Premature Luteinizing Hormone Research Articles

In vitro fertilization results of GNRH antagonists and medroxyprogesterone acetate used to prevent premature LH surge during ovarian hyperstimulation

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) treatment in comparison to those of gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists for the prevention of premature luteinizing hormone surges during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (OS) and the impact of these effects on developing embryos and pregnancy outcomes. Data from 757 cycles of GnRH antagonist treatment and 756 cycles of MPA treatment were evaluated at the Akdeniz University Faculty of Medicine Assisted Reproductive Treatment Center between October 2018 and April 2022. Patient records were obtained from the electronic database of the centre and analysed. In our centre, GnRH antagonist protocols were used between 2018 and 2020, and MPA protocols were used between 2020 and 2022. We chose our study population by year. Our study is a comparative retrospective study. All methods in this study were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. Patients using MPA were significantly older (33.9 ± 5.6 vs. 32.6 ± 5.6, p < 0.001) and had a lower number of antral follicles (AFC) (10.7 ± 8.6 vs. 11.9 ± 10.8, p = 0.007) than those using GnRH antagonists. Both MPA (2.9%) and GnRH antagonists (2.2%) had similar effectiveness in preventing premature ovulation (p = 0.415). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the number of total developed embryos (1.3 ± 1.3 vs. 1.2 ± 1.2, p = 0.765). There was no significant difference in the clinical pregnancy rates with the first ET (%35.4 vs. %30.1, p = 0.074), per total number of transfers (35.3% vs. 30.1%, p = 0.077). MPA was found to be effective at preventing premature ovulation during OS treatment, and the incidence of developing embryo and pregnancy outcomes in patients using MPA were similar to those in patients using GnRH antagonists. Therefore, the use of MPA instead of GnRH antagonists during OS may be a viable alternative for patients not scheduled for fresh ET.

O-300 Dydrogesterone versus GnRH-antagonists to supress the LH surge in IVF/ICSI cycles

Abstract Study question Does Dydrogesterone block premature Luteinaizing hormone surge and ovulation during the controlled ovarian stimulation without compromising of IVF/ICSI outcomes? Summary answer Dydrogesterone and GnRH-antagonist have equal effectivness for prevention of premature luteinizing hormone surge and ovulation without any adverse effect on laboratory and clinical results. What is known already Premature LH surge and premature ovulation during the controlled ovarian stimulation is one of the main causes of cycle cancellation.Traditionally, during in-vitro fertilization for controlled ovarian stimulation to prevention of premature LH surge clinicians use GnRH antagonists. Recent data indicates that premature LH surge may be prevented also by progestins, since they have a role in suppression of preovulatory LH surge. In past, progesterone was not used during ovarian stimulation due to the negative effect on endometrial receptivity, while nowadays advanced techniques give possibility to use it as an alternative to a GnRH antagonists using the freeze-all strategy. Study design, size, duration In this prospective, randomized study were participated sixty -seven egg donors. Sudy was conducted on the basis of Clinic Leadermed (Georgia, Tbilisi) from October of 2021 to November 2023. The Ethics Committee of clinic Leadermed approved this study and appropriate informed consent was obtained from all participants. Participants/materials, setting, methods Recombinant gonadotropin was administered for control ovulation stimulation in oocyte donors. According to the ovarian response HMG was added. Intervention group (group I, n = 34) received 20 mg of Dydrogesterone from the first day of stimulation till trigger day and the control group (group II, n = 33) received GnRH-antagonist when the leading follicle reached 14 mm in diameter till trigger day. Triptorelin acetate 0.3 mg was administered when at least 3 follicles reached ≥18 mm in diameter. Main results and the role of chance There were no statistically significant differences in the oocyte donors age, BMI and AMH levels between two groups. None of the participants experienced a premature LH surge and ovulation. There was no statistically significant difference in the number of MII oocytes (23,7 vs 25.9 p = 0.3). The duration of stimulation and total dose of gonadotropins was similar in both groups (9.6 vs 9.9 days, p = 0.41), (2269.2 IU vs 2423.4 IU, p = 0.08) respectively. There was no difference in fertilization rates (85.62% vs 83.94%, p = 0.41), as well as blastulation rates and top-quality blastocysts (65.78% vs 69.72%, p = 0.17; 54.50% vs 51.75%, p = 0.21). Regarding clinical pregnancy rate, the results were similar, with no significant differences between two groups (66.28% vs 68.10%, p = 0.8). Limitations, reasons for caution The limitation of the study is that embryotransfer was performed as in patients (age till 49years), as well as in surrogate mothetrs (age till 41 years). Wider implications of the findings Dydrogesterone and GnRH-antagonist has equal effectiveness for prevention of premature LH surge without affecting of IVF outcomes. It is a financially profitable and easy to use which can be used as in oocyte donors as well as in patients where embryo transfer is not planned in the current cycle. Trial registration number non-clinical trial

P-683 Progestins vs flexible GnRH antagonist for LH suppression during controlled ovarian stimulation in POSEIDON groups 3 and 4 patients: Analysis of effectiveness and cycle outcomes

