Flexible progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus a GnRH antagonist protocol in predicted suboptimal responders undergoing freeze-all cycles: a randomized non-inferiority trial.

Are live birth rates (LBRs) per woman following flexible progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (fPPOS) treatment non-inferior to LBRs per woman following the conventional GnRH-antagonist protocol in expected suboptimal responders undergoing freeze-all cycles in assisted reproduction treatment? In women expected to have a suboptimal response, the 12-month likelihood of live birth with the fPPOS treatment did not achieve the non-inferiority criteria when compared to the standard GnRH antagonist protocol for IVF/ICSI treatment with a freeze-all strategy. The standard PPOS protocol is effective for ovarian stimulation, where medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) is conventionally administered in the early follicular phase for ovulatory suppression. Recent retrospective cohort studies on donor cycles have shown the potential to prevent premature ovulation and maintain oocyte yields by delaying the administration of MPA until the midcycle (referred to as fPPOS), similar to GnRH antagonist injections. With milder pituitary suppression, the fPPOS protocol may be a less costly option for women expected to have a low or suboptimal response if a fresh embryo transfer is not intended. This was a non-inferiority, open-label randomized controlled trial conducted at a tertiary assisted reproduction center. A total of 484 participants were randomized in the study between July 2020 and June 2023 with a 1:1 allocation. Infertile women with a predicted suboptimal ovarian response (<40 years old, antral follicle count <10, and basal serum FSH < 12 mIU/ml) were randomly assigned to receive either fPPOS treatment or GnRH antagonist treatment. MPA (10 mg) or GnRH antagonist (0.25 mg) was administered daily once the leading follicle reached 14 mm and continued until the day of trigger. All viable embryos were cryopreserved for subsequent frozen-thawed embryo transfer in both groups. The primary endpoint was the proportion of live births per woman within 12 months post-randomization (with a non-inferiority margin of -12.5%). The analysis was assessed in the per-protocol population. Twenty-two women withdrew at the beginning of the stimulation phase due to COVID-19. Eight women did not proceed with the assigned frozen embryo transfer, and six switched from the fPPOS to the antagonist protocol. Overall, 449 women were included in the per-protocol analysis, with 216 in the fPPOS group and 233 in the GnRH antagonist group. The LBRs per woman were 44.4% (96/216) for participants in the fPPOS group and 48.9% (114/233) for participants in the GnRH antagonist group [risk ratio (RR) 0.91 (95% CI, 0.74, 1.11), risk difference (RD) -4.5% (95% CI, -13.7, 4.7)], which did not meet the non-inferiority criterion (-12.5%). Oocyte and embryonic parameters were not significantly different between the two groups. Nine women (4.17%) in the fPPOS group experienced a premature luteinizing hormone surge, compared to five women (2.15%) in the antagonist group. Only one woman in the fPPOS group ovulated before oocyte retrieval. The distinct routes of administration for the medications precluded blinding in this open-label trial, potentially influencing outcome assessments. All participants were recruited in a single center from one country, limiting the generalizability. While MPA is considered a patient-friendly alternative to antagonists for women undergoing scheduled freeze-all cycles, the GnRH antagonist protocol should still be the preferred treatment for anticipated suboptimal responders in terms of LBR. This trial was funded by Science and Technology Department of Shaanxi Province, China (2021SF-210). Innovation Team of Shaanxi Provincial Health and Reproductive Medicine Research (2023TD-04); Key Industrial Chain Projects in Shaanxi Province: Research on Assisted Reproductive Technologies and Precision Prevention System for Genetic Diseases Preconception (2023-ZDLSF-48). Science and Technology Department of Shaanxi Province, China (2022SF-564). B.W.M. reports consultancy, travel support and research funding from Merck KGaA and consultancy for Organon and Norgine; owning stock in ObsEva; and holding an NHMRC Investigator Grant (GNT1176437). Other authors declare no conflicts of interest. All other authors have nothing to declare. Registered at Chinese clinical trial registry (www.chictr.org.cn). Registry Identifier: ChiCTR2000030356. 29 February 2020. 11 March 2020.

Cai H ，Shi Z ，Liu D ，Bai H ，Zhou H ，Xue X ，Li W ，Li M ，Zhao X ，Ma C ，Wang H ，Wang T ，Li N ，Wen W ，Wang M ，Zhang D ，Mol BW ，Shi J ，Tian L ... -  《-》

Pretreatment with oral contraceptive pills in women with PCOS scheduled for IVF: a randomized clinical trial.

