-
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2021Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is a new ovarian stimulation protocol that can block the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge through progesterone instead of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Progestin-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.
METHODS
We 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.
RESULTS
The 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, < 0.001]. The PPOS protocol had a lower rate of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) [RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.36 to 0.76, < 0.001, = 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, < 0.001), (MD = 0.30, 95% CI = 0.27 to 0.33, < 0.001), (MD = 0.21, 95% CI = 0.18 to 0.24, < 0.001)] and normal ovarian reserve (NOR) patients [(MD = 1.41, 95% CI = 0.03 to 2.78, < 0.001), (MD = 1.19, 95% CI = 0.04 to 2.35, < 0.001), (MD = 1.01, 95% CI = 0.21 to 1.81, = 0.01)].
CONCLUSION
The 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.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Fertilization in Vitro; Infertility, Female; Live Birth; Ovarian Reserve; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy Rate; Progestins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 34531825
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2021.702558 -
Future Oncology (London, England) Jun 2021This review aims to qualitatively summarize the published real-world evidence (RWE) for CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) approved for treating HR+, HER2-negative...
This review aims to qualitatively summarize the published real-world evidence (RWE) for CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) approved for treating HR+, HER2-negative advanced/metastatic breast cancer (HR+/HER2- a/mBC). A systematic literature review was conducted to identify RWE studies of CDK4/6i in HR+/HER2- a/mBC published from 2015 to 2019. This review identified 114 studies, of which 85 were only presented at scientific conferences. Most RWE studies investigated palbociclib and demonstrated improved outcomes. There are limited long-term and comparative data between CDK4/6i and endocrine monotherapy, and within the CDK4/6i class. Available RWE suggests that CDK4/6i are associated with improved outcomes in HR+/HER2- a/mBC, although additional studies with longer follow-up periods are needed.
Topics: Antineoplastic Combined Chemotherapy Protocols; Breast Neoplasms; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 4; Cyclin-Dependent Kinase 6; Estrogen Receptor alpha; Female; Humans; Neoplasm Metastasis; Neoplasm Staging; Receptor, ErbB-2; Receptors, Progesterone; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33663223
DOI: 10.2217/fon-2020-1264 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2020A frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycle is when one or more embryos (frozen during a previous treatment cycle) are thawed and transferred to the uterus. Some women undergo... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycle is when one or more embryos (frozen during a previous treatment cycle) are thawed and transferred to the uterus. Some women undergo fresh embryo transfer (ET) cycles with embryos derived from donated oocytes. In both situations, the endometrium is primed with oestrogen and progestogen in different doses and routes of administration.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the most effective endometrial preparation for women undergoing transfer with frozen embryos or embryos from donor oocytes with regard to the subsequent live birth rate (LBR).
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, trials registers and abstracts of reproductive societies' meetings were searched in June 2020 together with reference checking and contact with study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating endometrial preparation in women undergoing fresh donor cycles and frozen embryo transfers.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. We analysed all available interventions versus placebo, no treatment, or between each other. The primary review outcome was live birth rate. Secondary outcomes were clinical and multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, cycle cancellation, endometrial thickness and adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
Thirty-one RCTs (5426 women) were included. Evidence was moderate to very low-quality: the main limitations were serious risk of bias due to poor reporting of methods, and serious imprecision. Stimulated versus programmed cycle We are uncertain whether a letrozole-stimulated cycle compared to a programmed cycle, for endometrial preparation, improves LBR (odds ratio (OR) 1.26, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.49 to 3.26; 100 participants; one study; very low-quality evidence). Stimulating with follicle stimulating hormone (FSH), letrozole or clomiphene citrate may improve clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) (OR 1.63, 95% CI 1.12 to 2.38; 656 participants; five studies; I = 11%; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain if they reduce miscarriage rate (MR) (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.71; 355 participants; three studies; I = 0%; very low-quality evidence). Endometrial thickness (ET) may be reduced with clomiphene citrate (mean difference(MD) -1.04, 95% CI -1.59 to -0.49; 92 participants; one study; low-quality evidence). Other outcomes were not reported. Natural versus programmed cycle We are uncertain of the effect from a natural versus programmed cycle for LBR (OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.28; 1285 participants; four studies; I = 0%; very