Abstract Study question How do cycle outcomes differ between controlled ovarian stimulations using progestins vs flexible GnRH antagonists for LH suppression in women with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR)? Summary answer While progestin use is associated with significantly higher blastocyst rate than GnRH antagonists in POSEIDON group 4, the latter gives better results in group 3. What is known already Controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in patients with DOR carries the additional risk of premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge and ovulation.GnRH antagonists are popular for LH suppression in COS because of their convenient, quicker onset of action, flexibility to use GnRH agonist as a trigger and continue as double stimulation, allowing rapid pooling of embryos. Ease of oral administration, combined with cost-effectiveness and retention of all the benefits of GnRH antagonists makes progestins an attractive alternative to GnRH antagonists for COS in patients with DOR who often need multiple stimulation cycles to enable the pooling of embryos. Study design, size, duration An open-label, multicentric, randomized controlled study was conducted over 1 year from January 2023 to December 2023. 140 women aged 21- 42 years and with AMH &amp;lt;1.2 ng/dl were randomized into 2 groups in a 1:1 ratio, using either oral progestins or GnRH antagonists for LH suppression. The two groups were further comparative analyzed under POSEIDON 3 and 4 subgroups. Those with BMI &amp;gt;40kg/m2 and with partners having severely compromised semen parameters were excluded. Participants/materials, setting, methods In Group A (PPOS): Medroxyprogesterone acetate 10 mg orally was given daily with gonadotropins (hMG 300- 375 IU) from cycle day 2 until trigger. In Group B (Antagonist), patients had daily GnRH antagonist, cetrotide 0.25 mg, subcutaneous administration started when the dominant follicles reached 12-14 mm size during controlled ovarian stimulation. This was continued until the trigger. Following oocyte retrieval and ICSI, embryos were cultured until D5 and vitrified fortransfer in subsequent HRT cycles. Main results and the role of chance Patients in Group A, using PPOS, were noted to have significantly better fertilization rates than those in Group B, using flexible GnRH antagonists (0.82 + 0.2 vs 0.66 + 0.4, p-value &amp;lt;0.01). Though the number of top-quality embryos (TQE) frozen was not significantly different between groups A and B (p-value = 0.44), a significant difference in the outcome was noted when comparatively analyzed under the subgroups of POSEIDON groups 3 and 4. While patients in POSEIDON group 4 got significantly more top-quality embryos (TQE) when progestins were used for LH suppression (1 + 0.11 vs 0.77 + 0.41, p-value &amp;lt;0.01), those in POSEIDON group 3 got significantly more top-quality embryos when GnRH antagonist was used (0.94 vs 2, p-value &amp;lt;0.01). Patients in Group A and B were found to have no significant difference in the following outcomes: incidence of premature LH surge (4.3% vs 7.1%, p value= 0.71), number of days of stimulation (10.26 + 2.18 vs 10.26 +2.94, p value= 0.99), total gonadotropin dosage used (3448.64+ 1007.98 vs 3087.41 + 1260.56, p value=0.06), total number of oocytes retrieved (5.84 + 3.3 vs 4.9 + 3.4, p value=0.09) and total cycle cancellation rate (30.1% vs 35.7%, p value= 0.11). Limitations, reasons for caution The small sample size of the cases limits the current statistical power of the study. The results being encouraging need to be confirmed in a larger patient population and followed for a longer duration to enable calculation of implantation and clinical pregnancy rates for all patients. Wider implications of the findings Oral progestins are an effective and cheaper, patient-friendly alternative to injectable GnRH antagonists during COS in women with DOR. Considering the significantly higher TQEs formed, PPOS can be preferred in older, POSEIDON group 4 patients, whereas flexible GnRH antagonist protocol can be our choice in the younger, POSEIDON group 3. Trial registration number Not applicable

P-459 Impact of a drop in serum estradiol levels after gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist on clinical outcomes of ovarian stimulation cycles in assisted reproductive technology (ART)

