Ovarian stimulation for oocyte donation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

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).

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.

Comparison of Steroidogenic and Ovulation-Inducing Effects of Orthosteric and Allosteric Agonists of Luteinizing Hormone/Chorionic Gonadotropin Receptor in Immature Female Rats

Gonadotropins, including human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), are used to induce ovulation, but they have a number of side effects, including ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). A possible alternative is allosteric luteinizing hormone (LH)/hCG receptor agonists, including the compound TP4/2 we developed, which remains active when administered orally. The aim was to study the effectiveness of TP4/2 (orally, 40 mg/kg) as an ovulation inducer in FSH-stimulated immature female rats, compared with hCG (s.c., 15 IU/rat). TP4/2 stimulated progesterone production and corpus luteum formation; time-dependently increased the ovarian expression of steroidogenic genes (Star, Cyp11a1, Cyp17a1) and genes involved in ovulation regulation (Adamts-1, Cox-2, Egr-1, Mt-1); and increased the content of metalloproteinase ADAMTS-1 in the ovaries. These effects were similar to those of hCG, although in some cases they were less pronounced. TP4/2, in contrast to hCG, maintained normal LH levels and increased the ovarian expression of the LH/hCG receptor gene, indicating preservation of ovarian sensitivity to LH, and did not cause a sustained increase in expression of vascular endothelial growth factor-A involved in OHSS. Thus, TP4/2 is an effective ovulation inducer that, unlike hCG, has a lower risk of OHSS and ovarian LH resistance due to its moderate stimulating effect on steroidogenesis.

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.

Low-Pass Genome Sequencing-Based Detection of Paternity: Validation in Clinical Cytogenetics

Submission of a non-biological parent together with a proband for genetic diagnosis would cause a misattributed parentage (MP), possibly leading to misinterpretation of the pathogenicity of genomic variants. Therefore, a rapid and cost-effective paternity/maternity test is warranted before genetic testing. Although low-pass genome sequencing (GS) has been widely used for the clinical diagnosis of germline structural variants, it is limited in paternity/maternity tests due to the inadequate read coverage for genotyping. Herein, we developed rapid paternity/maternity testing based on low-pass GS with trio-based and duo-based analytical modes provided. The optimal read-depth was determined as 1-fold per case regardless of sequencing read lengths, modes, and library construction methods by using 10 trios with confirmed genetic relationships. In addition, low-pass GS with different library construction methods and 1-fold read-depths were performed for 120 prenatal trios prospectively collected, and 1 trio was identified as non-maternity, providing a rate of MP of 0.83% (1/120). All results were further confirmed via quantitative florescent PCR. Overall, we developed a rapid, cost-effective, and sequencing platform-neutral paternity/maternity test based on low-pass GS and demonstrated the feasibility of its clinical use in confirming the parentage for genetic diagnosis.

Repeated Rounds of Gonadotropin Stimulation Induce Imbalance in the Antioxidant Machinery and Activation of Pro-Survival Proteins in Mouse Oviducts

Controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) through gonadotropin administration has become a common procedure in assisted reproductive technologies. COS's drawback is the formation of an unbalanced hormonal and molecular environment that could alter several cellular mechanisms. On this basis, we detected the presence of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) fragmentation, antioxidant enzymes (catalase; superoxide dismutases 1 and 2, SOD-1 and -2; glutathione peroxidase 1, GPx1) and apoptotic (Bcl-2-associated X protein, Bax; cleaved caspases 3 and 7; phosphorylated (p)-heat shock protein 27, p-HSP27) and cell-cycle-related proteins (p-p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase, p-p38 MAPK; p-MAPK activated protein kinase 2, p-MAPKAPK2; p-stress-activated protein kinase/Jun amino-terminal kinase, p-SAPK/JNK; p-c-Jun) in the oviducts of unstimulated (Ctr) and repeatedly hyperstimulated (eight rounds, 8R) mice. While all the antioxidant enzymes were overexpressed after 8R of stimulation, mtDNA fragmentation decreased in the 8R group, denoting a present yet controlled imbalance in the antioxidant machinery. Apoptotic proteins were not overexpressed, except for a sharp increase in the inflammatory-related cleaved caspase 7, accompanied by a significant decrease in p-HSP27 content. On the other hand, the number of proteins involved in pro-survival mechanisms, such as p-p38 MAPK, p-SAPK/JNK and p-c-Jun, increased almost 50% in the 8R group. Altogether, the present results demonstrate that repeated stimulations cause the activation of the antioxidant machinery in mouse oviducts; however, this is not sufficient to induce apoptosis, and is efficiently counterbalanced by activation of pro-survival proteins.

