Dataset Information

Comparison of Cumulative Live Birth Rates Between GnRH-A and PPOS in Low-Prognosis Patients According to POSEIDON Criteria: A Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To compare the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist regimen and a progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) regimen in low-prognosis patients according to POSEIDON criteria.

Design

Single-center, retrospective, observational study.

Setting

Henan Provincial People's Hospital, Zhengzhou, China.

Patients

Women aged ≤40 years, with a body mass index <25 kg/m², who underwent in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm microinjection (ICSI) and met POSEIDON low-prognosis criteria.

Intervention

GnRH or PPOS regimen with IVF or ICSI.

Main outcome measure

CLBR per oocyte retrieval cycle.

Results

Per oocyte retrieval cycle, CLBR was significantly higher with GnRH antagonist versus PPOS (35.3% vs 25.2%; P<0.001). In multivariable logistic regression analysis, CLBR per oocyte retrieval cycle was significantly lower with PPOS versus GnRH antagonist before (OR 0.62 [95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.46, 0.82; P=0.009]) and after (OR 0.66 [95% CI: 0.47, 0.93; P=0.0172]) adjustment for age, body mass index, infertility type, infertility duration, baseline follicle stimulating hormone, anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), antral follicle count (AFC), and insemination method. CLBR was numerically higher with the GnRH antagonist regimen than with PPOS, across all of the POSEIDON groups, and was significantly higher in patients aged ≥35 years with poor ovarian reserve [AFC <5, AMH <1.2 ng/mL] (unadjusted, P=0.0108; adjusted, P=0.0243).

Conclusion

In this single-center, retrospective, cohort study, patients had a higher CLBR with a GnRH antagonist versus PPOS regimen, regardless of other attributes.

SUBMITTER: Zhang S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8256850 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundA consensus has been reached on the preferred primary outcome of all infertility treatment trials, which is the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR). Some recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and retrospective studies have compared the effectiveness of GnRH-antagonist and GnRH-agonist protocols but showed inconsistent results. Studies commonly used conservative estimates and optimal estimates to described the CLBR of one incomplete assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycle and there are not many previous studies with data of the complete cycle to compare CLBRs in GnRH-antagonist versus GnRH-agonist protocols.MethodsA total of 18,853 patients have completed their first IVF cycle including fresh and subsequent frozen-thawed cycles during 2016-2019, 16,827 patients were treated with GnRH-a long and 2026 patients with GnRH-ant protocol. Multivariable logistic analysis was used to evaluate the difference of GnRH-a and GnRH-ant protocol in relation to CLBR. Utilized Propensity Score Matching(PSM) for sampling by up to 1:1 nearest neighbor matching to adjust the numerical difference and balance the confounders between groups.ResultsBefore PSM, significant differences were observed in baseline characteristics and the CLBR was 50.91% in the GnRH-a and 33.42% in the GnRH-ant (OR = 2.07; 95%CI: 1.88-2.28; P < 0.001). Stratified analysis showed the CLBR of GnRH-ant was lower than GnRH-a in suboptimal responders(46.89 vs 27.42%, OR = 2.34, 95%CI = 1.99-2.74; P < 0.001) and no differences of CLBR were observed in other patients between protocols. After adjusting for potential confounders, multivariable logistic analysis found the CLBR of GnRH-ant group was lower than that of GnRH-a group (OR = 2.11, 95%CI:1.69-2.63, P < 0.001). After PSM balenced the confounders between groups, the CLBR of GnRH-a group was higher than that of GnRH-ant group in suboptimal responders((38.61 vs 28.22%, OR = 1.60, 95%CI = 1.28-1.99; P < 0.001) and the normal fertilization rate and number of available embryo in GnRH-a were higher than these of GnRH-ant groups in suboptimal responders (77.39 vs 75.22%; 2.86 ± 1.26 vs 2.61 ± 1.22; P < 0.05). No significant difference was observed in other patients between different protocols.ConclusionsIt is crucial to optimize the utilization of protocols in different ovarian response patients and reconsider the field of application of GnRH-ant protocols in China.