Abstract Study question Does a drop in serum estradiol level after the administration of a GnRH antagonist affect outcomes in ovarian stimulation cycles in ART? Summary answer A drop in serum estradiol after administration of a GnRH antagonist is related to changes in luteinizing hormone (LH) and to inferior clinical outcomes. What is known already In recent years, the GnRH antagonist protocol has become widely used to prevent a premature LH surge during ovarian stimulation in ART, with many advantages such as immediate pituitary suppression and a lower risk of ovarian hyperstimulation. However, one phenomenon intriguing professionals monitoring these cycles and reviewing blood analyses, is the decrease in serum estradiol that occasionally occurs after the administration of the antagonist. With the natural menstrual cycle in mind, this could be an undesirable effect possibly affecting clinical outcomes. Study design, size, duration This was a non-interventional, retrospective, observational cohort study. We analyzed 1678 ovarian stimulation cycles in ART in 1143 patients. Patients were treated between January 1st 2015 and November 1st 2022. Patients were 20 to 45 years old, were stimulated with human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) or recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (follitropin α, β or δ, corifollitropin α and follitropin α + lutropin α) and a GnRH antagonist was used for pituitary suppression in a flexible protocol. Participants/materials, setting, methods Data were extracted from medical records at a tertiary infertility clinic. The difference between serum estradiol level before and after the first antagonist administration was calculated. When this value was negative, the cycle was marked as having an estradiol drop. Influence of treatment and cycle characteristics on estradiol drop, as well as influence of the drop on clinical outcomes were analyzed using generalized linear mixed effects models. Main results and the role of chance The presence of a serum estradiol drop could be calculated in 1552 cycles, of which 153 cycles (9.9%) showed a drop. There was no significant difference in the odds on cycle cancellation between cycles with and without drop (p = 0.87). Type of gonadotrophin used was significantly associated with the presence of an estradiol drop (p &amp;lt; 0.0001), with hMG cycles showing the lowest amount of drops (3.0%). More estradiol drops were observed with the start of antagonist administration on day six of stimulation (10.3% of cycles), compared to starting later than day six (9.1%)(p = 0.001). Serum LH at the start of the cycle was significantly higher in cycles with estradiol drop (mean±SD=4.10±4.13IU/L) than in cycles without (3.88±2.74IU/L) (p = 0.01). Decrease in serum LH levels after antagonist administration was significantly larger in cycles with estradiol drop (-5.30±7.58IU/L versus -1.66±3.13IU/L,p&amp;lt;0.0001). Serum LH on the day of ovulation triggering was also lower in estradiol drop cycles (1.29±1.59IU/L versus 2.24±8.13IU/L,p=0.0007). Estradiol drop was not significantly associated with the number of oocytes retrieved, 2PN fertilized, utilization rate or embryo transfer (p-values&amp;gt;0.05). Ongoing pregnancy and live birth were also significantly lower in cycles with an estradiol drop (13.9%) than in cycles without (25%, p = 0.01). When correcting for age, p-values remained unchanged. Limitations, reasons for caution A limitation of the retrospective study design is that stimulation protocols and any adjustments were chosen by the treating physician according to the patient’s characteristics. The authors did adjust for different cycles per patient by using generalized mixed models. Absolute numbers of estradiol drop are low, limiting optimal multivariable analysis. Wider implications of the findings Because serum estradiol drop after GnRH antagonist administration is related to changes in LH, prospective research could focus on potential optimization of the LH serum levels which could potentially ameliorate clinical outcome. Trial registration number not applicable

Clinical parameters that predict a premature LH rise in patients undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF

Background: Normal reproductive function requires adequate regulation of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) secretion. During ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization (IVF), some patients will demonstrate an early rise in LH despite being treated with a gonadotropin releasing-hormone (GnRH) antagonist, sometimes necessitating cycle cancellation. Previous studies have demonstrated a possible link between a premature LH rise with ovarian response to gonadotropins. We sought to determine what clinical parameters can predict this premature LH rise and their relative contribution. Methods: A retrospective study of 382 patients who underwent IVF treatment at Rambam Medical Center. The patients were stratified into age groups. A model predicting premature LH rise based on clinical and demographic parameters was developed using both multiple linear regression and a machine-learning-based algorithm. Results: LH rise was defined as the difference between pre-trigger and basal LH levels. The clinical parameters that significantly predicted an LH rise were patient age, BMI, LH levels at stimulation outset, LH levels on day of antagonist administration, and total number of stimulation days. Importantly, when analyzing the data of specific age groups, the model’s prediction was strongest in young patients (age 25–30 years, R 2 = 0.88, p < .001) and weakest in older patients (age > 41 years, R 2 = 0.23, p = .003). Conclusions: Using both multiple linear regression and a machine-learning-based algorithm of patient data from IVF cycles, we were able to predict patients at risk for premature LH rise and/or LH surge. Utilizing this model may help prevent IVF cycle cancellation and better timing of ovulation triggering.

Cumulative live birth rate of in vitro fertilization cycle via progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in infertile women with normal ovarian reserve: an open-label, randomized controlled trial

This study aimed to evaluate the cumulative live birth rate (cLBR) of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol for in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle in infertile women with normal ovarian reserve (NOR). Infertile women with NOR who underwent their first IVF cycle were enrolled in an open-label randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive a freeze-all strategy with delayed embryo transfer (PPOS group, n = 174) and fresh embryo transfer first (GnRH-ant group, n = 174). The primary outcome was the cLBR per aspiration. The cLBR between the PPOS group and GnRH-ant group were comparable (55.75% vs. 52.87%, p = 0.591). A premature luteinizing hormone surge was not observed in the PPOS group, while there were six cases (3.45%) in the GnRH-ant group, but no premature ovulation in either of the groups. The pregnancy outcomes, including implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate and miscarriage rate, were all comparable. In addition, the number of retrieved oocytes, mature oocytes and viable embryos were similar (all p > 0.05) between the two groups.

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.

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. A retrospective cohort study. Tertiary-care academic medical center. 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. 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. 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. 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 16mm 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. 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.

