Cargando…

Effectiveness of progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE: Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is a new ovarian stimulation protocol that has been used over the last decade to enhance reproductive function. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether PPOS is as effective as conventional protocols (without GnRHa downregulation). METHOD:...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cui, Ling, Lin, Yonghong, Wang, Fang, Chen, Chen
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7960625/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33433705
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05939-y
_version_ 1783665091204349952
author Cui, Ling
Lin, Yonghong
Wang, Fang
Chen, Chen
author_facet Cui, Ling
Lin, Yonghong
Wang, Fang
Chen, Chen
author_sort Cui, Ling
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is a new ovarian stimulation protocol that has been used over the last decade to enhance reproductive function. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether PPOS is as effective as conventional protocols (without GnRHa downregulation). METHOD: Search terms included “medroxyprogesterone”, “dydrogesterone”, “progestin-primed ovarian stimulation”, “PPOS”, “oocyte retrieval”, “in vitro fertilization”, “IVF”, “ICSI”, “ART”, and “reproductive”. The selection criteria were nonrandomized studies and randomized controlled studies. For data collection and analysis, the Review Manager software, Newcastle–Ottowa Quality Assessment Scale and GRADE approach were used. RESULTS: The clinical pregnancy rates were not significantly different in either RCTs or NRCTs [RR 0.96, 95% CI (0.69–1.33), I(2) = 71%, P = 0.81]; [RR 0.99, 95% CI (0.83–1.17), I(2) = 38%, P = 0.88]. The live birth rates of RCTs and NRCTs did not differ [RCT: RR 1.08, 95% CI (0.74, 1.57), I(2) = 66%, P = 0.69; NRCT: OR 1.03 95% CI 0.84–1.26), I(2) = 50%, P = 0.79]. The PPOS protocol had a lower rate of OHSS [RR 0.52, 95% CI (0.36–0.75), I(2) = 0%, P = 0.0006]. The secondary results showed that compared to the control protocol, the endometrium was thicker [95% CI (0.00–0.78), I(2) = 0%, P = 0.05], the number of obtained embryos was higher [95% CI (0.04–0.65), I(2) = 17%, P = 0.03] and more hMG was needed [in NRCT: 95% CI (307.44, 572.73), I(2) = 0%, P < 0.00001] with the PPOS protocol. CONCLUSION: The PPOS protocol produces more obtained embryos and a thicker endometrium than the control protocol, with a lower rate of OHSS and an equal live birth rate. The PPOS protocol could be a safe option as a personalized protocol for infertile patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration at PROSPERO: CRD42020176577.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7960625
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-79606252021-04-01 Effectiveness of progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis Cui, Ling Lin, Yonghong Wang, Fang Chen, Chen Arch Gynecol Obstet Review PURPOSE: Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is a new ovarian stimulation protocol that has been used over the last decade to enhance reproductive function. The purpose of this study is to evaluate whether PPOS is as effective as conventional protocols (without GnRHa downregulation). METHOD: Search terms included “medroxyprogesterone”, “dydrogesterone”, “progestin-primed ovarian stimulation”, “PPOS”, “oocyte retrieval”, “in vitro fertilization”, “IVF”, “ICSI”, “ART”, and “reproductive”. The selection criteria were nonrandomized studies and randomized controlled studies. For data collection and analysis, the Review Manager software, Newcastle–Ottowa Quality Assessment Scale and GRADE approach were used. RESULTS: The clinical pregnancy rates were not significantly different in either RCTs or NRCTs [RR 0.96, 95% CI (0.69–1.33), I(2) = 71%, P = 0.81]; [RR 0.99, 95% CI (0.83–1.17), I(2) = 38%, P = 0.88]. The live birth rates of RCTs and NRCTs did not differ [RCT: RR 1.08, 95% CI (0.74, 1.57), I(2) = 66%, P = 0.69; NRCT: OR 1.03 95% CI 0.84–1.26), I(2) = 50%, P = 0.79]. The PPOS protocol had a lower rate of OHSS [RR 0.52, 95% CI (0.36–0.75), I(2) = 0%, P = 0.0006]. The secondary results showed that compared to the control protocol, the endometrium was thicker [95% CI (0.00–0.78), I(2) = 0%, P = 0.05], the number of obtained embryos was higher [95% CI (0.04–0.65), I(2) = 17%, P = 0.03] and more hMG was needed [in NRCT: 95% CI (307.44, 572.73), I(2) = 0%, P < 0.00001] with the PPOS protocol. CONCLUSION: The PPOS protocol produces more obtained embryos and a thicker endometrium than the control protocol, with a lower rate of OHSS and an equal live birth rate. The PPOS protocol could be a safe option as a personalized protocol for infertile patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registration at PROSPERO: CRD42020176577. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-01-12 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC7960625/ /pubmed/33433705 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05939-y Text en © The Author(s) 2021 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Review
Cui, Ling
Lin, Yonghong
Wang, Fang
Chen, Chen
Effectiveness of progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Effectiveness of progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Effectiveness of progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Effectiveness of progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Effectiveness of progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Effectiveness of progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort effectiveness of progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7960625/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33433705
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05939-y
work_keys_str_mv AT cuiling effectivenessofprogesteroneprimedovarianstimulationinassistedreproductivetechnologyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT linyonghong effectivenessofprogesteroneprimedovarianstimulationinassistedreproductivetechnologyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT wangfang effectivenessofprogesteroneprimedovarianstimulationinassistedreproductivetechnologyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT chenchen effectivenessofprogesteroneprimedovarianstimulationinassistedreproductivetechnologyasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis