Progestin-primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol Research Articles

Verification of the utility of the gonadotropin starting dose calculator in progestin-primed ovarian stimulation: A comparison of empirical and calculated controlled ovarian stimulation.

To validate the effectiveness of a gonadotropin starting dose calculator for progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS), we conducted a study comparing the outcomes of oocyte retrieval between a group assigned gonadotropin doses via the calculator and a control group, where doses were determined by the clinician's empirical judgment. Patients underwent controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) using the PPOS method, followed by oocyte retrieval. We assessed and compared the results of COS and oocyte retrieval in both groups. Additionally, we examined the concordance rate between the number of oocytes actually retrieved and the target number of oocytes in each group. The calculated group demonstrated a significantly higher number of preovulation follicles and a higher ovarian sensitivity index than the control group. Furthermore, the discrepancy between the target and actual number of oocytes retrieved was notably smaller in the calculated group. The concordance rate between the target and actual number of oocytes was significantly greater in the calculated group. The gonadotropin starting dose calculator proved to be effective within the PPOS protocol, offering a reliable method for predicting the approximate number of oocytes to be retrieved, irrespective of the COS protocol employed.

A randomized controlled trial to compare the live birth rate of the first frozen embryo transfer following the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol vs. the antagonist protocol in women with an anticipated high ovarian response

ObjectiveTo compare the live birth rate of the first frozen embryo transfer following ovarian stimulation by the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol versus the antagonist protocol in women with anticipated high ovarian response undergoing IVF DesignRandomized controlled trial SettingsA tertiary assisted reproduction center PatientsInfertile women aged <43 years undergoing the first IVF cycle and having antral follicle count >15 InterventionsMedroxyprogesterone 10 mg daily was given from the start of ovarian stimulation until the day of ovulation trigger in the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol. In the antagonist protocol, an antagonist 0.25mg daily was given from 6th day of ovarian stimulation until the day of ovulation trigger. Blinding was not possible for women or physicians but the biostatistician was blinded to the group assignment. Main Outcome MeasuresLive birth rate of the first frozen embryo transfer cycle Results784 women were recruited from June 2020 and October 2021 and randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio into two groups: progestin-primed ovarian stimulation group (n=392) and antagonist group (n=392). Embryo transfer was either cancelled or postponed in 62 (62/392, 15.8%) women in the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation group and 65 (65/392, 16.6%) in the antagonist group because of no transferable embryos or no frozen embryo transfer within 6 months following randomizaion. The two groups were similar in demographic characteristics and number of oocytes obtained/fertilized, the number of cleaving embryos, number of good quality embryos at day 3, number of blastocysts developed and number of embryo/blastocyst frozen. There was no statistically significant difference in the live birth rate of the first frozen embryo transfer cycle between the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation and antagonist groups based on both intention to treat [37.5.0% (147/392) versus 32.7% (128/392), RR 1.148 (95% CI=0.949–1.390), P=0.16] and per protocol analysis [44.5% (147/330) versus 39.1.% (128/327), RR 1.138 (95%CI = 0.950–1.364), P=0.16]. Both groups showed comparable clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy and cumulative live birth rates. ConclusionThe live birth rates of the first frozen embryo transfer following the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation and the antagonist protocol were comparable in women with an anticipated high ovarian response.

Stimulation protocols for Severe Endometriosis- is there any difference?

Endometriosis, being an estrogen-dependent condition, can lead to subfertility in women. Those facing difficulty achieving pregnancy goals may need assistance from assisted reproductive technology (ART). Due to the challenges posed by endometriosis in natural conception, assisted reproductive technologies like IVF and ICSI. Objective of the study: This study aimed to compare ART outcomes in women with endometriosis following the three distinct groups of protocols undergoing various treatment modalities, namely the progestin-primed ovarian Stimulation protocol, GnRH agonist long protocol, and Combined Oral Contraceptives (OCPs). This investigation aims to enhance our understanding of how different stimulation protocols may influence ART outcomes Methodology: This is a cross-sectional study between March 2019 to March 2023. The study collected data from 126 infertile women diagnosed with endometriosis, who were undergoing their first intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycle at MHRT Hospital and Research Center, Hyderabad, Telangana India. Patients in each group were classified into three Protocols ie-GnRH agonist Long Protocol, Progestins primed Ovarian Stimulation, and Combined Oral Contraceptives. The outcomes of the ICSI program were evaluated Result: The findings from our study suggest that women with endometriosis undergoing ICSI experience improved reproductive outcomes when subjected to prolonged downregulation with GnRH agonist long protocol, Progestin primed Ovarian Stimulation and Combined Oral Contraceptives before initiating ovarian stimulation. Notably, the clinical pregnancy rate is notably higher at GnRH agonist long Protocol 57.5% compared to the alternative protocols: PPOS at 34.2 % and Combined Oral Contraceptives at 40.54 %. The groups subjected to extended pituitary downregulation with GnRH agonists long protocol demonstrated superior clinical pregnancy and live birth rates compared to those following the PPOS and Combined Oral Contraceptives. Our segmented IVF approach, including FET cycles, revealed a higher live birth rate in the GnRH agonist protocol compared to the PPOS and Combined Oral Contraceptives. Conclusion: This study demonstrates that GnRH agonists' long protocol demonstrated superior clinical pregnancy and live birth rates compared to those following the PPOS and Combined Oral Contraceptives. Better clinical outcomes were observed in the GnRH agonist long protocol group when compared to the PPOS and Combined Oral Contraceptive group.

Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation with letrozole using different doses of medroxyprogesterone acetate per day: a retrospective cohort study.

In the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol, the oral administration of medroxyprogesterone acetate has been observed to effectively inhibit the LH surge during ovarian stimulation in patients experiencing infertility. Nevertheless, the use of utilizing medroxyprogesterone acetate during ovarian stimulation can result in more pronounced pituitary suppression, potentially necessitating increased doses of gonadotropins and extended treatment durations. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the optimal dose of medroxyprogesterone acetate, aiming to use relatively lower concentrations of medroxyprogesterone acetate to effectively and safely suppress early LH surges. This retrospective cohort study included 710 patients who underwent cycles of in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection and were subjected the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol utilizing letrozole between from 1st January 2021 to 31st December 2021. The study population was divided into low, medium, and high concentration groups based on the daily dosage of medroxyprogesterone acetate.The primary focus of this investigation was on the cumulative live birth rate. Secondary outcomes encompassed the occurrence of a premature surge in luteinizing hormone, the quantity of retrieved oocytes, viable embryos, and high-quality embryos, as well as clinical pregnancy rate, abortion rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, and multiple pregnancy rate. In this study, significant differences were observed among three groups in various parameters including body mass index, baseline levels of Anti-Müllerian hormone and luteinizing hormone, antral follicle count, total dose of gonadotropin, and duration of gonadotropin administration (p<0.05). The number of oocytes and viable embryos were significantly higher in medium group and higher than those in the low dose group. Following adjustments for confounding factors related to medroxyprogesterone acetate for various outcome measures, we conducted multiple regression analysis to investigate the independent effects of daily medroxyprogesterone acetate dosage within the combined progestin-primed ovarian stimulation and letrozole protocol. Following multivariable regression analysis, no disparities were found in embryo characteristics (number of oocytes retrieved, number of available embryos, number of high-quality embryos) or pregnancy outcomes (clinical pregnancy rate, cumulative live birth rate) among the three groups. Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation with letrozole using different dose of medroxyprogesterone acetate per day was comparable in terms of the number of oocytes retrieved, the number of high-quality embryos, clinical pregnancy rate and cumulative live birth rate after frozen embryo transfer.

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.