Progesterone-primed cycles result in slower embryos without compromising implantation potential and with the advantages of oral administration and potential cost reduction

To study the impact of the use of progesterone on embryo morphokinetics and on the outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. Cohort study. Private university-affiliated invitro fertilization center. This study included 236 freeze-all intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles and the resultant 2,768 injected oocytes cultured in a time-lapse imaging incubation system. Patients were matched by age and divided into groups depending on the protocol used to prevent the luteinizing hormone surge: progestin-primed (144 cycles and 1,360 embryos) and gonadotropin hormone-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist (144 cycles and 1,408 embryos) groups. The kinetic recorded markers were time to pronuclear appearance and fading, time to 2-8 cells, time to morulation, time to start of blastulation, and time to blastulation. The durations of cell cycles and time to complete synchronous divisions were calculated. The Known Implantation Data Score ranking was recorded. Morphokinetics and clinical outcomes were compared between the groups. Embryo morphokinetics and clinical outcomes. Slower time to pronuclear appearance, time to 2 cells, time to 7 cells, time to start of blastulation, and time to blastulation were observed in embryos derived from progestin-primed cycles than in those from the GnRH antagonist group. No significant differences were noted in any other morphokinetic milestone. Significantly higher cancellation and implantation rates were observed in the progestin-primed group. However, no significant differences were noted in the pregnancy and miscarriage rates. The expenses for treatment using premature GnRH antagonist and progestins were US$318.18 and US$11.05, respectively. Exogenous progesterone replaces the GnRH antagonist for the prevention of premature luteinizing hormone surge, in freeze-all cycles, with the advantage of oral administration and potential cost reduction.

Duphaston as a suitable medication for women taking intracytoplasmic sperm injection to treat infertility

Objective: Duphaston is used as an alternative to gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists for suppressing premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of Duphaston protocols with that of Cetrotide in suppressing the LH surge. Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, 669 infertile women (aged 25–40 years) were administered recombinant follicle-stimulating (rFSH) hormone from the third day of their menstrual cycle. After the follicular diameter reached–13-14 mm, Cetrotide was prescribed orally to the control subjects, also case subjects took Duphaston orally. The retrieved oocytes were fertilized by an intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Results: The levels of FSH, LH, and estradiol did not differ significantly between the groups (P &gt;0.05). However, the findings indicated that Duphaston led to greater oocyte retrieval than Cetrotide (P=0.006). However, the number of mature oocytes and viable embryos in the case subjects did not reach a significant difference compared to that in the control subjects (P &gt;0.05). The number of good-quality embryos (stage1) was significantly higher in the case subjects (P =0.04). In addition, there is no significant difference in the chemical, clinical pregnancy, implantation rate, and miscarriage rate between both groups (P &gt;0.05) . Conclusion: Duphaston could be utilized as a suitable medication rather than a GnRH antagonist in women subjected to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation.

A premature luteinizing hormone surge without elevated progesterone levels has no adverse effect on cumulative live birth rate in patient undergoing a flexible GnRH antagonist protocol: a retrospective study

BackgroundA premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge refers to an endogenous LH peak that occurs before follicle maturation or human chorionic gonadotropin injection in the process of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. The effect of premature LH surge on pregnancy outcomes in fresh embryo transfer cycles is still controversial. The aim of this study was to explore the effect of a premature LH surge without elevated progesterone levels on the cumulative pregnancy rate (CPR) and cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) of patients during a flexible GnRH antagonist protocol.MethodsA total of 730 infertile women undergoing IVF/ICSI were recruited for this retrospective study. Only women who either delivered a live infant or had no remaining frozen embryos after a single stimulation cycle were included in the analysis. During the study period, each patient underwent a flexible GnRH antagonist protocol. Women were divided into two groups according to the presence or absence of a premature LH surge. The primary outcome measures were the CPR and CLBR per ovarian stimulation cycle. The secondary outcome measures were the number of oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate, good-quality embryo rate, and clinical pregnancy rate.ResultsNinety-one women (12.47%) experienced a premature LH surge without elevated progesterone levels, and the other 639 (87.53%) women were assigned to the control group. The numbers of oocytes retrieved and fertilization rate were significantly greater in the premature LH surge group than in the control group. There was no significant difference between groups in the good-quality embryo rate, clinical pregnancy rate or live birth rate in the fresh embryo transfer cycle. The primary outcome measures, the CPR and CLBR per ovarian stimulation cycle, were not significantly different between the premature LH surge group and the control group. According to the analysis stratified by ovarian response (normal or high), there were no significant differences in pregnancy outcomes between the groups with and without a premature LH surge.ConclusionsThe retrospective study demonstrated that the patients experiencing a transient premature LH surge without progesterone elevation had equivalent pregnancy outcomes with those without a premature LH surge on a flexible GnRH antagonist protocol. The present conclusions need to be further validated in a prospective well-designed large-scale study.

