Impact of progestin ovarian stimulation on newborn outcomes: a meta-analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
To compare progestin ovarian stimulation protocols with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue (agonists and antagonists) protocols on newborn outcomes.Methods
The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and BioMed Central databases were searched for studies comparing progestin prime ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocols with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using a random effects model.Main outcome measures
Primary endpoint was the risk of newborn congenital malformations.Results
A total of 4 studies involving 9274 live-born infants were included. No important harm was observed with PPOS in terms of congenital malformations (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.63-1.34; p = 0.65) (very low quality of evidence (QOE)) and low birth weight (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.95-1.18; p = 0.29) (very low QOE) as compared with GnRH-a short protocols. In addition, a trend to a lower risk of preterm birth (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.80-1.02; p = 0.10) (very low QOE) was found among patients treated with a PPOS protocol.Conclusions
PPOS protocols, compared with GnRH-a protocols, are associated with a similar congenital malformation risk profile. Therefore, PPOS might represent a safe and appealing treatment option for infertile patients.
SUBMITTER: Zolfaroli I
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7244671 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeThe purpose of this study is to assess the safety of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol regarding the neonatal outcomes and congenital malformations in babies born after in vitro fertilization (IVF) and frozen embryo transfer (FET).MethodsIn this large retrospective cohort study, a total of 16,493 infants born between 1 September 2013 and 31 July 2021 from IVF and FET cycles after treatment with either PPOS (n = 15,245) or gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) (n = 1,248) were finally enrolled. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of congenital malformations. The secondary outcome measures were rates of low birth weight (LBW), very low birth weight (VLBW), preterm birth (PTB), very preterm birth (VPTB), and early neonatal death.ResultsBirth characteristics for both singletons and twins regarding the sex of infants, gestational age, birth weight, and birth length were comparable between the PPOS group and the GnRH-ant group. Rates of LBW, VLBW, PTB, VPTB, and early neonatal death were also similar. The reanalysis using propensity score matching (PSM) and multivariable logistic regression indicated that the PPOS protocol could not increase the risk of adverse neonatal outcomes compared with the GnRH-ant protocol. Furthermore, no significant difference was observed in the overall incidence of congenital malformations in live-born babies. After PSM and controlling for all confounders, the results remained insignificant with an adjusted odds ratio of 0.66 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.32-1.34] and 2.43 [95% CI 0.97-6.06], respectively, for singletons and twins.ConclusionsOur study suggests that compared with GnRH-ant treatment for IVF, the PPOS protocol could not produce a negative effect on the newborn population in terms of neonatal outcomes and congenital malformations.
| S-EPMC9681814 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesProgestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is a new ovarian stimulation protocol that can block the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge through progesterone instead of traditional down regulating or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, and in order to achieve multi-follicle recruitment. This paper aims to investigate the effectiveness of PPOS and its suitability for infertile patients with different ovarian reserve functions.MethodsWe searched published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) about PPOS on Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. The search period spanned from January 1, 2015 to November 16, 2020. The data were extracted, and the meta-analysis was performed on ovarian stimulation as well as embryological and clinical outcomes. The outcomes were pooled by a random effects model, and the risk of heterogeneity was evaluated. Subgroup analysis was performed for different ovarian reserve patients.ResultsThe clinical pregnancy rates and live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates with the PPOS protocol were not different from those with the control group. In the diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) subgroup, the PPOS protocol had a lower rate of premature LH surge [RR = 0.03, 95% CI = 0.01 to 0.13, p < 0.001]. The PPOS protocol had a lower rate of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) [RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.36 to 0.76, p < 0.001, I 2 = 0.00%]. The secondary outcomes showed that the number of oocytes retrieved, MII oocytes, and viable embryos was higher than that of the control protocol in DOR patients [(MD = 0.33, 95% CI = 0.30 to 0.36, p < 0.001), (MD = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.33, p < 0.001), (MD = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.18 to 0.24, p < 0.001)] and normal ovarian reserve (NOR) patients [(MD = 1.41, 95% CI = 0.03 to 2.78, p < 0.001), (MD = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.04 to 2.35, p < 0.001), (MD = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.21 to 1.81, p = 0.01)].ConclusionThe findings suggest that PPOS is an effective ovarian stimulation protocol and is beneficial for patients with different ovarian reserve functions, which needs to be validated in more RCTs with larger samples.