Stimulation of Ovulation in Immature Female Rats Using Orthosteric and Allosteric Luteinizing Hormone Receptor Agonists

Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) and luteinizing hormone (LH) are widely used for the treatment of reproductive disorders and for controlled ovulation induction, but their use is limited by side effects. Allosteric agonists of the LH/hCG receptor, including thieno[2,3-d]thienopyrimidine TP03 developed by us, can become an alternative. TP03 (50 mg/rat, i.p.) when administered to immature female rats treated 48 h before with Follimag has been shown to increase progesterone levels (maximum 8 h post-treatment) and induce ovulation, as indicated by the appearance at 24 h corpus luteum (8.6 ± 0.5 per ovary). In terms of its activity, TP03 is comparable to hCG, although it acts more moderately. In the ovaries, unlike hCG, TP03 does not lead to an increase in the expression of vascular endothelial growth factor, which can cause ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Thus, TP03 is a promising drug as an ovulation inducer and ovarian steroidogenesis stimulator.

Single-cell quantitative proteomic analysis of human oocyte maturation revealed high heterogeneity in in vitro matured oocytes

Oocyte maturation is pertinent to the success of in vitro maturation (IVM), which is used to overcome female infertility, and produced over 5000 live births worldwide. However, the quality of human IVM oocytes has not been investigated at single-cell proteome level. Here, we quantified 2094 proteins in human oocytes during in vitro and in vivo maturation (IVO) by single-cell proteomic analysis and identified 176 differential proteins between IVO and germinal vesicle oocytes and 45 between IVM and IVO oocytes including maternal effect proteins, with potential contribution to the clinically observed decreased fertilization, implantation, and birth rates using human IVM oocytes. IVM and IVO oocytes showed separate clusters in principal component analysis, with higher inter-cell variability among IVM oocytes, and have little correlation between mRNA and protein changes during maturation. The patients with the most aberrantly expressed proteins in IVM oocytes had the lowest level of estradiol per mature follicle on trigger day. Our data provide a rich resource to evaluate effect of IVM on oocyte quality and study mechanism of oocyte maturation.

•

Single-cell proteomic profiling of human oocytes matured in vitro and in vivo.

•

Low correlation between protein and mRNA levels during human oocyte maturation.

•

In vitro matured (IVM) oocytes exhibit higher heterogeneity at the proteome level.

•

45 differentially expressed proteins between IVM and in vivo matured (IVO) oocytes.

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

Background:

Progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol is based on the principle of preventing pre-mature luteinising hormone surge during ovarian stimulation using progesterone.

Aims:

In this study, we aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of PPOS over GnRH antagonist cycles in oocyte donor cycles where freeze all is a norm.

Settings and Design:

It is a prospective cohort study with 130 participants.

Materials and Methods:

We included all women undergoing oocyte donation using PPOS protocol and antagonist protocol at our centre. Fifty-seven belonged to the PPOS group and were given medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) and 73 belonged to the GnRH antagonist group who received cetrorelix. The primary outcome was the number of mature oocyte retrieved at OPU and the cost involved per stimulation cycle.

Statistical Analysis Used:

For normally distributed observations, we used t-test, and for the variables of non-normal distribution, Mann–Whitney U-test was used. The significance was accepted for P < 0.05.

Results:

The baseline clinical characteristics of the donors were comparable with a mean age of 25.42 ± 2.90 years, body mass index of 24.00 ± 4.00 kg/m² and antral follicle count of 18.63 ± 5.23. The duration of stimulation was similar in both the groups as well as the total gonadotropin dose required was not significantly different. The number of mature oocytes retrieved was same in both the groups (10.41 ± 4.04 with antagonist and 10.25 ± 3.23 with PPOS, P = 0.964). There were no reported cases of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in any of the groups. The incidence of mild-to-moderate OHSS in the antagonist group was 5.4% and in the PPOS group was 3.6%, and the difference was not significant (P = 0.69). The cost per mature oocyte (M2) was significantly higher in the antagonist protocol in comparison to the PPOS protocol (INR 9485.69 ± 5751.11 vs. Rs. 5945.86 ± 2848.59, respectively, P < 0.001).

Conclusion:

Our study identifies PPOS protocol using MPA to be more cost-effective and patient-friendly than conventional GnRH antagonist protocol in oocyte donor cycles.