Ovarian stimulation methods at a single-assisted reproductive technology institution: a retrospective study of successful outcomes

Aim : to examine an efficacy of various stimulation methods in a group of successful pregnancies. Materials and Methods . In a single center retrospective study 47 pregnancy cases were examined after performing embryo transfers at our institution from the years 2017 to 2021. Patients were divided into four groups: i) clomiphene hyperstimulation (CH), ii) stimulation with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist, iii) with GnRH antagonist, and iv) progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS). Age, anti-Mullerian hormone, presence of chronic disease, number of in-vitro fertilizations prior to conception, dosage of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), presence of premature luteinizing hormone surge, number of egg retrievals, fertilization rate, and live birth rate were assessed. Results. The number of pregnancies obtained by CH, agonist, antagonist, and PPOS methods comprised 25, 12, 2, and 8 cases, respectively. No significant difference in parameters between CH group and non-CH groups, excepting FSH was observed. The FSH was used in CH group and non-CH group at dose of 1108 ± 468 IU and 1756 ± 394 IU, respectively (p &lt; 0.0001). Conclusion. CH is not commonly used due to potential luteal phase defects, but it is thought to be cost-effective, requiring lower FSH doses, requiring no ovulation suppression antagonists, and exerting no effect on frozen embryos or fetuses. Hence, CH could be a suitable protocol for egg retrieval in Japan.

Letrozole cotreatment improves the follicular output rate in high-body-mass-index women with polycystic ovary syndrome undergoing IVF treatment.

Women who have polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) with high body mass index (BMI) typically have an attenuated ovarian response and decreased follicular size, which are linked to unfavourable clinical outcomes following in vitro fertilization (IVF) therapy. The follicular output rate (FORT), a qualitative indicator of follicular response, seems to be positively linked to the clinical outcomes of IVF. Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) has become an alternative to gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues to inhibit the premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge. As letrozole (LE) shows promise in enhancing ovarian response, we compared PPOS with and without LE for PCOS in high BMI women with a focus on the FORT and associated clinical and pregnancy outcomes. For the recruited 1508 women, ten variables including AFC; age; basal sex hormone level; BMI; infertility type; period of infertility and number of previous IVF attempts were chosen in the propensity score matching (PSM) model to match 1374 women who taken the MPA+ hMG protocol with 134 women who received the MPA+ hMG+ LE treatment at a 1:1 ratio. FORT was selected as the primary outcome measure. The number of oocytes retrieved, viable embryos, hMG dosage, duration, oocyte maturity rate, fertilization rate, and implantation rate were established as secondary outcomes. FORT was substantially elevated in the MPA+hMG+LE group compared with the MPA+hMG group (61% [35%, 86%] vs. 40% [25%, 60%], P <.001). Interestingly, the LE cotreatment group had a considerably lower mature oocyte rate despite having a similar number of mature oocytes and embryos recovered. The average hMG dosages and durations in the study group were similar to those in the control group. The implantation rate in the study group was numerically higher but without statistic significant than that in the control groups (43.15% (107/248) vs. 38.59% (115/298), OR 1.008, 95% CI 0.901-1.127; P >.05). The effect of LE combined with PPOS on FORT is better than the effect of the standard PPOS treatment in women with PCOS and a high BMI, but there is no substantially beneficial impact on pregnancy outcomes or the cycle features of COS, including consumption of hMG.

Ganirelix and the prevention of premature luteinizing hormone surges

Ganirelix is a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist with high antagonistic activity that blocks the GnRH receptor by competitive binding. A daily dose of 0.25 mg of ganirelix was sel5ected after a phase II study because it was the minimal, effective daily dose to prevent premature luteinizing hormone surges and this dose yielded the highest ongoing pregnancy rate per started cycle. After subcutaneous administration, ganirelix is rapidly absorbed, reaching peak levels within 1-2 hours (tmax), and has a high absolute bioavailability (>90%). Prospective, comparative studies have demonstrated the advantages of GnRH antagonists over long GnRH agonist treatment in assisted reproduction, including the immediate reversibility of drug effects, a requirement for less follicle-stimulating hormone, a shortened duration of stimulation, a reduced incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, and reduced patient burden. Combined analyses concluded that in the general invitro fertilization population, there is a trend for a slightly lower ongoing pregnancy rate and a lower risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome that is largely eliminated when considering triggering with GnRH agonist instead of human chorionic gonadotropin. Regardless of all the research, it is still not fully elucidated why the long GnRH agonist protocol has a trend for higher pregnancy rates after fresh transfer of the same number of good-quality embryos.

Hormonal parameters and embryological outcomes of in vitro fertilisation/intra cytoplasmic sperm injection cycles in women using dydrogesterone for the prevention of premature luteinizing hormone surge during ovarian stimulation

