Optimal Ovulation Trigger-Oocyte Pickup Interval in Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol: A Retrospective Study Using Propensity Score Matching

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.

The cumulative live birth rates of 18 593 women with progestin-primed ovarian stimulation-related protocols and frozen-thawed transfer cycles

STUDY QUESTION

What are the odds of achieving pregnancy when adopting progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS)-related protocols combined with repetitive frozen-thawed transfer (FET) cycles in patients with different clinical characteristics?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) of women undergoing different PPOS-related protocols can be significantly and consistently enhanced within six FET cycles when the female age is <40 years (or even <45 years) and when >5 oocytes are retrieved, regardless of antral follicle count (AFC).

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

There have been numerous studies on the live birth rate of the first FET cycle in patients with PPOS-related protocols. These studies have focused mainly on comparing pregnancy outcomes with those of other stimulation protocols. However, owing to the unique features of the PPOS-related strategy, such as its flexible timing of oocyte retrieval and repeated transfer of frozen embryos, studies using the CLBR as an overall indicator of success and investigating which types of patients would benefit from this protocol are lacking.

STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION

This retrospective cohort study included 18 593 women who underwent PPOS-related protocols (dydrogesterone + hMG, medroxyprogesterone acetate + hMG, micronized progesterone + hMG treatment, and luteal-phase ovarian stimulation protocol) from 1 March 2011 to 31 September 2022 in our centre.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS

The population was categorized by female age, number of oocytes retrieved, and AFC in the analysis of CLBR within six FET cycles. The age groups (Groups 1-5, respectively) were <30, 30-34, 35-39, 40-44, and ≥45 years. The number of oocytes retrieved was grouped as 1-5, 6-10, 11-15, 16-20, and >20. AFC was grouped as <5, 5-10, 11-15, and >15. The Kaplan-Meier analysis (optimistic method), which hypothesized that patients who did not continue treatment had the same chance of achieving a live birth as those who continued, and the competing risk method (conservative method) which hypothesized they had no chance of achieving a live birth, were applied. In further analyses, the Cox model and Fine-Gray model were adopted: the former corresponds to the optimistic scenario, and the latter corresponds to the pessimistic scenario.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

CLBR had a declining trend with female age over six FET cycles (Groups 1-5, respectively: optimistic: 96.9%, 96.6%, 91.4%, 67.3%, and 11.7%; conservative: 87.3%, 85.0%, 74.0%, 41.3%, and 7.5%), requiring more FET cycles to achieve a success rate of at least 50% (Groups 1-5, respectively: optimistic: 2, 2, 2, 4, and >6 cycles; conservative: 2, 2, 2, >,6 and >6 cycles). CLBR showed an increasing trend with the number of oocytes retrieved (Groups 1-5, respectively: optimistic: 93.8%, 94.3%, 95.8%, 96.0%, and 95.6%; conservative: 66.2%, 78.3%, 85.6%, 88.9%, and 91.0%). All groups needed the same number of FET cycles to achieve a success rate of at least 50% (Groups 1-5, respectively: optimistic: 2, 2, 2, 2, and 2 cycles; conservative: 2, 2, 2, 2, and 2 cycles). Furthermore, the CLBR within six FET cycles had an increasing trend with AFC number (Groups 1-4, respectively: optimistic: 89.2%, 94.8%, 95.9%, and 96.3%; conservative: 67.4%, 78.2%, 83.9%, and 88.1%), with all four groups achieving a success rate of at least 50% by the second FET cycle.

LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION

The current research is limited by its retrospective design and single-centre nature, which may restrict the generalizability of our findings.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

This work describes two models (the Kaplan-Meier analysis and the competing risk method) to evaluate the clinical outcome of patients using PPOS-related protocols, which are especially useful for patients of advanced age or those with diminished ovarian reserve. Our findings encourage patients below 45 years old, especially younger than 40 years, and patients with lower AFCs and fewer retrieved oocytes to try this new protocol. Moreover, this study demonstrates the degree of improvement in the CLBR within six FET cycles for patients with different clinical characteristics, providing a valuable point of reference to determine whether to continue ART after a transfer failure.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

The study was supported by grants from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (82071603 to L.W., 82001502 to Y.L.). There are no conflicts of interest to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.

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.

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.

Expanding the time interval between ovulation triggering and oocyte injection: does it affect the embryological and clinical outcome?

STUDY QUESTION

Is the time interval between ovulation triggering and oocyte denudation/injection associated with embryological and clinical outcome after ICSI?

SUMMARY ANSWER

Expanding the time interval between ovulation triggering and oocyte denudation/injection is not associated with any clinically relevant impact on embryological or clinical outcome.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

The optimal time interval between ovulation triggering and insemination/injection appears to be 38-39 h and most authors agree that an interval of >41 h has a negative influence on embryological and clinical pregnancy outcomes. However, in ART centres with a heavy workload, respecting these exact time intervals is frequently challenging. Therefore, we questioned to what extent a wider time interval between ovulation triggering and oocyte injection would affect embryological and clinical outcome in ICSI cycles.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

A single-centre retrospective cohort analysis was performed including 8811 ICSI cycles from 2010 until 2015. Regarding the time interval between ovulation triggering and oocyte injection, seven categories were considered: <36 h, 36 h, 37 h, 38 h, 39 h, 40 h and ≥41 h. In all cases, denudation was performed immediately prior to injection. The main outcome measures were oocyte maturation, fertilization and embryo utilization rate (embryos adequate for transfer or cryopreservation) per fertilized oocyte. Clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and live birth rate (LBR) were considered as secondary outcomes. Utilization rate, CPR and LBR were subdivided into two groups according to the day of embryo transfer: Day 3 or Day 5.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

During the study period, oocyte retrieval was routinely performed 36 h post-triggering except in the <36 h group. The interval of <36 h occurred only if OR was carried out before the planned 36 h trigger interval and was followed by immediate injection. Only cycles with fresh autologous gametes were included. The exclusion criteria were: injection with testicular/epididymal sperm, managed natural cycles, conventional IVF, combined conventional IVF/ICSI, preimplantation genetic testing and IVM cycles. Female age, number of oocytes, pre-preparation sperm concentration, post-preparation sperm concentration and motility, day of transfer, number of embryos transferred and quality of the best embryo transferred were identified as potential confounders.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Among the seven interval groups, adjusted mean maturation rates ranged from 76.4% to 83.2% and differed significantly (P < 0.001). Similarly, there was a significant difference in adjusted mean fertilization rates (range 69.2-79.3%; P < 0.001). The adjusted maturation and fertilization rates were significantly higher when denudation/injection was performed >41 h post-triggering compared to 38 h post-triggering (reference group). Oocyte denudation/injection at <36 h post-triggering had no significant effect on maturation, fertilization or embryo utilization rates compared to injection at 38 h. No effect of the time interval was observed on CPRs and LBRs, after adjusting for potential confounders. When oocyte injection was performed before 36 h the adjusted analysis showed that compared to 38 h after ovulation triggering the chance of having a live birth tends to be lower although the difference was not statistically significant (odds ratio 0.533, 95% CI: 0.252-1.126; P = 0.099). Injection ≥41 h post-triggering did not affect LBR compared to injection at 38 h post-ovulation.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

As this is a large retrospective study, the influence of uncontrolled variables cannot be excluded. These results should not be extrapolated to other ART procedures such as IVM, conventional IVF or injection with testicular/epididymal sperm.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Our results indicate that the optimal injection time window may be less stringent than previously thought as both embryological and clinical outcome parameters were not significantly affected in our analysis. This is reassuring for busy ART centres that might not always be able to follow strict time intervals.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

No funding. The authors declare no conflict of interest related to the present study.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

N/A.