Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology is traditionally started in the early follicular phase. The essential rationale is to allow timely follicle growth and oocyte retrieval to ensure synchronization of the in-vitro cultured embryos with the receptive period of the endometrium in a fresh transfer cycle. In addition, conventional thought suggested that follicle recruitment happened only once, around menstruation. A deeper understanding of folliculogenesis, advances in cryobiology and an increasing proportion of freeze-all cycles provide a unique opportunity here. Experience from oncofertility patients as well as infertile women and oocyte donors who underwent ovarian stimulation in different phases of the menstrual cycle, dubbed 'random start' cycles, suggests that the number of oocytes collected and their reproductive potential do not depend on the time of starting ovarian stimulation, although the duration of stimulation and gonadotrophin consumption can vary slightly. It may be time to free both patients and clinics from the obsession with starting ovarian stimulation in the early follicular phase in planned freeze-all cycles. The flexibility provided by random start cycles is one aspect of individualizing treatment to patients' needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Progestins are capable of suppressing endogenous luteinizing hormone (LH) secretion from the pituitary; are less expensive than GnRH analogues. This systematic review summarizes the effectiveness of progestins as compared with GnRH analogues and identifies some of the future research perspectives. Several public resources were screened with a combination of keywords related to assisted reproductive technology, progesterone, GnRH analogue and ovarian stimulation. Overall, duration of stimulation, gonadotropin consumption and oocyte yield were similar with progestins and GnRH analogues. The live birth, ongoing and clinical pregnancy rates per embryo transfer were similar with progestins and GnRH analogues. There is still a low quality of evidence. Available information is reassuring regarding obstetric and neonatal outcomes with the use of progestins. As a wider implication, progestins can present an effective option for women who do not contemplate a fresh embryo transfer, anticipated hyper responders, preimplantation genetic testing, oocyte donors, double stimulation cycles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies investigated whether progestins are as effective as gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues for pituitary suppression in assisted reproduction. The primary outcome was live birth rate per woman. Secondary outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy per woman and per embryo transfer, ongoing pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, numbers of oocytes and metaphase-two oocytes, duration of stimulation and gonadotrophin consumption. Adverse events included miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and multiple pregnancy rates. The GRADE system was used to assess the quality of evidence. Seven studies involving a total of 2047 women were included. Three studies compared a progestin with a GnRH antagonist and four studies compared a progestin with a GnRH agonist. Most studies are non-randomized and report outcomes per embryo transfer, rather than per woman. Although progestins were similar to GnRH antagonists in effectiveness and safety parameters, they were associated with significantly higher live birth or ongoing pregnancy per embryo transfer compared with the short GnRH agonist protocol (RR 1.49, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.91). Progestin primed stimulation lasted significantly longer (mean difference 0.61 days, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.89) and required significantly more gonadotrophins (mean difference 433.2 IU, 95% CI 311.11 to 555.19) than the short GnRH agonist protocol, but the differences were clinically negligible. Safety parameters were similar between progestins and GnRH agonists. In conclusion, progestins can effectively prevent premature ovulation in assisted reproductive technology cycles. If larger and well-designed studies confirm these findings, progestins may be an effective and low-cost alternative to GnRH analogues when a fresh embryo transfer is not planned owing to a medical indication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We performed a literature review of studies comparing the effectiveness of progestins in preventing premature ovulation during ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology (ART). Five randomized trials and cohort studies involving a total of 2404 women, which compared; i) two different progestins or ii) two different doses of the same progestin were included. The primary outcome was live birth rate (LBR) per woman. Secondary outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy (LB/OP) per woman and per embryo transfer (ET), ongoing pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, positive pregnancy test, numbers of oocytes and metaphase-two oocytes, duration of stimulation and gonadotropin consumption. The primary outcome was not reported in most studies however there were no differences between progestins for secondary outcomes. All progestins seem to effectively prevent premature ovulation in ART cycles. Low-quality evidence suggests that progestins can effectively prevent premature ovulation in ART cycles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We performed a literature review of studies comparing the effectiveness of progestins in preventing premature ovulation during ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology (ART). Five randomized trials and cohort studies involving a total of 2404 women, which compared; i) two different progestins or ii) two different doses of the same progestin were included. The primary outcome was live birth rate (LBR) per woman. Secondary outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy (LB/OP) per woman and per embryo transfer (ET), ongoing pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, positive pregnancy test, numbers of oocytes and metaphase-two oocytes, duration of stimulation and gonadotropin consumption. The primary outcome was not reported in most studies however there were no differences between progestins for secondary outcomes. All progestins seem to effectively prevent premature ovulation in ART cycles. Low-quality evidence suggests that progestins can effectively prevent premature ovulation in ART cycles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]