Aim. To evaluate the hormonal parameters and embryological outcomes of an ovarian stimulation protocol using dydrogesterone to prevent the premature LH surge in IVF/ICSI programmes.&#x0D; Materials and methods. A prospective study randomised, including 79 women with normal ovarian reserve undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI with recombinant FSH (rFSH) from Day 2 or 3 of the menstrual cycle. To prevent the premature LH surge, participants in Group 1 (n=38) received oral dydrogesterone 20 mg/day from the start of ovarian stimulation until the day of ovulation trigger administration. Participants in Group 2 (n=41) received a GnRH antagonist. We evaluated the starting and total dose of gonadotropins, duration of stimulation, serum levels of LH, oestradiol and progesterone on Day 1 and 6 of stimulation and the day of trigger administration, number of retrieved and mature oocytes, fertilization rate, and the number of blastocysts and cryopreserved embryos.&#x0D; Results. There were no significant differences in most hormonal parameters, characteristics of the ovarian stimulation and embryological outcomes between the two groups. Serum levels of progesterone in the dydrogesterone arm were higher than in the GnRH antagonist arm (2.3 nmol/l [2.03.4] vs 1.5 [1.02.4] nmol/l; p=0.026), but without any impact on the embryological outcomes.&#x0D; Conclusion. Prevention of premature LH surge in ovarian stimulation cycles using oral dydrogesterone may represent a convenient alternative to the conventional use of GnRH antagonists, reducing the number of required injections and potentially increasing the convenience in patients who are not planning a fresh embryo transfer.

Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus GnRH antagonist protocol in poor responders: Risk of premature LH surge and outcome of oocyte retrieval

PurposeFor poor ovarian responders (PORs), gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist was commonly used for prevention of premature LH surge during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) over the past two decades. The application of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) recently increased, but the role of PPOS for PORs was uncertain. We aimed to analyze the incidence of premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge and the outcome of oocyte retrieval among PPOS and GnRH antagonist protocol for PORs. MethodsThis was a single-center retrospective study, which enrolled the PORs (defined by the Bologna criteria) undergoing COS with PPOS or flexible GnRH antagonist protocol during January 2018 to December 2021. We compared the incidence of premature LH surge (LH > 10 mIU/mL) and the outcome of oocyte retrieval between the PPOS group and the GnRH antagonist group. ResultsA total of 314 women were recruited, with 54 in the PPOS group and 260 in the GnRH antagonist group. The PPOS group had lower incidence of premature LH surges compared with the GnRH antagonist protocol group (5.6% vs 16.9%, P value 0.035). There was no significant difference between the two groups regarding the number of oocytes retrieved (3.4 vs 3.8, P value 0.066) and oocyte retrieval rates (88.9% vs 88.0%, P value 0.711). ConclusionCompared with PPOS, GnRH antagonist protocol had higher risk of premature LH surges for PORs but may not affect pregnancy rates. PPOS is suitable for oocyte or embryo cryopreservation, but should not totally replace GnRH antagonist protocol for patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF).

Letrozole cotreatment with progestin-primed ovarian stimulation in women with polycystic ovary syndrome undergoing IVF treatment.

Background: Progestin is an alternative to gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues in the follicular phase to suppress the premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). However, progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is always accompanied by increased pituitary suppression and gonadotropin consumption. Previous studies suggested that letrozole appeared to have the potential to reduce the total gonadotropin dose required for ovarian stimulation. A retrospective cohort study was performed to evaluate the efficacy of PPOS with or without letrozole in infertile women with PCOS. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 448 women with PCOS who underwent controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) and medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) (n = 224) or hMG and MPA cotreatment with LE (n = 224) from January 2018 to March 2021 after propensity-score matching. The primary outcome measure was the hMG dose. The secondary outcomes were the durations of ovarian stimulation, the implantation rate, the number of oocytes retrieved and viable embryos, oocyte maturity and fertilization rates, the percentage of women with profound pituitary suppression (luteinizing hormone [LH] <1.0 IU/L on the trigger day). Results: The hMG doses (1949.89 ± 725.03 IU vs 2017.41 ± 653.32 IU, p > 0.05) and durations of ovarian stimulation (9.03 ± 1.79 days vs 9.21 ± 2.18 days, p > 0.05) were similar between the two groups. The implantation rate was significantly higher in the study group (MPA + hMG + LE) than in the control group (MPA + hMG) (42.22 vs 34.69%, p < 0.05). The numbers of oocytes and embryos retrieved were similar between the two groups. Interestingly, letrozole cotreatment was associated with decreased oocyte maturity and fertilization rates in comparison with standard PPOS protocols even though mature and fertilized oocyte yields were comparable. Compared with those in the control group, the LH values on the trigger day were significantly higher in the study group, together with significantly reduced pituitary suppression. Conclusion: Letrozole combined with PPOS cannot reduce hMG consumption in PCOS patients undergoing IVF treatment and shows no beneficial effect on cycle characteristics of COS. However, letrozole supplementation manifests as a superior implantation rate to that of the standard PPOS protocol in women with PCOS.

P-608 A higher probability of ongoing pregnancy is present by using the fixed as compared to the flexible GnRH antagonist protocol