Non-inferiority of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus GnRH antagonist protocol: A propensity score-weighted analysis

PurposeTo evaluate the effectiveness of the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol versus the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol in ovarian stimulation. MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, we included 804 patients who were treated between January 1st, 2022, and July 1st, 2023. Outcomes of ovarian stimulation were compared between the PPOS (n = 206) and GnRH-ant (n = 598). The primary outcome was the number of good cleavage embryos. ResultsBaseline characteristics were comparable in both groups. In both unadjusted and adjusted analysis, the mean number of good cleavage embryos in PPOS (6.33) was non-inferior to GnRH-ant (6.44; unadjusted ratio of two means 1.02, 95%CI 0.92, 1.13). The trigger-day estradiol level in patients with PPOS was higher than in patients with GnRH-ant (4,420 vs 3,830 pg/ml, respectively) despite similar total follicle stimulating hormone dose and fewer days of ovarian stimulation. The number of oocytes, MII oocytes, cleavage and blastocyst embryos were comparable between the two protocols. After the first transfer of embryos, the clinical pregnancy rate and implantation rate were higher in the PPOS group, while the pregnancy rate and ongoing pregnancy were not significantly different. None of the PPOS patients had an unexpected LH surge, and serum LH levels decreased slightly during ovarian stimulation. ConclusionsThe PPOS protocol with dydrogesterone provided similar embryo outcomes to the GnRH-ant protocol, with notable distinctions in clinical pregnancy and implantation rate. The serum LH concentration during ovarian stimulation using PPOS was well-controlled.

#345 : Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol Slightly Improves the IVF Funnel in Patients with Poor Ovarian Response

Background and Aims: Controlled Ovarian Stimulation (COS) is a crucial first step in the In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) or Intra-Cytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) process. Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) has been recently introduced as an alternative to traditional COS regimens. However, the efficacy of PPOS regimen among infertile women with poor ovarian response (POR) remains unclear. This study aims to evaluate the effect of PPOS regimen on the chance of success throughout the IVF process in Vietnamese infertile women with POR. Method: This randomized controlled trial included 120 infertile women with POR (according to POSEIDON criteria) who received IVF at Tam Anh Fertility Center (Hanoi, Vietnam). PPOS and GnRH_ant regimens were randomly applied to the participants (n=60 for each group). A chain of 4 successive Binomial regression models has been applied to estimate the chance of success for 4 steps: oocyte maturation, fertilization and achieving good quality day-3 and day-5 embryos. The effect of PPOS in comparison with GnRH_ant protocol was evaluated by marginal risk-ratio (RR) from each model. Results: Chances of successfully achieving the MII oocytes, fertilization, high-quality D3 and D5 embryos were all moderately higher when using the PPOS regimen, compared with those of GnRH_ant protocol (95% confidence intervals of RR were respectively 0.88–1.07, 0.89–1.14, 0.96–1.14 and 0.74–1.73). Conclusion: Although not yet reached a statistical significance, those results indicated that using PPOS protocol may slightly improve the chance of success in 4 first critical steps of the IVF process for infertile women with POR.

Progestin primed ovarian stimulation using dydrogesterone from day 7 of the cycle onwards in oocyte donation cycles: a longitudinal study

Does a progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol with dydrogesterone from cycle day 7 yield similar outcomes compared with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol in the same oocyte donors? This retrospective longitudinal study included 128 cycles from 64 oocyte donors. All oocyte donors had the same type of gonadotrophin and daily dose in both stimulation cycles. The primary outcome was the number of cumulus-oocyte complexes (COC) retrieved. The number of COC retrieved (mean ± SD 19.7 ± 10.8 versus 19.2 ± 8.3; P = 0.5) and the number of metaphase II oocytes (15.5 ± 8.4 versus 16.2 ± 7.0; P = 0.19) were similar for the PPOS and GnRH antagonist protocols, respectively. The duration of stimulation (10.5 ± 1.5 days versus 10.8 ± 1.5 days; P = 0.14) and consumption of gonadotrophins (2271.9 ± 429.7 IU versus 2321.5 ± 403.4 IU; P = 0.2) were also comparable, without any cases of premature ovulation. Nevertheless, there was a significant difference in the total cost of medication per cycle: €898.3 ± 169.9 for the PPOS protocol versus €1196.4 ± 207.5 (P < 0.001) for the GnRH antagonist protocol. The number of oocytes retrieved and number of metaphase II oocytes were comparable in both stimulation protocols, with the advantage of significant cost reduction in favour of the PPOS protocol compared with the GnRH antagonist protocol. No cases of premature ovulation were observed, even when progestin was started later in the stimulation.

Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation versus GnRH Antagonist Protocol for Ovarian Stimulation in IVF: A Prospective Pilot Study

Background: Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) has been proposed as an alternative to conventional gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol for ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilization (IVF). The aim of PPOS is to provide an effective, patient-friendly treatment. However, studies comparing outcomes after the use of PPOS and GnRH antagonist protocol in IVF have shown mixed results. This study compared ongoing pregnancy rates after the use of PPOS versus GnRH antagonist protocol for ovarian stimulation in IVF. Methods: This prospective pilot study was conducted at a single IVF center. Women aged 18–35 years old with an anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level greater than or equal to 1.2[Formula: see text]ng/mL or an antral follicle count (AFC) greater than or equal to 5 who were undergoing their first IVF cycle were allocated to undergoing ovarian stimulation using PPOS (dydrogesterone 20[Formula: see text]mg/day started on the day of gonadotropin) or a GnRH antagonist protocol (fixed regimen from stimulation day 5). The primary outcome was the ongoing pregnancy rate (at 12 weeks’ gestation). Results: The study included 30 women (15 in each treatment group). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. The ongoing pregnancy rate was 7/15 (46.7%) in the PPOS group and 8/15 (53.3%) in the GnRH antagonist group ([Formula: see text]); the number of oocytes retrieved and fertilization rates were also comparable between groups. One case of mild ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) occurred in the GnRH antagonist group. Conclusions: This pilot study showed similar ongoing pregnancy rates after the use of a PPOS protocol and a conventional GnRH antagonist protocol for ovarian stimulation in IVF. Additional studies with larger sample sizes are needed to confirm these findings.

Comparison of In Vitro Fertilization Outcomes between Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol and Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Antagonist Protocol

Comparison of In Vitro Fertilization Outcomes between Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol and Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Antagonist Protocol

Efficacy of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation in women with polycystic ovary syndrome undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

NPLASY (202340059). https://inplasy.com/inplasy-2023-4-0059/.

Comparison of Cumulative Live Birth Rates between Flexible and Conventional Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol in Poor Ovarian Response Patients According to POSEIDON Criteria: A Cohort Study.

To compare the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) per oocyte retrieval cycle of a conventional progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (cPPOS) regimen with a flexible progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (fPPOS) regimen in poor ovarian response patients, according to POSEIDON criteria. Poor ovarian response women, according to POSEIDON criteria, who underwent the first PPOS protocol for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) between January 2018 and December 2020 were included. The fPPOS group involved 113 participants, and the cPPOS group included 1119 participants. In the cPPOS group, medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) (10 mg/d) was administrated on the gonadotropin injection the same day as gonadotropin injections in the cPPOS group, while MPA was started either on the day when the leading follicle with mean diameter > 12mm was present and/or serum E2 was >300 pg/mL in the fPPOS protocol group. The primary outcome was CLBR. The fPPOS protocol had higher CLBR per oocyte retrieval cycle compared to the cPPOS group, even without a statistically significant difference (29.6% vs. 24.9%, p = 0.365). The fPPOS group had fewer numbers of retrieved oocytes (2.87 ± 2.03 vs. 3.76 ± 2.32, p < 0.001) but a higher MII oocyte rate (89.8% vs. 84.7%, p = 0.016). In addition, the number of available embryos in the two groups was comparable (1.37 ± 1.24 vs. 1.63 ± 1.38, p = 0.095). There were five women in the fPPOS group, and 86 women in the cPPOS group had a premature LH surge (4.2% vs. 6.8%, p = 0.261). In the fPPOS group, there was one instance of premature ovulation, while in the cPPOS group, there were six occurrences of premature ovulation (0.8 vs. 0.5%, p = 1.000). The novel fPPOS protocol appears to achieve higher CLBR even without significant differences and with MPA consumption compared with cPPOS protocol in low-prognosis patients.

Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus GnRH antagonist protocol in ICSI cycles in patients with different ovarian reserve: A retrospective cohort study

Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus GnRH antagonist protocol in ICSI cycles in patients with different ovarian reserve: A retrospective cohort study

Analysis of cumulative live birth rate outcomes of three ovarian stimulation protocols in patients after laparoscopic cystectomy of ovarial endometrioma: a retrospective cohort study

BackgroundPrevious studies have reported that after laparoscopic cystectomy of ovarial endometrioma, the ovarian response to gonadotropin (Gn) significantly decreased. However, for patients with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) after ovarian surgery, how to choose the most appropriate controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocol has not been concluded. Compared with the traditional agonist regimen, the gonadotropin (Gn)-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, microstimulation, and progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocols are simple to operate and have a shorter cycle, which are often used in patients with DOR. So the purpose of our study is to compare the assisted reproductive outcomes of these three controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocols in patients with DOR following laparoscopic cystectomy of ovarial endometrioma.MethodsIn this retrospective cohort study, 89 patients with DOR who had undergone in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection at the Department of Reproductive Medicine at the Third Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University from 1 to 2018 to 31 December 2020 were included. According to the controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocols employed, the patients were divided into GnRH antagonist (38 patients), PPOS (27 patients), and microstimulation (24 patients) groups. The basic data and clinical outcomes of the three groups were compared. The main outcome measure was the cumulative live birth rate.ResultsNo significant differences in the age of the female patients and their spouses and female patients’ body mass index and basal endocrine levels (follicle-stimulating hormone and oestradiol) were noted among the three groups (P > 0.05). The GnRH antagonist group had higher antral follicle counts, greater endometrial thickness on the human chorionic Gn injection day, greater number of oocytes retrieved, and higher two pronuclear embryo counts than did the other two groups. However, the starting dosage of Gn was lower in the GnRH antagonist group than in the other two groups. The microstimulation group had a significantly higher oocyte output rate and high-quality embryo rate than did the other two groups (P < 0.05). No significant differences in the total dosage of Gn, cumulative pregnancy rate, cumulative live birth rate, viable embryo rate, and blastocyst formation rate were observed among the three groups (P > 0.05).ConclusionIn conclusion, for patients aged under 40 years who experienced DOR after laparoscopic cystectomy of ovarial endometrioma, GnRH antagonist protocol and PPOS protocol can obtain better ovulation induction outcomes and cumulative live birth rate than microstimulation protocol, and are more suitable ovulation induction protocols.

The clinical value of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol for women with diminished ovarian reserve undergoing IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