low-quality evidence) and CPR (OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.62 to 1.01; 1249 participants; five studies; I = 60%; very low-quality evidence), while a natural cycle probably reduces the cycle cancellation rate (CCR) (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.44 to 0.82; 734 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on MR and ET. No study reported other outcomes. Transdermal versus oral oestrogens From low-quality evidence we are uncertain of the effect transdermal compared to oral oestrogens has on CPR (OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.25; 504 participants; three studies; I = 58%) or MR (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.09; 414 participants; two studies; I = 0%). Other outcomes were not reported. Day of starting administration of progestogen When doing a fresh ET using donated oocytes in a synchronised cycle starting progestogen on the day of oocyte pick-up (OPU) or the day after OPU, in comparison with recipients that start progestogen the day prior to OPU, probably increases the CPR (OR 1.87, 95% CI 1.13 to 3.08; 282 participants; one study, moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on multiple pregnancy rate (MPR) or MR. It probably reduces the CCR (OR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.74; 282 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). No study reported other outcomes. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist versus control A cycle with GnRH agonist compared to without may improve LBR (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.19 to 5.78; 234 participants; one study; low-quality evidence). From low-quality evidence we are uncertain of the effect on CPR (OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.43; 1289 participants; eight studies; I = 20%), MR (OR 0.85, 95% CI 0.36 to 2.00; 828 participants; four studies; I = 0%), CCR (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.21 to 1.17; 530 participants; two studies; I = 0%) and ET (MD -0.08, 95% CI -0.33 to 0.16; 697 participants; four studies; I = 4%). No study reported other outcomes. Among different GnRH agonists From very low-quality evidence we are uncertain if cycles among different GnRH agonists improves CPR or MR. No study reported other outcomes. GnRH agonists versus GnRH antagonists GnRH antagonists compared to agonists probably improves CPR (OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.90; 473 participants; one study; moderate-quality evidence). We are uncertain of the effect on MR and MPR. No study reported other outcomes. Aspirin versus control From very low-quality evidence we are uncertain whether a cycle with aspirin versus without improves LBR, CPR, or ET. Steroids versus control From very low-quality evidence we are uncertain whether a cycle with steroids compared to without improves LBR, CPR or MR. No study reported other outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is insufficient evidence on the use of any particular intervention for endometrial preparation in women undergoing fresh donor cycles and frozen embryo transfers. In frozen embryo transfers, low-quality evidence showed that clinical pregnancy rates may be improved in a stimulated cycle compared to a programmed one, and we are uncertain of the effect when comparing a programmed cycle to a natural cycle. Cycle cancellation rates are probably reduced in a natural cycle. Although administering a GnRH agonist, compared to without, may improve live birth rates, clinical pregnancy rates will probably be improved in a GnRH antagonist cycle over an agonist cycle. In fresh synchronised oocyte donor cycles, the clinical pregnancy rate is probably improved and cycle cancellation rates are probably reduced when starting progestogen the day of or day after donor oocyte retrieval. Adequately powered studies are needed to evaluate each treatment more accurately.
Topics: Abortion, Spontaneous; Bias; Clomiphene; Cryopreservation; Drug Administration Schedule; Embryo Implantation; Embryo Transfer; Embryo, Mammalian; Endometrium; Female; Follicle Stimulating Hormone; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Letrozole; Live Birth; Oocyte Donation; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Progesterone; Progestins; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33112418
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006359.pub3 -
BMC Medicine Oct 2022Hormonal changes during the menstrual cycle play a key role in shaping immunity in the cervicovaginal tract. Cervicovaginal fluid contains cytokines, chemokines,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Hormonal changes during the menstrual cycle play a key role in shaping immunity in the cervicovaginal tract. Cervicovaginal fluid contains cytokines, chemokines, immunoglobulins, and other immune mediators. Many studies have shown that the concentrations of these immune mediators change throughout the menstrual cycle, but the studies have often shown inconsistent results. Our understanding of immunological correlates of the menstrual cycle remains limited and could be improved by meta-analysis of the available evidence.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of cervicovaginal immune mediator concentrations throughout the menstrual cycle using individual participant data. Study eligibility included strict definitions of the cycle phase (by progesterone or days since the last menstrual period) and no use of hormonal contraception or intrauterine devices. We performed random-effects meta-analyses using inverse-variance pooling to estimate concentration differences between the follicular and luteal phases. In addition, we performed a new laboratory study, measuring select immune mediators in cervicovaginal lavage samples.