What is the effect of pretreatment with oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) on oocyte and embryo quality and pregnancy rates in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) scheduled for IVF/ICSI cycles? In women with PCOS who underwent a first or second IVF/ICSI cycle with a GnRH antagonist protocol and were randomized to start ovarian stimulation immediately, the quality of cleavage-stage embryos was non-inferior to pretreatment with OCP. PCOS in Asian populations is characterized by high levels of circulating LH in the early follicular phase. Previous studies indicated that inappropriately high LH levels might affect oocyte maturation and fertilization rates, and impaired embryo quality, consequently resulting in higher rates of impaired pregnancy and miscarriage in women with PCOS. OCPs are frequently used as pretreatment to lower LH levels in PCOS patients. We performed a randomized controlled trial. After informed consent, women diagnosed with PCOS scheduled for their first or second IVF/ICSI cycle with a GnRH antagonist protocol were randomized to receive OCPs (OCP group) or start ovarian stimulation immediately, regardless of the day of the menstrual cycle (non-OCP group). Using a non-inferiority hypothesis, the sample size was calculated at 242 women. The study lasted from 7 February 2018 to 31 August 2021. A total of 242 infertility patients with PCOS undergoing the first or second cycle of IVF or ICSI were enrolled and randomized into two groups. In the OCP group, recombinant FSH was started on Day 7 of the washout period after pretreatment with OCP. In the non-OCP group, recombinant FSH was started immediately regardless of the day of the menstrual cycle. All participants received standardized GnRH antagonist ovarian stimulation. The freeze-all strategy was applied to all participants. The primary outcome was the number of good-quality embryos on Day 3 after insemination. Secondary outcomes included the rates of blastocyst formation, implantation, clinical pregnancy, and live birth from the first frozen/warmed embryo transfer cycles and cumulative live birth rates. We randomized 242 women to receive OCP (n = 121) or start immediately with ovarian stimulation (n = 121). The number of good-quality embryos on Day 3 in the OCP group was non-inferior to the non-OCP group (OCP group versus non-OCP group, 6.58 ± 4.93 versus 7.18 ± 4.39, AD -0.61, 95% CI: -1.86 to 0.65, P = 0.34). The rates of blastocyst formation (55.4% versus 52.9%, relative risk (RR) 1.11, 95% CI: 0.96 to 1.28, P = 0.17), implantation (63.0% versus 65.5%, RR 0.90, 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.53, P = 0.79), clinical pregnancy (67.9% versus 68.8%, RR 0.96, 95% CI: 0.54 to 1.71, P = 1.0), and live birth rate (52.8% versus 55.1%, RR 0.92, 95% CI: 0.53 to 1.56, P = 0.79) of the first frozen/warmed embryo transfer cycles were all comparable between the OCP and non-OCP group, respectively. Cumulative live birth rates were also similar in the OCP and non-OCP groups (78.3% versus 83.5%, respectively RR 0.71, 95% CI: 0.36 to 1.42, P = 0.39). Only patients with PCOS in Southern China were recruited. Therefore, caution is necessary when generalizing our results to all such patients with PCOS. Also, since a freeze-only strategy was used, the results of this study are only applicable when infertile women with PCOS undergo the freeze-only method. The obvious treatment difference between the two groups meant that the study was designed as an open-label study for women and doctors. The study had a randomized controlled design that minimized bias. Pretreatment with OCPs to lower LH levels in patients with PCOS before ovarian stimulation in IVF or ICSI cycles may not improve the quality of cleavage-stage embryos. This study was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (No. 2023YFC2705503). This study was supported in part by the Investigator-Initiated Studies Program (grant from MSD and Organon). BWM reports consultancy, travel support, and research funding from Merck. He reports consultancy from Organon and Norgine, and also reports holding stock from ObsEva. No conflicts of interest are declared for the other authors. Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (No. chiCTR1800014822). URL: https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=25280. 7 February 2018. 22 February 2018.

Gao J ，Mai Q ，Zhong Y ，Miao B ，Chen M ，Luo L ，Zhou C ，Mol BW ，Yanwen X ... -  《-》

Empirical use of growth hormone in IVF is useless: the largest randomized controlled trial.

