later transfer in both groups. The primary outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved. The secondary outcomes included the number of mature oocytes, incidence of premature LH surge, and clinical pregnancy outcomes from FET cycles. Consistent LH suppression was achieved during COH, with a range of 0.07 to 8.9 IU/L, and no premature LH surge was detected. The number of oocytes retrieved in the Utrogestan and hMG protocol was comparable with that in the short protocol (10.92 ± 5.74 vs 10.6 ± 6.22, P > 0.05), and the dose of hMG was higher than that used in the short protocol (1884.22 ± 439.47 IU vs 1446.26 ± 550.48 IU, P < 0.05). No significant between-group difference was observed in the mature oocyte rate (88.88% vs 90.12%), cleavage rate (96.58% vs 96.58%), clinical pregnancy rate (54.27% vs 51.65%), or implantation rate (33.59% vs 34.02%). The study shows that Utrogestan is an effective oral alternative for preventing premature LH surges in women undergoing COH, which will help to establish a convenient user regimen in combination with FET.

Nimodipine, a calcium channel blocker, delays the spontaneous LH surge in women with regular menstrual cycles: a prospective pilot study

BACKGROUND

Currently GnRH analogue injections are used to prevent premature LH surges in women undergoing assisted reproductive technology. This was a pilot study to determine the safety and effectiveness of nimodipine, an oral calcium channel blocker, to delay the mid-cycle spontaneous LH surge in women with regular menstrual cycles.

METHODS

Eight women with regular menstrual cycles self-monitored three consecutive cycles for the day of an LH surge by daily urine assay. The first and third cycles were observatory. In the second cycle, subjects took nimodipine 60 mg by mouth three times daily for four days, starting two days prior to the expected LH surge day based on cycle one.

RESULTS

The LH surge day in cycle 2 (nimodipine) was significantly delayed in comparison to both observatory cycle 1 (15.5+/-3.4 vs 14.0+/-2.8 days; p=0.033) and cycle 3 (15.1+/-3.5 vs 13.1+/-2.4 days; p=0.044). There was no difference in the LH surge day between the two observatory cycles (13.4+/-2.4 vs 13.1+/-2.4 days; p=0.457). Three patients experienced a mild headache.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a statistically significant delay in the spontaneous LH surge day in the treatment cycle in comparison to both observatory cycles. Nimopidine should be further investigated as an oral alternative to delay a spontaneous LH surge.

Different progestins in the treatment of endometriosis - are there relevant differences?

Oral progestins without an estrogen component have been described to be effective in the treatment of endometriosis. Several different substances have been tested, which are on the one hand derivatives of the natural progesterone or of the C-17-OH-progesteron, or on the other hand derivatives of C-19-nortestosteron. Their common characteristic is the secretory transformation of estrogen primed uterine endometrium for which different dosages are necessary because of their different biological activities. They are different with regard to their profile and potency of action on hypothalamicpituitary axis, metabolic processes, breast tissue and genital organs. They are effectively similar with regard to endometriosis related complaints if sufficient doses are administered. No effects are noted on reduced fertility in endometriotic patients and the data are inconsistent concerning direct effects on the endometriotic cells.

Oral contraceptive pill, progestogen or estrogen pre-treatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques

BACKGROUND

For many subfertile women, assisted reproductive techniques (ART) is the only hope for a pregnancy and live birth. The combined oral contraceptive pill (OCP) given prior to the hormone therapy in an IVF cycle may result in better pregnancy outcomes of ART.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether pre-treatment with combined OCPs, progestogens or estrogens in ovarian stimulation protocols affects outcomes in subfertile couples undergoing ART.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO. Other electronic resources on the Internet, reference list of relevant articles were also searched as well as the ESHRE abstracts (2008). All these searches were conducted in November 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of pre-treatment with combined OCP, progestogen or estrogen in subfertile women undergoing IVF/ICSI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated Peto odds ratios for dichotomous data and weighted mean difference for continuous variables. Authors of trials were contacted in case of missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

No evidence of effect was found with regard to the number of live births when using a pre-treatment. However, the combined OCP in GnRH antagonist cycles, compared to no pre-treatment, is associated with fewer clinical pregnancies (Peto OR 0.69, P = 0.03) and more days and a higher amount of gonadotrophin therapy (respectively: MD 1.44, P < 0.00001; and MD 691.69, P < 0.00001). Also compared to placebo or no pre-treatment, a progestogen pre-treatment in GnRH agonist cycles, is associated with more clinical pregnancies (Peto OR 1.95, P = 0.007) and fewer ovarian cysts (Peto OR 0.21, P < 0.00001). At last, in estrogen pre-treated GnRH antagonist cycles, compared to no pre-treatment, more oocytes are retrieved (MD 2.01, P < 0.00001), but a higher amount of gonadotrophin therapy is needed (MD 207.08, P < 0.00001). For the other outcomes no evidence of effect was found or there were not enough studies available in the subgroup for pooling.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was evidence of improved pregnancy outcomes with progestogen pre-treatment and poorer pregnancy outcomes with a combined OCP pre-treatment. However, we conclude that major changes in ART protocols should not be made at this time, since the number of overall studies in the subgroups is small and reporting of the major outcomes is inadequate.

Long-term use of progestogens--effects on endometriosis, adenomyosis and myomas

Oral progestins, without an estrogen component, have been reported to be effective in the treatment of endometriosis, but not adenomyosis or myomas. The mode of action on the target tissue is still a matter of debate. Besides the importance of estrogens for the development and growth of endometriosis and myomas, progesterone seems to play an important role in the modulation of mitotic activity, local growth factors and growth factor receptors, as well as other paracrine mechanisms. Earlier studies postulated activities via steroid receptor mechanisms, as observed in the uterine mucosa and myometrium. Recent studies, however, have raised some doubts about this hypothesis. Effective new therapies for endometriosis have been introduced during the last 30 years and progestins now have a place in the symptomatic management of pain, bleeding and other symptoms caused by endometriosis, adenomyosis or myoma, particularly when long-term medication is indicated or when repeated courses of treatment are acceptable.

Current place of progestins in the treatment of endometriosis-related complaints

Oral progestins have been used for the treatment of endometriosis and endometriosis-associated complaints for more than 40 years. The mechanism of action on the menstrual cycle is well understood; however, the mechanism of action on endometriosis is still a matter of debate. The different progestins are able to stop proliferation in endometriotic implants and to induce regressive change to certain degrees; they are not able to heal endometriosis because endometriosis is a chronic and recurrent disease. For this reason, no medical treatment can heal endometriosis and repeat medication is necessary in the medical management of this disease. Progestins--especially non-androgenic progestins--are well tolerated and have only few side-effects; they can be used repeatedly or continuously over a long period of time.