RESULTS
We screened 1570 abstracts and identified 71 eligible studies. We analyzed data from 31 studies, encompassing 39,589 concentration measurements of 77 immune mediators made on 2112 samples from 871 participants. Meta-analyses were performed on 53 immune mediators. Antibodies, CC-type chemokines, MMPs, IL-6, IL-16, IL-1RA, G-CSF, GNLY, and ICAM1 were lower in the luteal phase than the follicular phase. Only IL-1α, HBD-2, and HBD-3 were elevated in the luteal phase. There was minimal change between the phases for CXCL8, 9, and 10, interferons, TNF, SLPI, elafin, lysozyme, lactoferrin, and interleukins 1β, 2, 10, 12, 13, and 17A. The GRADE strength of evidence was moderate to high for all immune mediators listed here.
CONCLUSIONS
Despite the variability of cervicovaginal immune mediator measurements, our meta-analyses show clear and consistent changes during the menstrual cycle. Many immune mediators were lower in the luteal phase, including chemokines, antibodies, matrix metalloproteinases, and several interleukins. Only interleukin-1α and beta-defensins were higher in the luteal phase. These cyclical differences may have consequences for immunity, susceptibility to infection, and fertility. Our study emphasizes the need to control for the effect of the menstrual cycle on immune mediators in future studies.
Topics: Elafin; Female; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Humans; Immunoglobulins; Immunologic Factors; Interferons; Interleukin 1 Receptor Antagonist Protein; Interleukin-16; Interleukin-1alpha; Interleukin-6; Interleukins; Lactoferrin; Menstrual Cycle; Muramidase; Progesterone; beta-Defensins
PubMed: 36195867
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-022-02532-9 -
Minerva Obstetrics and Gynecology Dec 2023Despite the many unknowns about its exact mechanism, progesterone and progestins are being successfully used to prevent luteinizing hormone (LH) surge during ovarian... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
INTRODUCTION
Despite the many unknowns about its exact mechanism, progesterone and progestins are being successfully used to prevent luteinizing hormone (LH) surge during ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology (ART). We will review progestin primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocols in comparison with gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues and each other.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
MEDLINE via PubMed; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); Scopus; Web of Science were screened with keywords related to assisted reproductive technology, ovarian stimulation progesterone, GnRH analogue and progesterone in several combinations. Search period was from the date of inception of each database until 20 May 2022.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Live birth or ongoing pregnancy rate per embryo transfer (ET) was similar in PPOS and GnRH antagonist cycles (RR=1.16, 95% CI: 0.93-1.44). Clinical pregnancy rate per ET was likewise similar (RR=1.12, 95% CI: 0.92-1.37). Miscarriage rate per pregnancy was similar with PPOS and GnRH antagonists in autologous cycles (RR=1.01, 95% CI: 0.65-1.55). Pooled analyses showed similar live birth rate between progestins and short GnRH agonist protocols (RR=1.01, 95% CI: 0.49-2.09), however, clinical pregnancy rates per ET were significantly higher with progestins (RR=1.31, 95% CI: 1.06-1.62). Miscarriage rate per pregnancy was similar with progestins (RR=0.82, 95% CI: 0.55-1.21).
CONCLUSIONS
Progestins seem to be an efficient option for pituitary suppression during ovarian suppression, providing similar outcomes for stimulation and pregnancy. They can be especially beneficial for women for whom fresh ET is not considered.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Abortion, Spontaneous; Fertilization in Vitro; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Ovulation Induction; Progesterone; Progestins
PubMed: 36193835
DOI: 10.23736/S2724-606X.22.05176-4 -
Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology 2020Drugs may cause bone loss by lowering sex steroid levels (e.g., aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer, GnRH agonists in prostate cancer, or depot medroxyprogestone...
