Abstract
Introduction
Progesterone can be used instead of GnRH agonists and antagonists in order to avert a premature LH surge during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocol. Nonetheless, there is limited knowledge regarding its utilization. Thus, this study compared the effects of progesterone and GnRH antagonists (GnRH-ant) on premature LH surges and assisted reproductive technology (ART) results in infertile women undergoing ART.
Materials and methods
In this clinical trial, the progesterone protocol (study group) and GnRH-ant protocol (control group) were tested in 300 infertile individuals undergoing IVF/ICSI. The main outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved. The secondary outcomes included premature LH rise/surge, the quantity of follicles measuring ≥ 10 and 14 mm, oocyte maturity and fertilization rate, the number of viable embryos, high-quality embryo rate and pregnancy outcomes.
Results
The study group exhibited a statistically significant increase in the number of retrieved oocytes, follicles measuring 14 mm or greater, and viable embryos compared to the control group (P < 0.05). The study group also increased oocyte maturity, chemical pregnancy rate, and clinical pregnancy rate (P < 0.05). Both groups had similar mean serum LH, progesterone, and E2 levels on trigger day. The control group had more premature LH rise than the study group, although this difference was not statistically significant.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can be stated that the progesterone protocol and the GnRH-ant protocol exhibit similar rates of sudden premature LH surge in infertile patients. However, it is important to note that the two regiments differ in their outcomes in ART.
Trial registration
This study was retrospectively registered in the Iranian website (www.irct.ir) for clinical trials registration (http://www.irct.ir: IRCT-ID: IRCT20201029049183N, 2020-11-27).
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of data and materials
The datasets used and analyzed during the present study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Andersen AN et al (2006) Assisted reproductive technology in Europe 2002 Results generated from European registers by ESHRE. Hum Reprod 21(7):1680–1697
Westergaard LG et al (2001) Human menopausal gonadotropin versus recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone in normogonadotropic women down-regulated with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist who were undergoing in vitro fertilization and intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a prospective randomized study. Fertil Steril 76(3):543–549
Albano C et al (2000) Ovarian stimulation with HMG: results of a prospective randomized phase III European study comparing the luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH)-antagonist cetrorelix and the LHRH-agonist buserelin European Cetrorelix Study Group. Hum Reprod 15(3):526–531
Messinis IE (2006) Ovarian feedback, mechanism of action and possible clinical implications. Hum Reprod Update 12(5):557–571
Papanikolaou EG et al (2009) Progesterone rise on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin administration impairs pregnancy outcome in day 3 single-embryo transfer, while has no effect on day 5 single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 91(3):949–952
Labarta E et al (2011) Endometrial receptivity is affected in women with high circulating progesterone levels at the end of the follicular phase: a functional genomics analysis. Hum Reprod 26(7):1813–1825
Van Vaerenbergh I et al (2011) Progesterone rise on HCG day in GnRH antagonist/rFSH stimulated cycles affects endometrial gene expression. Reprod Biomed Online 22(3):263–271
Al-Inany HG et al (2016) Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD001750.pub4
Toftager M et al (2016) Risk of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol: RCT including 1050 first IVF/ICSI cycles. Hum Reprod 31(6):1253–1264
Griesinger G et al (2011) Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome prevention by gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist triggering of final oocyte maturation in a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in combination with a “freeze-all” strategy: a prospective multicentric study. Fertil Steril 95(6):2029–2033
Alexandris E et al (1997) Changes in gonadotrophin response to gonadotrophin releasing hormone in normal women following bilateral ovariectomy. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) 47(6):721–726
Kuang Y et al (2014) Luteal-phase ovarian stimulation is feasible for producing competent oocytes in women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment, with optimal pregnancy outcomes in frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Fertil Steril 101(1):105–111
Soules MR et al (1984) Progesterone modulation of pulsatile luteinizing hormone secretion in normal women. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 58(2):378–383
Kuang Y et al (2015) Medroxyprogesterone acetate is an effective oral alternative for preventing premature luteinizing hormone surges in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril 104(1):62-70.e3
Zhu X, Zhang X, Fu Y (2015) Utrogestan as an effective oral alternative for preventing premature luteinizing hormone surges in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization. Medicine (Baltimore) 94(21):e909
Iwami N et al (2018) New trial of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation using dydrogesterone versus a typical GnRH antagonist regimen in assisted reproductive technology. Arch Gynecol Obstet 298(3):663–671
Eftekhar M, Hoseini M, Saeed L (2019) progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation in polycystic ovarian syndrome: an RCT. Int J Reprod Biomed 17(9):671–676
Chen Q et al (2019) Progestin vs gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist for the prevention of premature luteinizing hormone surges in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 10:796
Beguería R, García D, Vassena R, Rodríguez A (2019) Medroxyprogesterone acetate versus ganirelix in oocyte donation: a randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod 34(5):872–880
Huang P, Tang M, Qin A (2019) Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation is a feasible method for poor ovarian responders undergoing in IVF/ICSI compared to a GnRH antagonist protocol: a retrospective study. J Gynecol Obstet Hum Reprod 48(2):99–102
Yildiz S et al (2019) Comparison of a novel flexible progestin primed ovarian stimulation protocol and the flexible gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol for assisted reproductive technology. Fertil Steril 112(4):677–683