| S-EPMC8438422 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTo 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.MethodsNine 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsBased 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.Systematic review registrationwww.crd.york.ac.uk, identifier CRD42023430202.
| S-EPMC10476097 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A suggested explanation for the pituitary-suppressive effects of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation cycles (PPOS) is pituitary luteinizing hormone (LH) depletion with progestin exposure during the follicular phase. The GnRH agonist (GnRHa) trigger releases endogenous LH from the pituitary, and if the LH depletion theory is correct, the response to the agonist trigger would be dampened in PPOS cycles. In this study, we compared the performance of the GnRHa trigger after PPOS and GnRH antagonist ovarian stimulation cycles. All women who underwent ovarian stimulation with the GnRH antagonist or flexible PPOS (fPPOS) and received a GnRH agonist trigger were eligible for inclusion. Outcomes included number of metaphase-II (MII) oocytes retrieved per cycle, rates of empty follicle syndrome, maturation, fertilization, blastulation, and cumulative clinical pregnancy per stimulation cycle. During the screening period, there were 166 antagonists and 58 fPPOS cycles triggered with a GnRH agonist. Groups were matched for potential confounders using propensity score matching. Progestin-downregulated cycles had 19% high mature oocyte yield (median: 14 vs. 19 MII oocytes, P = 0.03). Cumulative ongoing pregnancy or live birth rates were estimated after matching for transferred embryo count, and rates were similar between GnRH antagonist and fPPOS group (57.0% vs. 62.1%, P = 0.68). However, the number of remaining blastocysts was higher in the fPPOS group (median: 5.0 vs. 6.0, P < 0.001). LH levels were higher in fPPOS cycles compared to GnRH antagonist cycles up to the trigger day (P < 0.001). After the GnRHa trigger, fPPOS cycles were associated with a steeper LH surge compared with antagonist cycles (P = 0.02). Higher endogenous gonadotropin levels through the stimulation period and an LH surge of higher magnitude following a GnRHa trigger suggest a milder pituitary suppression by fPPOS, which needs to be confirmed in larger samples. It appears that progestins do not deplete pituitary LH reserves and a GnRHa trigger is usable after PPOS in women with high ovarian reserve.
| S-EPMC9161281 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is a new ovarian stimulation regimen for in vitro fertilization (IVF), with the advantages of an oral administration route and more control over preovulatory luteinizing hormone (LH) levels. Assessing the safety of this novel regimen is an important premise for its routine practice.We conducted a large retrospective cohort study for infants born between August 2014 and April 2017 from IVF and embryo transfer cycles after either PPOS and the conventional gonadotropin-releasing hormone-agonist (GnRH-a) short protocol at our center. Around 1589 live-born infants were finally enrolled, corresponding to 1258 frozen-thawed (FET) cycles, which led to 855 live-born infants from PPOS (659 FET cycles) and 734 live-born infants from the short protocol (599 FET cycles).Birth characteristics regarding gestational age, birth weight and length, infant sex, and early neonatal death were comparable between the 2 groups. The incidence of live-birth defects in the PPOS group (1.52%) was similar to that in the short protocol group (1.63%) and was not statistically significant. For birth defects, the risk significantly increased for multiple births, and the adjusted odds ratio was 3.14 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.25-7.88). No associations were found between congenital birth defects and maternal age, body mass index (BMI), the duration of infertility, method of insemination, infant sex, embryo stage at transfer, the number of embryos transferred or ovarian stimulation regimen.Our study shows that the neonatal outcomes and risk of congenital malformations were similar between the PPOS and conventional GnRH-a short protocol. However, multiple pregnancy led to a higher likelihood of birth defects.
| S-EPMC6112954 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Previous studies have investigated the effects of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) and AMH type II receptor (AMHR2) polymorphisms on ovarian stimulation outcomes, but the results were inconsistent. METHODS:We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases for the literature used in this meta-analysis. The meta-analysis was performed with a random effects model with RevMan 5.3.5. Results were expressed as the relative risk (RR) for discrete data and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes with a 95% confidence interval (CI). RESULTS:Seven studies with 2078 participants were included. More metaphase II (MII) oocytes were retrieved in the T allele carrier of AMH (rs10407022) in the dominant model (MD: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.76 to 1.65, I2?=?0%, P?<?0.00001), homozygote model (MD: 1.68, 95% CI: 0.35 to 3.01, I2?=?70%, P?=?0.01) and heterogeneity model (MD: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.74 to 1.66, I2?=?0%, P?<?0.00001). Oocytes retrieved from the Asian region in the TT carrier were significantly lesser than those in the GG/GT carrier in AMH (rs10407022) (MD: -1.41, 95% CI: -?1.75 to -?1.07, I2?=?0%). Differences in the stimulation duration, gonadotropin (Gn) dosage, and pregnancy rate were insignificant. CONCLUSIONS:Our analysis indicated that the polymorphisms of AMH/AMHR2 could influence the ovarian stimulation outcomes. Prospective studies with a larger sample size and more rigorous design are needed in the future to further confirm these findings.
| S-EPMC7487641 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThis study aimed to evaluate the impact of luteal phase ovarian stimulation (LPS) on the outcomes of assisted reproductive technology (ART) for infertile couples and patients desiring non-urgent egg cryopreservation.MethodsWe included all studies reported patients who received LPS and that used follicular phase ovarian stimulation (FPS) as a comparison group until January 2021. Prior meta-analysis regarding the outcomes of LPS in double stimulation and fertility preservation have already been published, so these studies were excluded. Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies of Interventions was used to assess the study quality. The study was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database (CRD42020183946).ResultsTwelve studies with a total of 4433 patients were included. The regimen employed can be categorized into two groups, but there is currently no evidence to support one over the other. After we excluded the largest study, the clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate were similar after FPS and LPS. There were significantly more stimulation days and total gonadotropins used in the LPS group. After subgroup analysis, we found that poor responders received significantly more cumulus oocyte complexes (+0.64) in the LPS group.ConclusionCurrent evidence indicates that patients in the LPS group could achieve pregnancy outcomes non-inferior to those in the FPS group. Because of current debate over freeze-all policy and the limited data about live birth rate, the universal use of LPS is considered controversial. In the future, more well-designed studies are necessary to investigate the indications for LPS and its cost-effectiveness.
| S-EPMC8417163 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The ability of anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) to predict ovarian response has been studied extensively in gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist and antagonist treatments, but no information is available regarding its value in progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol. Methods: This retrospective data analysis included 523 patients without polycystic ovary syndrome who underwent their first in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle with PPOS protocol at our center between Jan. 2015 and Jul. 2018. Serum AMH measurements were acquired within 12 months prior to ovarian stimulation using the automated Access AMH assay. Results: AMH exhibited a significantly positive correlation with the number of retrieved oocytes (r = 0.744, P < 0.001). For the prediction of poor (<4 oocytes) and high (>15 oocytes) response, AMH had an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.861 and 0.773, corresponding with an optimal cutoff point of 1.26 and 4.34 ng/mL, respectively. When stratified according to the dose of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) (4 mg vs. 10 mg per day), AMH retained its similarly high predictive value for poor (AUC = 0.829 and 0.886, respectively) and high response (AUC = 0.770 and 0.814, respectively) in both groups. Amongst the 314 women who received their first frozen embryo transfer (FET) following PPOS protocol, no significant differences were observed on the rates of biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, implantation, early miscarriage, multiple pregnancy and ectopic pregnancy (all P > 0.05) across AMH quartiles (≤1.43, 1.44-2.55, 2.56-4.35, >4.35 ng/mL). In a multivariable logistic regression model, age was suggested to be the only independent risk factor for clinical pregnancy (P = 0.011). Conclusions: Our data demonstrated that AMH is an adequate predictor of both high and poor ovarian response in PPOS protocol regardless of MPA dose, but it does not associate with pregnancy outcomes in the first FET cycles in a freeze-all strategy.
