Fixed Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Antagonist Protocol Versus Flexible Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol in Patients With Asynchronous Follicular Development During Controlled Ovulation Stimulation: A Retrospective Study

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.

The comparison between fixed versus degressive doses of medroxyprogesterone acetate combined with letrozole in patients of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol: a propensity score-matched study

Objective

To explore the cycle characteristics and pregnancy outcomes of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) using fixed versus degressive doses of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) in conjunction with letrozole (LE) in infertile women by propensity score matching (PSM) analysis.

Design

A retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Tertiary-care academic medical center.

Population

A total of 3173 infertile women undergoing their first in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) treatment within the period from January 2017 to December 2020.

Methods

A total of 1068 and 783 patients who underwent a fixed dose of MPA combined with LE and a degressive dose of MPA combined with LE protocols, respectively, were enrolled in this study. The freeze-all approach and later frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET) were performed in both groups. Propensity score matching (1:1) was performed.

Main outcome measures

The primary outcomes were the dosage of MPA and the incidence of premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges. The secondary outcomes were the number of oocytes retrieved, the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) and the fetal malformation rate.

Results

We created a perfect match of 478 patients in each group. The dosage of MPA, the LH serum level on the eighth day of stimulation, progesterone (P) level and LH level on the hCG trigger day were significantly higher in the LE + fixed MPA group than in the LE + degressive MPA group (52.1 ± 13.1 mg vs. 44.9 ± 12.5 mg; 5.0 ± 2.7 IU/L vs. 3.7 ± 1.7 IU/L; 0.9 ± 0.5 ng/ml vs. 0.8 ± 0.5 ng/ml; 3.3 ± 2.4 IU/L vs. 2.8 ± 1.9 IU/L; P < 0.01). The duration of Gn, the number of follicles with diameter more than 16 mm on trigger day, the estradiol (E2) level on the hCG trigger day were lower in the LE + fixed MPA group than in the LE + degressive MPA group (9.7 ± 1.7 days vs. 10.3 ± 1.5 days; 5.6 ± 3.0 vs. 6.3 ± 3.0; 1752.5 ± 1120.8 pg/ml vs. 1997.2 ± 1108.5 pg/ml; P < 0.001). No significant difference was found in the incidence of premature LH surge, the number of oocytes retrieved, the number of top-quality embryos, clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), CLBR or fetal malformation rate between the two groups.

Conclusion

The combination of a degressive MPA dose with LE proved effective in reducing the total MPA dosage with comparable premature LH surge and pregnancy outcomes in women undergoing the PPOS protocol.

Estradiol pretreatment in GnRH antagonist protocol for IVF/ICSI treatment

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of all published data to determine the impact of estradiol pretreatment on reproductive outcomes and ovary stimulation characteristics for in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched, and any randomized controlled trials associated with estradiol pretreatment in GnRH antagonist protocol were included. Seven studies (1,236 patients) were included in the present study. The pooled data from the meta-analysis demonstrated no significant difference in ongoing pregnancy rate (odds ratio (OR): 0.92 (95% CI: 0.69-1.21; P = 0.53) and live birth rate OR: 0.98 (95% CI: 0.74-1.30; P = 0.90) between patients with and those without estradiol pretreatment in GnRH antagonist protocol. Duration of gonadotropin exposure, gonadotropin consumption, and the number of cumulus-oocyte complexes were not significantly different between groups. Luteal estradiol pretreatment in IVF/ICSI cycles with GnRH antagonist protocol in normal ovary responding population does not affect the reproductive outcomes. It is an encouraging option to facilitate cycle scheduling in GnRH antagonist protocol, for luteal estradiol pretreatment does not increase the duration of gonadotropin exposure or gonadotropin consumption.