To determine whether progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is more effective for women with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) than clomiphene citrate (CC)/letrozole (LE) plus gonadotropin in IVF or ICSI treatment. Nine databases were searched until May 24, 2023, to identify relevant studies. Forest plots were used to present the results of this meta-analysis. Begg's and Egger's tests were applied to estimate publication bias. Subgroup and sensitivity analysis were performed to check the potential sources of heterogeneity and verify the robustness of the pooled results, respectively. A total of 14 studies with 4182 participants were included for meta-analysis. There was evidence of a statistically notable increase in clinical pregnancy rate (OR = 1.39, 95%CI [1.01, 1.91], p = 0.05), optimal embryos rate (OR = 1.50, 95%CI [1.20, 1.88], p = 0.0004), and cumulative pregnancy rate (OR = 1.73, 95%CI [1.14, 2.60], p = 0.009), the duration and the amount of gonadotropin required (MD = 1.56, 95%CI [0.47, 2.66], p = 0.005; SMD = 1.51, 95%CI [0.90, 2.12], p < 0.00001), along with decrease cycle cancellation rate (OR = 0.78, 95%CI [0.64, 0.95], p = 0.02), luteinizing hormone (LH) level on the day of hCG (SMD = -0.81, 95%CI [-1.10, -0.53], p < 0.00001), and premature LH surge rate (OR = 0.10, 95%CI [0.07, 0.15], p < 0.00001) when PPOS was used. No evidence for publication bias within results was revealed. Based on evidence-based results, PPOS protocol seems to improve IVF/ICSI outcomes for women with DOR. More research with larger sample sizes and rigorous designs are required to further explore the value of PPOS among women diagnosed with DOR. www.crd.york.ac.uk, identifier CRD42023430202.

Progestin Primed Ovarian Stimulation (PPOS) protocol yields lower euploidy rate in older patients undergoing IVF

BackgroundTo explore if exogenous progestin required for progestin primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol compromises the euploidy rate of patients who underwent preimplantation genetic testing cycles when compared to those who received the conventional gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol.MethodsThis retrospective cohort study analyzed 128 preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) cycles performed from January 2018 to December 2021 in a single university hospital-affiliated fertility center. Infertile women aged 27 to 45 years old requiring PGT-A underwent either PPOS protocol or GnRH-antagonist protocol with in-vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for fertilization. Frozen embryo transfers were performed following each PGT-A cycle. Data regarding the two groups were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL).ResultsPatients who underwent PPOS treatment had significantly reduced blastocyst formation rate and euploidy rate compared to those who received the GnRH antagonist protocol. Subgroup-analysis was performed by stratifying patients’ age into elder and young subgroups (elder: ≥ 38-year-old, young: < 38-year-old). In the elder sub-population, the blastocyst formation rate of the PPOS group was significantly lower than that of the GnRH-antagonist group (45.8 ± 6.1% vs. 59.9 ± 3.8%, p = 0.036). Moreover, the euploidy rate of the PPOS group was only about 20% of that of the GnRH-antagonist group (5.4% and 26.7%, p = 0.006). In contrast, no significant differences in blastocyst formation rate (63.5 ± 5.7% vs. 67.1 ± 3.2%, p = 0.45) or euploidy rate (30.1% vs. 38.5%, p = 0.221) were observed in the young sub-population. Secondary outcomes, which included implantation rate, biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, live birth rate, and miscarriage rate, were comparable between the two treatment groups, regardless of age.ConclusionWhen compared to the conventional GnRH-antagonist approach, PPOS protocol could potentially reduce the euploidy rate in aging IVF patients. However, due to the retrospective nature of this study, the results are to be interpreted with caution. Before the PPOS protocol is widely implemented, further studies exploring its efficacy in larger populations are needed to define the optimal patient selection suitable for this method.Trial registrationHuman Investigation and Ethical Committee of Chang Gung Medical Foundation (202200194B0).

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 12.5h 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 4-6h 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.

P-205 comparison of GnRH antagonist protocol versus progestin-primed protocol in high ovarian responders: a propensity score-matched study