Drugs may cause bone loss by lowering sex steroid levels (e.g., aromatase inhibitors in breast cancer, GnRH agonists in prostate cancer, or depot medroxyprogestone acetate - DMPA), interfere with vitamin D levels (liver inducing anti-epileptic drugs), or directly by toxic effects on bone cells (chemotherapy, phenytoin, or thiazolidinedions, which diverts mesenchymal stem cells from forming osteoblasts to forming adipocytes). However, besides effects on the mineralized matrix, interactions with collagen and other parts of the unmineralized matrix may decrease bone biomechanical competence in a manner that may not correlate with bone mineral density (BMD) measured by dual energy absorptiometry (DXA).Some drugs and drug classes may decrease BMD like the thiazolidinediones and consequently increase fracture risk. Other drugs such as glucocorticoids may decrease BMD, and thus increase fracture risk. However, glucocorticoids may also interfere with the unmineralized matrix leading to an increase in fracture risk, not mirrored in BMD changes. Some drugs such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI), paracetamol, and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) may not per se be associated with bone loss, but fracture risk may be increased, possibly stemming from an increased risk of falls stemming from effects on postural balance mediated by effects on the central nervous system or cardiovascular system.This paper performs a systematic review of drugs inducing bone loss or associated with fracture risk. The chapter is organized by the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical (ATC) classification.
Topics: Bone Density; Bone and Bones; Fractures, Bone; Humans; Medroxyprogesterone Acetate; Pharmaceutical Preparations
PubMed: 31889220
DOI: 10.1007/164_2019_340 -
Neurosurgical Review Mar 2024This systematic review aims to summarize the findings from all clinical randomized trials assessing the efficacy of potential neuroprotective agents in influencing the... (Review)
Review
This systematic review aims to summarize the findings from all clinical randomized trials assessing the efficacy of potential neuroprotective agents in influencing the outcomes of acute spinal cord injuries (SCI). Following the PRISMA guidelines, we conducted comprehensive searches in four electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) up to September 5th, 2023. Our analysis included a total of 30 studies. We examined the effects of 15 substances/drugs: methylprednisolone, tirilazad mesylate, erythropoietin, nimodipine, naloxone, Sygen, Rho protein antagonist, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, autologous macrophages, autologous bone marrow cells, vitamin D, progesterone, riluzole, minocycline, and blood alcohol concentration. Notable improvements in neurological outcomes were observed with progesterone plus vitamin D and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor. In contrast, results for methylprednisolone, erythropoietin, Sygen, Rho Protein, and Riluzole were inconclusive, primarily due to insufficient sample size or outdated evidence. No significant differences were found in the remaining evaluated drugs. Progesterone plus vitamin D, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor, methylprednisolone, Sygen, Rho Protein, and Riluzole may enhance neurological outcomes in acute SCI cases. It is worth noting that different endpoints or additional subgroup analyses may potentially alter the conclusions of individual trials. Therefore, certain SCI grades may benefit more from these treatments than others, while the overall results may remain inconclusive.
Topics: Humans; Neuroprotective Agents; Riluzole; Blood Alcohol Content; Progesterone; Spinal Cord Injuries; Methylprednisolone; Erythropoietin; Granulocyte Colony-Stimulating Factor; Vitamin D
PubMed: 38546884
DOI: 10.1007/s10143-024-02372-6 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2023Currently, gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues are used to prevent premature ovulation in ART cycles. However, their costs remain high, the route of... (Review)
Review
Progestogens for prevention of luteinising hormone (LH) surge in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation as part of an assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycle.