| S-EPMC6547790 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Aims The association between progestin-only contraceptive (POC) use and the risk of various cardiometabolic outcomes has rarely been studied. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the impact of POC use on cardiometabolic outcomes including venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction, stroke, hypertension and diabetes. Methods and results Nineteen observational studies (seven cohort and 12 case-control) were included in this systematic review. Of those, nine studies reported the risk of venous thromboembolism, six reported the risk of myocardial infarction, six reported the risk of stroke, three reported the risk of hypertension and two studies reported the risk of developing diabetes with POC use. The pooled adjusted relative risks (RRs) for venous thromboembolism, myocardial infarction and stroke for oral POC users versus non-users based on the random effects model were 1.06 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-1.62), 0.98 (95% CI 0.66-1.47) and 1.02 (95% CI 0.72-1.44), respectively. Stratified analysis by route of administration showed that injectable POC with a RR of 2.62 (95% CI 1.74-3.94), but not oral POCs (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.7-1.62), was associated with an increased risk of venous thromboembolism. A decreased risk of venous thromboembolism in a subgroup of women using an intrauterine levonorgestrel device was observed with a RR of 0.53 (95% CI 0.32-0.89). No effect of POC use on blood pressure was found, but there was an indication for an increased risk of diabetes with injectable POCs, albeit non-significant. Conclusions This systematic review and meta-analysis suggests that oral POC use is not associated with an increased risk of developing various cardiometabolic outcomes, whereas injectable POC use might increase the risk of venous thromboembolism.
| S-EPMC6039863 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveProgestin based therapy is the preferred option for fertility-sparing treatment of reproductive-age women with preserved fertility in endometrial hyperplasia (EH) or early endometrial cancer (EEC). Our objective was to investigate whether metformin could enhance the efficacy of progestin-based therapies by meta-analysis.MethodsWe conducted a meta-analysis of randomized or non-randomized controlled trials by searching of PubMed, Embase, Web of science, and Cochrane database from inception to November 8, 2022. The results of enrolled studies were pooled using meta-analysis to estimate the effect of progestin plus metformin on remission, recurrence, pregnancy rate and live birth rate.ResultsIn the analysis of progestin administered systemically or locally, complete response (CR) was significantly higher in progestin plus metformin versus progestin alone in the EH group (pooled OR 2.08, 95% CI 1.29 to 3.34, P=0.003), in the EEC group (pooled OR 1.86, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.05, P=0.01), but not in EEC and EH group (pooled OR 1.46, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.21, P=0.07). In the analysis of progestin administered systemically, complete response was improved in progestin plus metformin versus progestin alone, in the EH group (pooled OR 2.47, 95% CI 1.45 to 4.21, P=0.0009), in the EEC group (pooled OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.71, P=0.01), and in the EEC and EH group (pooled OR 2.03, 95% CI 1.16 to 3.54, P=0.01). The relapse rates of patients with EEC and EH were not different (pooled OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.20, P=0.13). For obstetric outcomes, the addition of metformin improved pregnancy rate (pooled OR 1.55, 95% CI 0.99 to 2.42, P=0.05), but not live birth rate (pooled OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.45 to 2.01, P=0.89).ConclusionFor fertility-sparing management, compared to progestin alone, the outcomes of patients with endometrial hyperplasia and early endometrial cancer were more improved with progestin plus metformin because progestin plus metformin increases the rate of remission and pregnancy.
| S-EPMC10320576 | biostudies-literature