- Home
- Medical news & Guidelines
- Anesthesiology
- Cardiology and CTVS
- Critical Care
- Dentistry
- Dermatology
- Diabetes and Endocrinology
- ENT
- Gastroenterology
- Medicine
- Nephrology
- Neurology
- Obstretics-Gynaecology
- Oncology
- Ophthalmology
- Orthopaedics
- Pediatrics-Neonatology
- Psychiatry
- Pulmonology
- Radiology
- Surgery
- Urology
- Laboratory Medicine
- Diet
- Nursing
- Paramedical
- Physiotherapy
- Health news
- Fact Check
- Bone Health Fact Check
- Brain Health Fact Check
- Cancer Related Fact Check
- Child Care Fact Check
- Dental and oral health fact check
- Diabetes and metabolic health fact check
- Diet and Nutrition Fact Check
- Eye and ENT Care Fact Check
- Fitness fact check
- Gut health fact check
- Heart health fact check
- Kidney health fact check
- Medical education fact check
- Men's health fact check
- Respiratory fact check
- Skin and hair care fact check
- Vaccine and Immunization fact check
- Women's health fact check
- AYUSH
- State News
- Andaman and Nicobar Islands
- Andhra Pradesh
- Arunachal Pradesh
- Assam
- Bihar
- Chandigarh
- Chattisgarh
- Dadra and Nagar Haveli
- Daman and Diu
- Delhi
- Goa
- Gujarat
- Haryana
- Himachal Pradesh
- Jammu & Kashmir
- Jharkhand
- Karnataka
- Kerala
- Ladakh
- Lakshadweep
- Madhya Pradesh
- Maharashtra
- Manipur
- Meghalaya
- Mizoram
- Nagaland
- Odisha
- Puducherry
- Punjab
- Rajasthan
- Sikkim
- Tamil Nadu
- Telangana
- Tripura
- Uttar Pradesh
- Uttrakhand
- West Bengal
- Medical Education
- Industry
The progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol: more economical, but at what cost?
Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists and antagonists have been traditionally used in ovarian stimulation cycles to suppress luteinizing hormone surges and ovulation. In 2015, the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol was proposed as an alternative to cycles with GnRH analogues. This cycle type has several advantages for patients, including lower costs, fewer injections, and flexibility in trigger medication choice. Studies comparing GnRH antagonist and PPOS protocols show no difference in the number of oocytes and the pregnancy rate per transfer. In addition, live birth rates and ongoing pregnancy rates are similar; however, the quality of evidence is low.
Recently, Zhang et al. published a retrospective observational study that investigated cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) in patients with poor prognosis and a low body mass index undergoing ovarian stimulation with GnRH antagonist regimens vs. PPOS regimens. The investigators showed that in this subset of patients, GnRH antagonist protocols were superior. Patients in the PPOS group had significantly lower CLBRs per oocyte retrieval cycle (25.2% vs. 35.3%; P<.001). This effect was even greater in patients aged R35 years (4).>.001). This effect was even greater in patients aged ≥35 years.
As the long-term outcome data are currently very limited on the PPOS protocol, Chen et al. offered valuable insight into the utility of PPOS. This was a retrospective cohort study that compared infertility patients undergoing GnRH antagonist protocol ovarian stimulation with PPOS protocol ovarian stimulation. It is the first study to describe CLBR and time to live birth (TTLB) in the general population with infertility. This study demonstrated that GnRH antagonist protocols are superior to PPOS regimens. The number of oocytes obtained, number of oocytes fertilized, number of cleaving embryos, number of transferable embryos, total implantation rate, and pregnancy rate per transfer between the groups were comparable but the CLBRs were not. After one complete in vitro fertilization cycle and within 22 months of follow-up, those in the GnRH antagonist group had a CLBR of 36% vs. 32% in the PPOS group that was statistically significant.
Similarly, in the study by Zhang et al., CLBR outcomes were even more disparate in women with antral follicle counts of %5 and aged >35 years. Furthermore, TTLB was significantly longer in the PPOS group. However, the PPOS protocol requires a freeze-all cycle that may have contributed to this difference (5). Overall, this study illustrates that PPOS protocols, although perhaps more patient-friendly, do not offer the same results as GnRH antagonist cycles when it comes to CLBR.
The study by Chen et al. was the first study to investigate CLBR and TTLB in patients with infertility with a variety of diagnoses. The thorough analyses performed in this study show that despite both protocols resulting in similar numbers of oocytes and transferable embryos, GnRH antagonist protocols have improved CLBRs and shorter TTLB. Thus, previous studies have considered the protocols to have similar efficacy because they lacked the long-term follow-up performed by Chen et al. In addition, this study controlled for its retrospective nature by using propensity score matching to reduce the difference between the two groups. The propensity score matching reduces bias by accounting for confounding variables that may affect outcomes. After propensity score matching based on nine variables, the study groups were highly comparable and allowed for a direct comparison between the two protocols.
This study offers a detailed statistical analysis and investigation of CLBR and TTLB after PPOS but is also limited by its retrospective nature. In the future, a freeze-all randomized control study with a diverse population with infertility and a long-term follow-up should be conducted to improve understanding of the use of PPOS regimens for ovarian stimulation and the effect on CLBRs compared with GnRH antagonist protocols. This would allow for a better comparison of the two regimens by removing the variability of fresh and frozen transfers. In the meantime, this study illustrates that the PPOS protocol, although more patient-friendly and economical, may come at the cost of lower CLBRs and longer TTLB.
Source: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2022.08.847
MBBS, MD Obstetrics and Gynecology
Dr Nirali Kapoor has completed her MBBS from GMC Jamnagar and MD Obstetrics and Gynecology from AIIMS Rishikesh. She underwent training in trauma/emergency medicine non academic residency in AIIMS Delhi for an year after her MBBS. Post her MD, she has joined in a Multispeciality hospital in Amritsar. She is actively involved in cases concerning fetal medicine, infertility and minimal invasive procedures as well as research activities involved around the fields of interest.
Dr Kamal Kant Kohli-MBBS, DTCD- a chest specialist with more than 30 years of practice and a flair for writing clinical articles, Dr Kamal Kant Kohli joined Medical Dialogues as a Chief Editor of Medical News. Besides writing articles, as an editor, he proofreads and verifies all the medical content published on Medical Dialogues including those coming from journals, studies,medical conferences,guidelines etc. Email: drkohli@medicaldialogues.in. Contact no. 011-43720751