Abstract Study question Is the probability of ongoing pregnancy higher in the fixed as compared to the flexible gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol? Summary answer A higher probability of ongoing pregnancy is present by using the fixed as compared to the flexible GnRH antagonist protocol. What is known already Although fixed GnRH antagonist initiation is a simpler protocol that requires less monitoring compared to the flexible one, the latter might avoid unnecessary antagonist use, by administering GnRH antagonist only when there is a real risk for premature luteinizing hormone (LH) rise. A meta-analysis of four randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in 2005, comparing fixed versus flexible GnRH antagonist administration, showed a lower non-significant probability of clinical pregnancy in the flexible compared with the fixed protocol. Following that meta-analysis, four additional RCTs comparing the fixed versus the flexible GnRH antagonist protocol have been performed necessitating an update on this topic. Study design, size, duration A literature search was performed until 12/2021, in order to identify RCTs comparing the fixed versus the flexible GnRH antagonist protocol in patients undergoing ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization (IVF) using gonadotrophins. The main outcome measure was achievement of ongoing pregnancy. Secondary outcome measures included duration of stimulation, incidence of premature LH rise, estradiol levels on the day of triggering final oocyte maturation and the number of cumulus-oocyte-complexes (COCs) retrieved. Participants/materials, setting, methods Seven RCTs comparing fixed versus flexible protocol, published between 2002 and 2021, were identified (1007 patients). A meta-analysis was performed using the fixed or random effects method depending on the presence of statistically significant heterogeneity. For dichotomous data, estimates were expressed as risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). For continuous data, differences were pooled across resulting in a weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% CI. Main results and the role of chance Ovarian stimulation was performed using recombinant gonadotrophins in all studies. In the fixed protocol initiation of GnRH antagonist was performed either on Day 6 (six studies) or on Day 5 (single study) of stimulation. In the flexible protocol antagonist was initiated using either ultrasound criteria (four studies) or by combination of ultrasound or hormonal criteria (three studies). No significant difference was present between the fixed and flexible groups in the duration of gonadotrophin stimulation (WMD:+0.23 days, 95% CI: -0.08 to + 0.53, random protocol) and in the incidence of premature LH rise (RR:0.86, 95% CI: 0.48-1.53, fixed protocol). Significantly lower estradiol levels were present on the day of triggering final oocyte maturation (WMD:-237.74, 95% CI: -463.87 to -11.61, random protocol) and significantly less COCs were retrieved (WMD:-1.83, 95% CI: -3.11 to -0.54, random protocol) in the fixed compared with the flexible protocol. A significantly higher probability of ongoing pregnancy was observed in the fixed as compared to the flexible protocol, both per intention to treat (RR:1.28, 95% CI: 1.02-1.61, I2:0%, fixed protocol, six studies, 898 patients) as well as per protocol analysis (RR:1.30, 95% CI: 1.04-1.62, I2:0%, fixed protocol, six studies, 757 patients). Limitations, reasons for caution In the current meta-analysis, the number of studies and patients included does not allow to perform subgroup analyses based on the time of fixed antagonist initiation or on the criteria used for flexible antagonist initiation. Wider implications of the findings Although in theory flexible antagonist initiation is an attractive protocol that leads to less antagonist administration, the current meta-analysis suggests that it is associated with a lower probability of ongoing pregnancy. Further RCTs examining the two antagonist protocols for additional outcomes, including live birth or cumulative live birth, are necessary. Trial registration number N/A

P-661 dydrogesterone as an alternative to supress LH surge in single stimulus protocols with follitropin delta

Abstract Study question Is oral dydrogesterone (DYG) 30 mg daily efficient on prevention of premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge in ART cycles? Summary answer Oral dydrogesterone demonstrated to be as safe and effective as GnRH-ant in IVF/ICSI cycles intended to freeze-all / PGT-A, oocyte preservation and embryo banking programs What is known already The use of progesterone (PG) to inhibit pituitary LH surge during ovarian stimulation have been described over the last decades. Due to its harmful effect on the endometrium, PG suppression is mainly reserved for freeze-all cycles. Dydrogesterone (DYG), a known and safe synthetic progesterone, has been tested for this purpose based on the concept of its more selective PG receptors activity, which could reduce the inconveniences of side effects with less relevant androgenic, estrogenic, glyco or mineralocorticoid activity. Accordind to some recent work, DYG would be an effective tool both in cycles intended to freeze-all or in oocyte preservation strategies. Study design, size, duration Observational, comparative single center study, comparing the effect of DYG and gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists on prevention of premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge as well as to evaluate the number of metaphase II oocytes. From January 2019 to January 2020, 143 no age restrictions patients underwent both IVF/ICSI or oocyte preservation, all of them receiving the same single stimulus protocol with follitropin delta (Rekovelle). Participants/materials, setting, methods 92 IVF/ICSI plus 51 oocyte cryopreservation cycles underwent deltafollitropin (Rekovelle®, Ferring Pharmaceuticals) in a fixed daily and individualized SC-dose. Clinical decision led to a GnRH-antagonist (CTA-Cetrorelix acetate, Cetrotide®, Merck) 0,25 mg/d initiated in a flexible schedule in presence of one follicle ≥14 mm and continued throughout the stimulation period (48 cycles) or dydrogesterone (DYG), 10mg 8/8 hours (Duphaston®, Abbott) combined to gonadotrophin from the beginning of stimulation until the day after the trigger (95 cycles). Main results and the role of chance DYG-group had a mean age significantly higher (37.8 x 35.8-p 0.002) but there were no differences in mean parameters of BMI (24.08 x 24.81), days of stimulation (9.95 x 10.08), AMH (2.30 x 2.52), AFC (14.6 x 16.2). In the same way, no differences were observed between follicles 15 mm to 18 mm (3.06 x 3.68) and ≥ 18 mm (4.56 x 3.9), with a tendency for a greater number of larger follicles in the DYG-group. Metaphase II oocytes (7.48 x 7.33) was similar in both groups. One patient from each group experienced a premature LH surge (3.54 x 3.06) and one case in the DYG-group had no oocyte in a single 20mm aspirated follicle. There happened no cancelling. No patients experienced moderate to severe ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome, even when AMH&amp;gt;3 ng/mL. Cancelling criteria: no follicles with a diameter 17 mm by day 15. Oocyte retrieval took place 36 hours after trigging. Primary outcome was the incidence of premature LH surge. Secondary outcomes included follicles ≥ 15 mm and &amp;lt; 18 mm and ≥ 18 mm on hCG day, metaphase II oocytes, number of cancelled cycles and OHSS symptoms. Statistics were performed by Mann-Whitney test. Limitations, reasons for caution The main limitation point is the small number of patients. Despite having relative experience with the use of DYG, in this work we limited the sample to consider only one type of stimulus protocol, making the groups more homogeneous for the analysis. Wider implications of the findings Dydrogesterone is as effective as GnRH-ant in reducing premature LH surge. It can be considered for IVF/ICSI cycles intended to freeze-all / PGT-A, oocyte preservation and for embryo banking strategies, representing lower costs in these cases. Trial registration number not applicable

