Abstract:A novel modified progestin primed ovarian stimulation (mPPOS) protocol (administrating medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) in the late follicular phase) has been described to adequately prevent premature ovulation and yield comparable number of retrieved and vitrified oocytes in oocyte donor cycle. The aim of the study was to test the hypothesis that a low-cost regimen of mPPOS is similarly effective or only slightly worse than GnRH-antagonist regimen in predicted poor ovarian responders. A prospective cohort study associated with a cost-effectiveness analysis. Infertile women with less than 10 antral follicles undergoing planned freeze-all cycles were recruited. Ovarian stimulation was started with 150-225IU of gonadotropin on the second day of cycle. Each eligible patient could choose whether to undergo either a single cycle of the mPPOS or GnRH antagonist regimen. MPA (10 mg) or GnRH antagonist (0.25 mg) (mPPOS group/GnRH antagonist group) was given daily when the leading follicle reached 14 mm and continued until the day of ovulation trigger. Viable embryos were cryopreserved for later frozen-thawed embryo transfer in both groups. Multiple linear regressions analysis was performed to search for a correlation between individual characteristics and the number of retrieved oocyte. Primary outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of premature LH surge, duration of stimulation, total gonadotropin use, embryological laboratory outcomes and direct medical costs. We included 53 eligble women who had stimulation cycle performed with either a mPPOS (n=26) or an antagonist (n=27). The number of oocytes retrieved and viable embryos were similar between two groups (5.0±4.0 vs 4.8±3.6; 2.9±2.7 vs 2.4±2.1; P>0.05). No significant differences were observed in the duration of stimulation and total gonadotropin consumption. No premature LH surge occurred in either group. Only female age (p = 0.001) was associated with the number of retrieved oocytes in the multiple regression model. In the cost-effectiveness analysis, the mPPOS protocol was strongly dominant over the antagonist protocol. Progestin used later is feasible and effective in ovarian stimulation for predicted poor ovarian responders without intent to fresh embryo transfer. Current GnRH antagonist and mPPOS protocols were associated with similar results but the economic analysis was in favor of latter one. There was no statistically significant difference might be due to the sampling size. Large randomised controlled trials are needed to further confirm.

Progestin Vs. Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Antagonist for the Prevention of Premature Luteinizing Hormone Surges in Poor Responders Undergoing in Vitro Fertilization Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist versus progestin for the prevention of premature luteinising hormone surges in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilisation treatment: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

[Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Antagonist Protocol in Patients with Risk of Poor Response to Ovarian Stimulation in IVF-ET].

Comparison of efficacy between progestin-primed ovarian stimulation and GnRH antagonist protocol in poor ovarian responders

Different progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocols in infertile women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: an analysis of 1188 cycles

Comparison of progesterone protocol versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in terms of preventing premature LH surge and assisted reproductive technology outcome in infertile women: a randomized controlled trial

Clinical study of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation during follicular phase in patients with poor ovarian response

A MODIFIED PROGESTIN PRIMED OVARIAN STIMULATION PROTOCOL FOR PREDICTED POOR RESPONDERS IN IVF/ICSI.

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

Clep_a_226414 261..272

Progestin Primed Mild Stimulation in Poor Responders

Comparison of the GnRH Agonist and Antagonist Protocol on the Same Patients in Assisted Reproduction During Controlled Ovarian Stimulation Cycles.

Reproductive outcomes in fresh transfer cycles and antagonists with premature luteinizing and/or progesterone surge: a single center retrospective cohort study

The effect of a transient premature luteinizing hormone surge without elevated serum progesterone on in vitro fertilization outcomes in a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist flexible protocol

Controlled Ovulation of the Dominant Follicle Using Progestin in Minimal Stimulation in Poor Responders.

Comparison Between PPOS and GnRHa-Long Protocol in Clinical Outcome with the First IVF/ICSI Cycle: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Progestin-primed Ovarian Stimulation with or Without Clomiphene Citrate Supplementation in Normal Ovulatory Women Undergoing in Vitro Fertilization/intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Trial.

Comparing blastocyst euploid rates between the progestin-primed and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist protocols in aneuploidy genetic testing: a randomised trial protocol

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol and antagonist protocol in patients with poor ovarian response: a meta-analysis

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

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