Mathieu d’Argent E et al (2020) Outcomes of fertility preservation in women with endometriosis: comparison of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus antagonist protocols. J Ovarian Res 13(1):18
Wen X et al (2018) Lipidomic components alterations of human follicular fluid reveal the relevance of improving clinical outcomes in women using progestin-primed ovarian stimulation compared to short-term protocol. Med Sci Monit 24:3357–3365
Wang N et al (2018) Comparison of neonatal outcomes and live-birth defects after progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus conventional ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: a large retrospective cohort study. Medicine (Baltimore) 97(34):e11906
Peng Q et al (2019) Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation vs mild stimulation in women with advanced age above 40: a retrospective cohort study. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 17(1):91
Wang Y et al (2016) controlled ovarian stimulation using medroxyprogesterone acetate and hMG in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome treated for IVF: a double-blind randomized crossover clinical trial. Medicine (Baltimore) 95(9):e2939
Dierschke DJ et al (1973) Blockade by progesterone of estrogen-induced LH and FSH release in the rhesus monkey. Endocrinology 92(5):1496–1501
Attardi B, Scott R, Pfaff D, Fink G (2007) Facilitation or inhibition of the oestradiol-induced gonadotrophin surge in the immature female rat by progesterone: effects on pituitary responsiveness to gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH), GnRH self-priming and pituitary mRNAs for the progesterone receptor A and B isoforms. J Neuroendocrinol 19(12):988–1000
Kasa-Vubu JZ et al (1992) Progesterone blocks the estradiol-induced gonadotropin discharge in the ewe by inhibiting the surge of gonadotropin-releasing hormone. Endocrinology 131(1):208–212
Evans NP, Richter TA, Skinner DC, Robinson JE (2002) Neuroendocrine mechanisms underlying the effects of progesterone on the oestradiol-induced GnRH/LH surge. Reprod Suppl 59:57–66
Heikinheimo O, Gordon K, Williams RF, Hodgen GD (1996) Inhibition of ovulation by progestin analogs (agonists vs antagonists): preliminary evidence for different sites and mechanisms of actions. Contraception 53(1):55–64
Harris TG et al (1999) Progesterone can block transmission of the estradiol-induced signal for luteinizing hormone surge generation during a specific period of time immediately after activation of the gonadotropin-releasing hormone surge-generating system. Endocrinology 140(2):827–834
Xi Q et al (2020) Comparison between PPOS and GnRHa-long protocol in clinical outcome with the first IVF/ICSI cycle: a randomized clinical trial. Clin Epidemiol 12:261–272
Chen Q et al (2017) Controlled ovulation of the dominant follicle using progestin in minimal stimulation in poor responders. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 15(1):71
Ghasemzadeh A et al (2019) Effect of oral utrogestan in comparison with cetrotide on preventing luteinizing hormone surge in IVF cycles: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Reprod Biomed 18(1):41–46
Guan S, Feng Y, Huang Y, Huang J (2021) Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol for patients in assisted reproductive technology: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 12:702558
Hossein Rashidi B et al (2020) Comparison of dydrogesterone and GnRH antagonists for prevention of premature LH surge in IVF/ICSI cycles: a randomized controlled trial. J Family Reprod Health 14(1):14–20
Zhu X, Ye H, Ye J, Fu Y (2021) Progesterone protocol versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome undergoing in vitro fertilization treatments with frozen-thawed embryo transfer: a prospective randomized controlled trial. Ann Transl Med 9(5):387
Huang TC et al (2021) Progestin primed ovarian stimulation using corifollitropin alfa in PCOS women effectively prevents LH surge and reduces injection burden compared to GnRH antagonist protocol. Sci Rep 11(1):22732
Xu S et al (2023) Comparison the effects of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol and GnRH-a long protocol in patients with normal ovarian reserve function. Gynecol Endocrinol 39(1):2217263
Yang AM et al (2022) Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol for patients with endometrioma. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne) 13:798434
Wang L et al (2017) Effect of frozen embryo transfer and progestin-primed ovary stimulation on IVF outcomes in women with high body mass index. Sci Rep 7(1):7447
Ye H et al (2018) Progestin-primed milder stimulation with clomiphene citrate yields fewer oocytes and suboptimal pregnancy outcomes compared with the standard progestin-primed ovarian stimulation in infertile women with polycystic ovarian syndrome. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 16(1):53
Pai AH-Y et al (2023) Progestin primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol yields lower euploidy rate in older patients undergoing IVF. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 21(1):72
Terho AM et al (2021) High birth weight and large-for-gestational-age in singletons born after frozen compared to fresh embryo transfer, by gestational week: a Nordic register study from the CoNARTaS group. Hum Reprod 36(4):1083–1092
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to the staff at Shariati Hospital for their careful clinical work and accurate data gathering regarding the instances described in this study.
Funding
This study was financially supported by the Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
AN and AA developed the idea for the project and revised the manuscript; SP, AN, MJ and MSN collected data and performed the data analysis and takes full responsibility for the integrity of the data. MJ drafted the manuscript. The final version has been approved by all authors.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
The Ethics Committee of Tehran University of Medical Sciences approved the project (Ethics committee reference number: IR.TUMS.MEDICINE.REC.1399.008). Written consent was obtained from all participants.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
About this article
Cite this article
Jabarpour, M., Pouri, S., Aleyasin, A. et al. Comparison of progesterone protocol versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in terms of preventing premature LH surge and assisted reproductive technology outcome in infertile women: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet 309, 1999–2008 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-024-07387-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-024-07387-4