Does adjuvant growth hormone (GH) therapy in GnRH antagonist cycles improve reproductive outcomes in the general IVF population? Empiric adjuvant GH therapy in GnRH antagonist cycles does not improve IVF stimulation results or reproductive outcomes, including implantation, miscarriage, and clinical pregnancy rates. Previous evidence regarding the benefits of GH therapy in IVF cycles has been inconclusive due to the lack of well-designed, large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in the general IVF population. This is a phase III open-label RCT involving 288 patients undergoing antagonist IVF cycles at the Ovo clinic in Montreal, Canada, between June 2014 and January 2020. Patients were randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to either the GH or control group. The intervention group received daily 2.5 mg subcutaneous injections of GH from Day 1 of ovarian stimulation until the day of oocyte retrieval, while the control group received standard ovarian stimulation without any adjuvant therapy. Patients were expected normal responders. All embryo transfers, both fresh and frozen, resulting from the studied IVF cycle were included in an intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. The primary outcome was the clinical pregnancy rate, while secondary outcomes included the number of retrieved oocytes, good-quality embryos, maturation, fertilization, implantation, and miscarriage rates. A total of 288 patients were recruited and randomly assigned at a 1:1 ratio to either the GH or the control group. After excluding cycle cancellations and patients who did not undergo transfer, 105 patients remained in each group. The overall mean age was 38.0 years, the mean BMI was 25.11 kg/m2 and the mean anti-Müllerian hormone was 2.51 ng/ml. The cycle characteristics were similar between both groups. No differences were observed regarding the total dose of gonadotropins (4600 versus 4660 IU for the GH and control groups, respectively, P = 0.752), days of stimulation (11.4 versus 11.7 days, P = 0.118), and endometrial thickness (10.63 versus 10.94 mm, P = 0.372). Both the intention to treat (ITT) and per protocol analyses yielded similar results for stimulation outcomes. In the ITT analysis, no differences were found in the number of follicles ≥15 mm (7.8 versus 7.1, P = 0.212), retrieved oocytes (11.7 versus 11.2, P = 0.613), mature oocytes (8.5 versus 8.6, P = 0.851), maturation rate (73.8 versus 78.4%, P = 0.060), fertilization rate (64.3 versus 67.2%, P = 0.388), and good quality embryos (2.5 versus 2.6, P = 0.767). Reproductive outcomes in fresh embryo transfer showed no difference for implantation rate (38.2 versus 39.5%, P = 0.829), miscarriage rate (26.5 versus 31.1%, P = 0.653), clinical pregnancy rate (43.6 versus 50.0%, P = 0.406, rate difference, 95% CI: -0.06 [-0.22, 0.09]), and live birth rate (32.1 versus 33.3%, P = 0.860). The number of embryos needed to achieve a clinical pregnancy was 3.0 versus 2.5 in the GH and control groups, respectively. Similarly, reproductive outcomes in first frozen embryo transfer showed no difference for implantation rate (31.6 versus 45.3%, P = 0.178), miscarriage rate (28.6 versus 26.3%, P = 0.873), clinical pregnancy rate (35.1 versus 44.2%, P = 0.406, P = 0.356, rate difference, 95% CI: -0.09 [-0.28, 0.10]), and live birth rate (22.8 versus 32.6%, P = 0.277). The number of embryos needed to achieve a clinical pregnancy was 3.1 versus 2.4 in the GH and control groups, respectively. The study focused on expected normal responders, limiting its applicability to other patient populations such as poor responders. These findings suggest that adding GH therapy to ovarian stimulation in GnRH antagonist cycles may not benefit the general IVF population. Additional high-quality RCTs are warranted to identify subgroups of patients who might benefit from this treatment. EMD Serono Inc., Mississauga, Canada, supplied Saizen® for the study, free of charge. In addition, they provided funding for the statistical analysis. I-J.K. declares grants or contracts from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, consulting fees from Ferring Pharmaceuticals, honoraria from Ferring Pharmaceuticals and EMD Serono, support for attending meetings or travel from Ferring Pharmaceuticals and EMD Serono, participation on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board for Ferring Pharmaceuticals, and stock or stock options from The Fertility Partners; W.J. declares support for attending meetings or travel from EMD Serono; and S.P. declares stock or stock options from The Fertility Partners. All other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. NCT01715324. 25 October 2012. 25 June 2014.

Mourad A ，Jamal W ，Hemmings R ，Tadevosyan A ，Phillips S ，Kadoch IJ ... -  《-》

Erratum: Eyestalk Ablation to Increase Ovarian Maturation in Mud Crabs.

《Jove-Journal of Visualized Experiments》

BEYOND: a randomized controlled trial comparing efficacy and safety of individualized follitropin delta dosing in a GnRH agonist versus antagonist protocol during the first ovarian stimulation cycle.