Abstract Study question To compare the clinical outcomes and cost-efficiency between gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist and progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol in high ovarian responders. Summary answer Comparing with PPOS protocol, GnRH antagonist protocol was associated with shorter time to live birth, higher OHSS rate and less cost in high responders. What is known already For high ovarian responders prone to develop ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), the best option should be the GnRH antagonist, as it has been shown to significantly reduce the incidence of OHSS. By applying ovarian stimulation using the combination of antagonist with agonist trigger and embryos freezing, OHSS can be erased. PPOS protocol in combination with a freeze-all strategy has proved to be a valid alternative to the conventional stimulation protocols. Recent studies showed that comparing with antagonist protocol, a lower cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) was associated with PPOS in general population, with no data available in high responders. Study design, size, duration This was a propensity score-matched retrospective cohort study. From Jan. 2016 to Jan. 2023, 5810 patients with AMH &amp;gt; 3.67ng/ml undergoing IVF treatment with antagonist or PPOS protocol at the Sixth Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University were screened. Participants/materials, setting, methods Two-to-one propensity score matching was performed with a caliper of 0.2. After matching, 540 patients in GnRH antagonist group and 270 patients in PPOS group were included. Generalized estimated equation regression was applied to evaluate the impact of independent variables on the CLBR. Main results and the role of chance No significant difference in baseline characteristics was found in two groups. The OHSS (moderate to severe) rate was significantly higher in the GnRH antagonist group than in the PPOS group (7% vs. 3%). The clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate per transfer were comparable between the two groups. After excluding patients who didn't achieve live birth but had surplus embryos, the CLBR was comparable between the antagonist and PPOS group (67.4% vs. 61.0%; Risk ratio = 1.106; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.973-1.256, P = 0.109), and the generalized estimated equation regression analysis also showed that protocol selection had no significant impact on CLBR. The average time to live birth (TTLB) in the antagonist group was significantly shorter than the PPOS group (11.45 months vs. 12.13 months, P &amp;lt; 0.05). Besides, the average cost in the antagonist group was about $4933, while it was about $5465 in the PPOS group. Limitations, reasons for caution Although we recruited a large sample size and the sophisticate statistical analysis method, this was a retrospective study with an intrinsic limitation, besides more patients in the PPOS group had surplus embryos than in the antagonist group (24.1% vs. 19.8%). Further prospective RCTs are required to confirm our findings. Wider implications of the findings For infertile patients with high ovarian reserve, the clinical outcomes were comparable between GnRH antagonist and PPOS group. The antagonist group was associated with a shorter TTLB and more cost-effective, while the PPOS was associated with a lower OHSS rate. Trial registration number Not Applicable

P-611 Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation is a non-inferior alternative to the GnRH Antagonist Protocol in patients undergoing ovarian stimulation: a propensity score weighting analysis

Abstract Study question To evaluate the effectiveness of the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol versus the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol in ovarian stimulation. Summary answer The PPOS protocol with dydrogesterone provided similar embryo outcomes to the GnRH-ant protocol. The serum LH concentration during ovarian stimulation using PPOS was well-controlled. What is known already Since Yanping Kuang's proposal PPOS in 2015, several studies on the effectiveness of this treatment regimen have been published. Although it has been suggested that outcomes of the PPOS regimen were comparable to those of GnRH-ant regimen, the findings were limited due to differences in study design, patient characteristics, dosage and type of progestins. While medroxyprogesterone acetate is often used in PPOS studies, dydrogesterone has seen far less popularity. Additionally, dydrogesterone is a relatively weak LH inhibitor compared to MPA, leading to concern about the increased incidence of unexpected LH surge Study design, size, duration We conducted a retrospective study among women who underwent In Vitro Fertilization at the Assisted Reproduction Center, Tam Anh General Hospital, Vietnam from January 1st, 2022 to October 10th, 2022. Participants/materials, setting, methods We included 804 patients who underwent ovarian stimulation, among which 208 used the PPOS protocol with dydrogesterone (30 mg dydrogesteron per day from the beginning of stimulation until the trigger-day) and 598 women used the GnRH-ant protocol (cetrorelix 0.25 daily, from day 6 of ovarian stimulation until the trigger-day). In addition to unadjusted analysis, we used propensity score weighting to account for confounding that might possibly remain. Main results and the role of chance Baseline characteristics were comparable in both groups. In both unadjusted and adjusted analysis, the mean number of good cleavage embryos in PPOS (6.33) was non-inferior to GnRH-ant (6.44; unadjusted ratio of two means 1.02, 95%CI 0.92, 1.13). The trigger-day estradiol level in patients with PPOS was higher (4,420 vs 3,830 pmol/L in GnRH-ant) despite similar total follicle stimulating hormone dose and fewer days of ovarian stimulation. The overall number of oocytes retrieved, the number of MII oocytes, the number of cleavage embryos, the number of blastocysts, and the number of good blastocysts were comparable between the two protocols. None of the PPOS patients had an unexpected LH surge, and serum LH levels decreased slightly during ovarian stimulation. Limitations, reasons for caution Due to the nature of the retrospective study design, we did not record the progesterone level on the trigger-day in the PPOS regimen; therefore, identifying LH surge based on LH and progesterone levels is not feasible. Furthermore, we did not study the outcomes of embryo transfer. Wider implications of the findings These results supported the use of PPOS with dydrogesterone as a cheap and effective alternative for clinicians in clinical practice. In patients with an indication for freeze-all embryo, the PPOS protocol could be recommended. Trial registration number Not Applicable