BACKGROUND
Currently, gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) analogues are used to prevent premature ovulation in ART cycles. However, their costs remain high, the route of administration is invasive and has some adverse effects. Oral progestogens could be cheaper and effective to prevent a premature LH surge.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of using progestogens to avoid spontaneous ovulation in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO in Dec 2021. We contacted study authors and experts to identify additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that included progestogens for ovulation inhibition in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane, including the risk of bias (RoB) assessment. The primary review outcomes were live birth rate (LBR) and oocyte pick-up cancellation rate (OPCR). Secondary outcomes were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), cumulative pregnancy, miscarriage rate (MR), multiple pregnancies, LH surge, total and MII oocytes, days of stimulation, dose of gonadotropins, and moderate/severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) rate. The primary analyses were restricted to studies at overall low and some concerns RoB, and sensitivity analysis included all studies. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 14 RCTs (2643 subfertile women undergoing ART, 47 women used oocyte freezing for fertility preservation and 534 oocyte donors). Progestogens versus GnRH antagonists We are very uncertain of the effect of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) 10 mg compared with cetrorelix on the LBR in poor responders (odds ratio (OR) 1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 2.13, one RCT, N = 340, very-low-certainty evidence), suggesting that if the chance of live birth following GnRH antagonists is assumed to be 18%, the chance following MPA would be 14% to 32%. There may be little or no difference in OPCR between progestogens and GnRH antagonists, but due to wide Cs (CIs), we are uncertain (OR 0.92, 95%CI 0.42 to 2.01, 3 RCTs, N = 648, I² = 0%, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 4% with progestogens to 2% to 8%. Given the imprecision found, no conclusions can be retrieved on CPR and MR. Low-quality evidence suggested that using micronised progesterone in normo-responders may increase by 2 to 6 the MII oocytes in comparison to GnRH antagonists. There may be little or no differences in gonadotropin doses. Progestogens versus GnRH agonists Results were uncertain for all outcomes comparing progestogens with GnRH agonists. One progestogen versus another progestogen The analyses comparing one progestogen versus another progestogen for LBR did not meet our criteria for primary analyses. The OPCR was probably lower in the MPA 10 mg in comparison to MPA 4 mg (OR 2.27, 95%CI 0.90 to 5.74, one RCT, N = 300, moderate-certainty evidence), and MPA 4 mg may be lower than micronised progesterone 100 mg, but due to wide CI, we are uncertain of the effect (OR 0.81, 95%CI 0.43 to 1.53, one RCT, N = 300, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 5% with MPA 4 mg to 5% to22%, and from 17% with micronised progesterone 100 mg to 8% to 24%. When comparing dydrogesterone 20 mg to MPA, the OPCR is probably lower in the dydrogesterone group in comparison to MPA 10 mg (OR 1.49, 95%CI 0.80 to 2.80, one RCT, N = 520, moderate-certainty evidence), and it may be lower in dydrogesterone group in comparison to MPA 4 mg but due to wide confidence interval, we are uncertain of the effect (OR 1.19, 95%CI 0.61 to 2.34, one RCT, N = 300, low-certainty evidence), changing the chance of OPCR from 7% with dydrogesterone 20 to 6-17%, and in MPA 4 mg from 12% to 8% to 24%. When comparing dydrogesterone 20 mg to micronised progesterone 100 mg, the OPCR is probably lower in the dydrogesterone group (OR 1.54, 95%CI 0.94 to 2.52, two RCTs, N=550, I² = 0%, moderate-certainty evidence), changing OPCR from 11% with dydrogesterone to 10% to 24%. We are very uncertain of the effect in normo-responders of micronised progesterone 100 mg compared with micronised progesterone 200 mg on the OPCR (OR 0.35, 95%CI 0.09 to 1.37, one RCT, N = 150, very-low-certainty evidence). There is probably little or no difference in CPR and MR between MPA 10 mg and dydrogesterone 20 mg. There may be little or no differences in MII oocytes and gonadotropins doses. No cases of moderate/severe OHSS were reported in most of the groups in any of the comparisons.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Little or no differences in LBR may exist when comparing MPA 4 mg with GnRH agonists in normo-responders. OPCR may be slightly increased in the MPA 4 mg group, but MPA 4 mg reduces the doses of gonadotropins in comparison to GnRH agonists. Little or no differences in OPCR may exist between progestogens and GnRH antagonists in normo-responders and donors. However, micronised progesterone could improve by 2 to 6 MII oocytes. When comparing one progestogen to another, dydrogesterone suggested slightly lower OPCR than MPA and micronised progesterone, and MPA suggested slightly lower OPCR than the micronised progesterone 100 mg. Finally, MPA 10 mg suggests a lower OPCR than MPA 4 mg. There is uncertainty regarding the rest of the outcomes due to imprecision and no solid conclusions can be drawn.
Topics: Female; Humans; Pregnancy; Abortion, Spontaneous; Dydrogesterone; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Gonadotropins; Live Birth; Luteinizing Hormone; Ovarian Hyperstimulation Syndrome; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy Rate; Progesterone; Progestins; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted
PubMed: 38032057
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013827.pub2 -
Archives of Gynecology and Obstetrics Nov 2019Maintenance tocolysis, mostly defined as the continuation of tocolytic treatment beyond 48 h, remains a matter of debate. There is no sufficient evidence from...
