Evaluation of pregnancy outcomes using medroxyprogesterone acetate versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist in ovarian stimulation: A retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND: Limited studies have compared pregnancy outcomes with medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) vs. gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH antagonist) in ovarian stimulation protocols. The results show heterogeneity. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess pregnancy outcomes with the use of MPA instead of GnRH antagonist for ovarian stimulation in donor-recipient cycles. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This retrospective study was carried out from June 2016 to May 2019. The study included 250 donors receiving ovarian stimulation with 2 different protocols: group 1 (n = 109) receiving GnRH antagonist (0.25 mg/day) from the 5 [Formula: see text] or 6 [Formula: see text] day of menses and group 2 (n = 141) receiving MPA (10 mg/day) from the second day of menses. In 384 recipients, 2 good-quality blastocysts were transferred after endometrial preparation. The primary endpoint was live birth in recipients. RESULTS: The results showed that live birth was comparable in both recipient groups (59% vs. 60%, OR: 0.63, 95% CI: 0.13-2.99, p = 0.559). The number of live-born fetuses (adjusted OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.31-1.05, p [Formula: see text] 0.01) showed no significant difference in both groups. However, the implantation rate with twin sacs was significantly lower in group 2 (adjusted OR: 0.57, 95% CI: 0.33-0.99, p = 0.05). The regression analysis for good-quality blastocyst proportion was comparable (OR: 0.63, 95% CI: -4.33-5.60, p = 0.802) in both donor groups. The mean stimulation cost in group 2 was less than in group 1. CONCLUSION: MPA had a comparable live birth and embryological outcomes in both groups. Oral administration makes it convenient, acceptable, and patient-friendly. Its cost-effectiveness and convenience open new possibilities in ovarian stimulation protocols.