P-630 Comparison of follitropin delta versus follitropin alfa in progestin-primed ovarian stimulation in IVF

Abstract Study question Is there a difference in a clinical outcome between using follitropin delta and follitropin alfa undergoing a progestin primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol? Summary answer There was no difference between follitropin delta and follitropin alfa in terms of pregnancy rates. What is known already Follitropin delta (REKOVELLE, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Switzerland) is the first recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) using the algorithm-based individualized dosing regimen while reducing the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) as compared with conventional dosing strategies. The efficacy and safety of follitropin delta has been demonstrated in randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Study design, size, duration We performed a retrospective analysis of 645 patients who underwent ovarian stimulation by a PPOS protocol using follitropin delta or follitropin alfa between April 2022 and August 2022. (325 patients using follitropin delta and 320 patients using follitropin alfa, respectively.) Participants/materials, setting, methods 325 cycles of women who used follitropin delta were compared to 320 cycles of women who used follitropin alfa. The following outcomes were analysed; fertilized rate, 2 pronuclear embryo rate, good quality embryo rate, blastocyst rate, good quality blastocyst rate. A total of 499 women who underwent embryo transfer in cryo cycles using natural cycle or hormone replacement cycle were analysed about biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate. Main results and the role of chance Baseline demographics for 325 women in follitropin delta group and 320 women in follitropin alfa were: age, 35.1±4.3 years and 35.2±4.3 years; number of previous IVF cycles, 1.6±1.6 and 1.7±1.7, respectively. The laboratory data were: fertilization rate, 81.4% and 80.1%, 2 pronuclear embryo rate, 73.9% and 71.5%, good quality cleavage stage embryo rate, 59.4% and 55.9%, blastocyst rate, 58.9% and 55.7%, good quality blastocyst rate, 41.3% and 38.7%, respectively. Only good quality cleavage stage embryo rate and good quality blastocyst rate were significantly higher (P &amp;lt; 0.05) in follitropin delta group. A vitrified-warmed embryo transfer was performed for 257/325 women (79.1%) and 242/320 women (75.6%) and subsequent positive β-human chorionic gonadotropin (βhCG) reported for 218/621 cycles (35.1%) and 194/570 cycles (34.0%), respectively. Ongoing pregnancy rate after embryo transfer were 19.2% (n = 119) and 19.6% (n = 112) and cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate were both 46.3%. Mild OHSS was reported for 131 women (40.3%) and 170 women (53.1%), respectively (P = 0.07). Limitations, reasons for caution This is a non-controlled, retrospective study. Wider implications of the findings The present study shows that in addition to reducing the OHSS risk, follitropin delta in its individualised fixed-dose regimen has the potential to improve the quality of embryos although there was no significant difference in clinical outcomes. Trial registration number not applicable