INTRODUCTION
Maintenance tocolysis, mostly defined as the continuation of tocolytic treatment beyond 48 h, remains a matter of debate. There is no sufficient evidence from randomized controlled trials, that maintenance tocolysis is able to prolong pregnancy significantly and to reduce severe neonatal morbidity and mortality. Hence, it is not recommended in current guidelines. On the contrary, maintenance tocolysis is commonly used in clinical practice and subject of current clinical-scientific investigations.
TOCOLYTICS FOR MAINTENANCE TREATMENT
None of the conventional tocolytics (beta-sympathomimetics, calcium-channel blockers, magnesium, cyclooxygenase inhibitors, and oxytocin receptor antagonists) have proven to be appropriate for maintenance treatment. Progesterone and 17-α-hydroxyprogesterone caproate have shown promising results in low-quality randomized trials, but not in high-quality studies.
DISCUSSION
Basically, the value of studies regarding maintenance tocolysis is limited by a considerable heterogeneity, its mostly low quality, significant differences in methodology as well as the inadequate statistical power due to the small number of women studied. So far, maintenance tocolysis is a case-by-case decision outweighing the benefits and harms of tocolytic treatment.
Topics: Female; Humans; Obstetric Labor, Premature; Pregnancy; Progesterone; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tocolysis; Tocolytic Agents
PubMed: 31576452
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-019-05313-7 -
Human Reproduction Update Jan 2021Progestins are capable of suppressing endogenous LH secretion from the pituitary. Progestins can be used orally and are less expensive than GnRH analogues. However,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Progestins are capable of suppressing endogenous LH secretion from the pituitary. Progestins can be used orally and are less expensive than GnRH analogues. However, early endometrial exposure to progestin precludes a fresh embryo transfer (ET), but the advent of vitrification and increasing number of oocyte cryopreservation cycles allow more opportunities for using progestins for pituitary suppression.
OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE
This review summarizes: the mechanism of pituitary suppression by progestins; the effectiveness of progestins when compared with GnRH analogues and with each other; the effect of progestins on oocyte and embryo developmental potential and euploidy status; and the cost-effectiveness aspects of progestin primed stimulation. Future research priorities are also identified.
SEARCH METHODS
The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE via PubMed, the Web of Science and Scopus were screened with a combination of keywords related to ART, progesterone, GnRH analogue and ovarian stimulation, in various combinations. The search period was from the date of inception of each database until 1 April 2020. Only full text papers published in English were included.
OUTCOMES
Overall, the duration of stimulation, gonadotrophin consumption and oocyte yield were similar with progestins and GnRH analogues. However, sensitivity analyses suggested that progestins were associated with significantly lower gonadotrophin consumption than the long GnRH agonist protocol (mean difference (MD) = -648, 95% CI = -746 to -550 IU) and significantly higher gonadotrophin consumption than the short GnRH agonist protocol (MD = 433, 95% CI = 311 to 555 IU). Overall, live birth, ongoing and clinical pregnancy rates per ET were similar with progestins and GnRH analogues. However, when progestins were compared with GnRH agonists, sensitivity analyses including women with polycystic ovary syndrome (risk ratio (RR) = 1.27, 95% CI = 1.06 to 1.53) and short GnRH agonist protocols (RR = 1.14, 95% CI = 1.02 to 1.28) showed significantly higher clinical pregnancy rates with progestins. However, the quality of evidence is low. Studies comparing medroxyprogesterone acetate, dydrogesterone and micronized progesterone suggested similar ovarian response and pregnancy outcomes. The euploidy status of embryos from progestin primed cycles was similar to that of embryos from conventional stimulation cycles. Available information is reassuring regarding obstetric and neonatal outcomes with the use of progestins. Despite the lower cost of progestins than GnRH analogues, the mandatory cryopreservation of all embryos followed by a deferred transfer may increase cost per live birth with progestins as compared to an ART cycle culminating in a fresh ET.
WIDER IMPLICATIONS
Progestins can present an effective option for women who do not contemplate a fresh ET, e.g. fertility preservation, anticipated hyper responders, preimplantation genetic testing, oocyte donors, double stimulation cycles.
Topics: Female; Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone; Humans; Ovulation Induction; Pregnancy; Pregnancy Rate; Progestins; Reproductive Techniques, Assisted
PubMed: 33016316
DOI: 10.1093/humupd/dmaa040