Comparing progesterone primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) to GnRH antagonist protocol in oocyte donation cycles

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.

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.