Project description:Recently, perinatal outcomes and cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) have widely been utilized to assess the fertility outcomes and safety of assisted reproductive technology (ART), but more robust research is needed to address the success rates of live-healthy births resulting from this procedure, particularly for patients with low prognosis. This study aims to assess and comparative perinatal outcomes and CLBR per cycle of in vitro fertilization/Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) between four groups of low prognosis characterized by POSEIDON criteria. A retrospective assessment was done among infertile women with a low prognosis undergoing IVF/ICSI at a reproductive center in China. Data were collected between January 2011 and December 2015 with a follow-up of at least two years, and censoring was defined by three-cycle completion, discontinuation, or having a live birth. Participants were grouped into 4 groups according to the POSEIDON classification (POSEIDON1, POSEIDON2, POSEIDON3, and POSEIDON4). The main outcomes were perinatal and obstetric outcomes with CLBR per cycle after IVF/ICSI procedure. And IVF/ICSI-technique outcomes as a secondary outcome. Statistical analyses were performed by SPSS, and a p value of < 0.05 was considered significant. A total of 461 eligible participants underwent a total of 825 IVF/ICSI cycles. POSEIDON1 had the best perinatal outcomes in terms of live births (≥ 28w) (54.8%). POSEIDON4 had a higher risk for perinatal and obstetric complications with abortion rate (9.8%); LBW (11.7%), PTD (23.5%), PROM (11.7%), and gestational diabetes (17.6%). POSEIDON2 had a high rate for malpresentation (14.2%), and cesarean delivery(57.2%), while POSEIDON3 was much associated with the occurrences of placenta previa (9.3%) compared to other groups (p value = 0.001). After adjusting odds ratio by age and BMI, POSEIDON4 had the least odds for biochemical pregnancy (p value = 0.019); and the least odds for clinical pregnancy (p value = 0.001) of the four groups. CLBR per cycle was better in POSEIDON1 and increased with an increasing number of cycles in all groups during the three cycles. Conservative CLBR after three complete cycles were 77.27%, 42.52%, 51.4% and 22.34%, while optimistic CLBR were 79.01%, 51.19%, 58.59% and 34.46% in POSEIDON1 to POSEIDON4, respectively. Younger women with low prognosis and normal ovarian reserve have a higher probability for live births and better perinatal outcomes compared with older women with poor or normal ovarian reserve. Besides, young women with low prognosis, despite ovarian reserve status, can increase their probability of conception and get relatively higher CLBR by undergoing multiple cycles of IVF/ICSI. Age is therefore considered as a critical parameter in predicting the perinatal outcome and CLBR.

Project description:Objective: To compare the cumulative live birth rates (cLBRs) after the first assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycle using flexible gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH)-antagonist protocol vs. standard long GnRH agonist protocol for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in infertile women with different ages and ovarian reserve. Methods: Women who underwent ART treatment at our center between June 1st, 2015 and December 31st, 2018 were screened. Among them, only women who underwent their first COS cycle with flexible GnRH antagonist protocol or standard long GnRH agonist protocol were included in this study. The main outcome measurement was cLBR. Results: A total of 4,402 patients were eligible for the analysis, of whom, 2,762 patients used the GnRH agonist protocol and 1,640 patients used the GnRH antagonist protocol. The cLBRs of women in the antagonist protocol group and long agonist protocol group were 45.3 and 50.0%, respectively. Subgroup multivariable regression analysis showed that, in patients with low ovarian reserve (AFC ? 7), the cLBR was significantly lower in the antagonist group than in the long agonist protocol group [OR (95% CI) 0.62 (0.41, 0.94)], which effect was more robust in younger patients (<30 y) [OR (95% CI) 0.29 (0.11, 0.74)]. The analysis also revealed remarkably lower cLBR in patients above 40 years regardless of their AFC, although the difference was not statistically significant. However, in patients with high ovarian reserve (AFC >24), the cLBR was higher in cycles with antagonist protocol than with the long agonist protocol [OR (95% CI) 1.43 (0.96, 2.12)], and the effect was of statistical significance in younger patients (< 30 y) [OR (95% CI) 1.78 (1.07, 2.96)]. Conclusion: The present study suggests that the flexible GnRH antagonist protocol might not be suitable for patients with low ovarian reserve (AFC ? 7) or patients aged over 40 years. However, flexible GnRH antagonist protocol might be strongly recommended for patients under 30 years old and with high ovarian reserve (AFC > 24). For the rest groups of patients in the present cohort, antagonist protocol was slightly favored because it had lower OHSS in general and in patients with poly-cystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) according to previous publications.