Follicular fluid PlGF and IVF/ICSI outcomes among PCOS and normo-ovulatory women using different controlled hyperstimulation protocols: A prospective case-control study

BackgroundGonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues are used to prevent premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge during In-Vitro Fertilization. However, the follicular fluid levels of the Placental growth factor (FF PlGF), the novel angiogenic factor, differ significantly between GnRH-agonist and GnRH-antagonist protocols. Thus, we compared the IVF/ICSI outcomes and their correlations with FF PlGF levels in polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) and normo-ovulatory women during different hyperstimulation protocols. MethodsThis case-control study is a re-analysis of two prospective trials that were conducted on women who were referred to Orient Hospital, Damascus, Syria, from December 2019 to August 2021. A total of 75 PCOS-women (PCOS-Agonist, n = 53; PCOS-Antagonist, n = 22) and 83 normo-ovulatory women (Control-Agonist, n = 50; Control-Antagonist, n = 33) were included. Follicular fluid samples were collected on retrieval day. ResultsAlthough PCOS-women were stimulated using lower gonadotropin doses, the Ovarian-sensitivity-indexes were higher in PCOS-groups (PCOS-Agonist vs Control-Agonist; P-value <0.001), (PCOS-Antagonist vs Control-Antagonist; P-value = 0.042). However, FF PlGF levels, maturation rate, fertilization rate, and oocytes morphology were comparable between PCOS and controls independently of the protocol used. Interestingly, FF PlGF levels were positively correlated with Ovarian-sensitivity-indexes in the PCOS-Antagonist, Control-Agonist, and Control-Anta groups, but not in the PCOS-Agonist group. Nevertheless, FF PlGF levels were comparable between pregnant and non-pregnant women in all studied groups. ConclusionsAlthough PCOS exaggerates ovarian response to stimulation irrespective of the protocol used, it does not have a detrimental impact on oocytes morphology or competence. Moreover, FF PlGF levels could be a marker of the ovarian response other than a predictor of pregnancy achievement.

The effect of flexible low-dose GnRH antagonist on pregnancy outcome in the fresh embryo transfer cycle of IVF-ET: a randomized controlled trial

ObjectiveTo explore the practicality and effectiveness of a flexible low-dose protocol in the fresh embryo transfer cycle: reducing the total amount of antagonist by increasing the interval between administrations of Cetrotide.MethodsA total of 211 patients with normal ovarian reserve who accepted GnRH-ant protocol for IVF-ET were selected, and they were randomized to the flexible low-dose antagonist group (test group, n = 101) or the conventional dose antagonist group (control group, n = 110). The initial dose of Cetrotide in the test group was 0.25 mg every other day, and then the dose was adjusted to 0.25 mg every day based on the subsequent luteinizing hormone (LH) levels. The dosage of Cetrotide in the control group was 0.25 mg per day. The primary outcome was the clinical pregnancy rate. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of premature LH rise, total dosage of Cetrotide, number of oocytes retrieved, number of fertilized oocytes, number of high-quality embryos, biochemical pregnancy rate and ongoing pregnancy rate.ResultsThere was no significant difference in the general condition of the two groups. There was no significant difference in the clinical pregnancy rate (51.49% vs. 48.18%, p = 0.632) or the incidence of premature LH rise (18.81% vs. 15.45%, p = 0.584) between the two groups. However, the amount of Cetrotide used in the test group was significantly lower than that in the conventional dose antagonist group (1.13 ± 0.41 vs. 1.61 ± 0.59 mg, p < 0.001).ConclusionThe flexible low-dose antagonist protocol and the conventional dose antagonist protocol were equally effective in people with a normal ovarian reserve in the fresh embryo transfer cycle of IVF-ET.