Flexible GnRH Antagonist Protocol versus Progestin-primed Ovarian Stimulation (PPOS) Protocol in Patients with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: Comparison of Clinical Outcomes and Ovarian Response

Abstract

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is one of the most common causes of infertility in women. Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol, which used oral progestin to prevent premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges in ovarian stimulation, has been proved to be effective and safe in patients with PCOS. The aim of the present study was to compare the efficacy of PPOS protocol with that of the traditional gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol in patients with PCOS. A total of 157 patients undergoing in-vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) were recruited into this study. The patients were divided into two groups by the stimulation protocols: the GnRH antagonist protocol group and the PPOS protocol group. There was no significant difference in the clinical characteristics between the two groups. Dose and duration of gonadotropin were higher in the PPOS protocol group. Estradiol levels on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration were significantly lower in the PPOS protocol group. Fertilization rates and the number of good quality embryos were similar between the two groups. Remarkably, we found 6 patients with moderate ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in the GnRH antagonist protocol group but 0 in the PPOS protocol group. A total of 127 women completed their frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles. There were no significant differences between the two groups in terms of clinical pregnancy rate per transfer, implantation rate, first-trimester miscarriage rate and on-going pregnancy rate per transfer. To conclude, PPOS protocol decreased the incidence of OHSS without adversely affecting clinical outcomes in patients with PCOS.

Keywords

polycystic ovary syndrome / ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome / progestin-primed ovarian stimulation / GnRH antagonist protocol / controlled ovarian hyperstimulation

References

[1] Thessaloniki, Eshre Asrm-Sponsored Pcos Consensus Workshop Group.. Consensus on infertility treatment related to polycystic ovary syndrome. Hum Reprod, 2008, 23: 462-477

[2] BoyleJA, CunninghamJ, O’DeaK, et al.. Prevalence of polycystic ovary syndrome in a sample of Indigenous women in Darwin, Australia. Med J Aust, 2012, 196(1): 62-66

[3] MaY, LiR, QiaoJ, et al.. Characteristics of abnormal menstrual cycle and polycystic ovary syndrome in community and hospital populations. Chin Med J, 2010, 123(16): 2185-2189

[4] Rotterdam ESHRE/ASRM-Sponsored PCOS consensus workshop group.. Revised 2003 consensus on diagnostic criteria and long-term health risks related to polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Hum Reprod, 2004, 19(1): 41-47

[5] BalenAH, MorleyLC, MissoM, et al.. The management of anovulatory infertility in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: an analysis of the evidence to support the development of global WHO guidance. Hum Reprod Update, 2016, 22(6): 687-708

[6] KuangY, ChenQ, FuY, et al.. Medroxyprogesterone acetate is an effective oral alternative for preventing premature luteinizing hormone surges in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril, 2015, 104(1): 62-70.e3

[7] CrhaI, VentrubaP, FilipinskáE, et al.. Medroxy-progesteron acetate use to block LH surge in oocyte donor stimulation. Ceska Gynekol, 2018, 83(1): 11-16

[8] KuangY, HongQ, ChenQ, et al.. Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation is feasible for producing competent oocytes in women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment, with optimal pregnancy outcomes in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril, 2014, 101(1): 105-111

[9] WangY, ChenQ, WangN, et al.. Controlled Ovarian Stimulation Using Medroxyprogesterone Acetate and hMG in Patients With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome Treated for IVF: A Double-Blind Randomized Crossover Clinical Trial. Medicine (Baltimore), 2016, 95(9): e2939

[10] Alpha Scientists in Reproductive MedicineESHRE Special Interest Group of Embryology.. The Istanbul consensus workshop on embryo assessment: proceedings of an expert meeting. Hum Reprod, 2011, 26(6): 1270-1283

[11] SchmidtDW, MaierDB, NulsenJC, et al.. Reducing the dose of human chorionic gonadotropin in high responders does not affect the outcomes of in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril, 2004, 82(4): 841-846

[12] XiaoZ, ZhouX, XuW, et al.. Natural cycle is superior to hormone replacement therapy cycle for vitrificated-preserved frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Syst Biol Reprod Med, 2012, 58(2): 107-112

[13] MouradS, BrownJ, FarquharC. Interventions for the prevention of OHSS in ART cycles: an overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2017, 23(1): CD012103

[14] ToftagerM, SylvestR, SchmidtL, et al.. Quality of life and psychosocial and physical well-being among 1,023 women during their first assisted reproductive technology treatment: secondary outcome to a randomized controlled trial comparing gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist and GnRH agonist protocols. Fertil Steril, 2018, 109(1): 154-164

[15] YuS, LongH C H, et al.. New application of dydrogesterone as a part of a progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol for IVF: a randomized controlled trial including 516 first IVF/ICSI cycles. Hum Reprod, 2018, 33(2): 229-237

[16] WangN, LinJ, ZhuQ, et al.. Comparison of neonatal outcomes and live-birth defects after progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: A large retrospective cohort study. Medicine (Baltimore), 2018, 97(34): e11906

[17] ZhuX, YeH, FuY. Use of Utrogestan during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in normally ovulating women undergoing in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatments in combination with a “freeze all” strategy: a randomized controlled dose-finding study of 100 mg versus 200 mg. Fertil Steril, 2017, 107(2): 379-386.e4

[18] ChenQ, WangY, SunL, et al.. Controlled ovulation of the dominant follicle using progestin in minimal stimulation in poor responders. Reprod Biol Endocrinol, 2017, 15(1): 71

[19] YucelO, EkinM, CengizH, et al.. Comparison of estradiol and progesterone priming/antagonist/letrozole and microdose flare-up protocols for poor responders undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Gynecol Endocrinol, 2014, 30(9): 653-656

[20] RoqueM, ValleM, GuimarãesF, et al.. Freeze-all policy: fresh vs. frozen-thawed embryo transfer. Fertil Steril, 2015, 103(5): 1190-1193

[21] MengY, GuoY, QianY, et al.. Effects of GnRH antagonist on endometrial protein profiles in the window of implantation. Proteomics, 2014, 14(20): 2350-2359

[22] GriesingerG, VenetisCA, MarxT, et al.. Oral contraceptive pill pretreatment in ovarian stimulation with GnRH antagonists for IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril, 2008, 90(4): 1055-1063

[23] FatemiHM, DoodyK, GriesingerG, et al.. High ovarian response does not jeopardize ongoing pregnancy rates and increases cumulative pregnancy rates in a GnRH-antagonist protocol. Hum Reprod, 2013, 28(2): 442-452

[24] BoschE, LabartaE, PellicerA. Does cumulative live birth plateau beyond a certain ovarian response?. Fertil Steril, 2017, 108(6): 943