How does a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist versus a GnRH antagonist protocol affect ovarian response when using an individualized fixed daily dose of follitropin delta for ovarian stimulation? The BEYOND trial data demonstrate thatindividualized fixed-dose follitropin delta is effective when used in a GnRH agonist protocol, compared with a GnRH antagonist protocol, in women with anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) ≤35 pmol/l and no increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). The efficacy and safety of an individualized fixed daily dose of follitropin delta (based on body weight and AMH) have been established in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using a GnRH antagonist protocol. Preliminary study data indicate that individualized follitropin delta is also efficacious in a GnRH agonist protocol (RAINBOW trial, NCT03564509). There are no prospective comparative data using individualized follitropin delta for ovarian stimulation in a GnRH agonist versus a GnRH antagonist protocol. This is the first randomized, controlled, open-label, multi-centre trial exploring efficacy and safety of individualized follitropin delta dosing in a GnRH agonist versus a GnRH antagonist protocol in participants undergoing their first ovarian stimulation cycle for IVF/ICSI. A total of 437 participants were randomized centrally and stratified by centre and age. The primary endpoint was the number of oocytes retrieved. Secondary endpoints included ongoing pregnancy rates, adverse drug reactions (including OHSS), live births, and neonatal outcomes. Participants (18-40 years; AMH ≤35 pmol/l) were enrolled at specialist reproductive health clinics in Austria, Denmark, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland. The mean number of oocytes retrieved was compared between the GnRH agonist and antagonist protocols using a negative binomial regression model with age and AMH at screening as factors. Analyses were based on all randomized subjects, using a multiple imputation method for randomized subjects withdrawing before the start of stimulation. Of the 437 randomized subjects, 221 were randomized to the GnRH agonist, and 216 were randomized to the GnRH antagonist protocol. The participants had a mean age of 32.3 ± 4.3 years and a mean serum AMH of 16.6 ± 7.8 pmol/l. A total of 202 and 204 participants started ovarian stimulation with follitropin delta in the GnRH agonist and antagonist groups, respectively. The mean number of oocytes retrieved was statistically significantly higher in the agonist group (11.1 ± 5.9) versus the antagonist group (9.6 ± 5.5), with an estimated mean difference of 1.31 oocytes (95% CI: 0.22; 2.40, P = 0.0185). The difference in number of oocytes retrieved was influenced by the patients' age and ovarian reserve, with a greater difference observed in patients aged <35 years and in patients with high ovarian reserve (AMH >15 pmol/l). Both the GnRH agonist and antagonist groups had a similar proportion of cycle cancellations (2.0% [4/202] versus 3.4% [7/204]) and fresh blastocyst transfer cancellations (13.4% [27/202] versus 14.7% [30/204]). The estimated ongoing pregnancy rate per started cycle was numerically higher in the GnRH agonist group (36.9% versus 29.1%; difference: 7.74% [95% CI: -1.49; 16.97, P = 0.1002]). The most commonly reported adverse events (≥1% in either group; headache, OHSS, nausea, pelvic pain, or discomfort and abdominal pain) were similar in both groups. The incidence of early moderate/severe OHSS was low (1.5% for the agonist group versus 2.5% for antagonist groups). Estimated live birth rates per started cycle were 35.8% and 28.7% in the GnRH agonist and antagonist groups, respectively (treatment difference 7.15%; 95% CI: -2.02; 16.31; P = 0.1265). The two treatment groups were comparable with respect to neonatal health data for singletons and twins and for incidence of congenital malformations (2.7% and 3.3% for the GnRH agonist versus antagonist groups, respectively). All participants had AMH ≤35 pmol/l and were ≤40 years old. Clinicians should remain cautious when using a GnRH agonist protocol in patients with AMH >35 pmol/l (i.e. those with an increased OHSS risk). The incidence of OHSS in the GnRH antagonist group may have been lower if a GnRH agonist trigger had been allowed. Outcomes of transfers with cryopreserved blastocysts were not followed up, therefore the cumulative live birth rates and neonatal outcomes after cryotransfer are unknown. In women with AMH ≤35 pmol/l, an individualized fixed daily dose of follitropin delta resulted in a significantly higher number of oocytes retrieved when used in a GnRH agonist protocol compared with a GnRH antagonist protocol, with no additional safety signals observed and no additional risk of OHSS. Live birth rates following ovarian stimulation with individualized follitropin delta were not statistically different between the GnRH protocols; however, the trial was not powered to assess this endpoint. There were no safety concerns with respect to neonatal health after ovarian stimulation with follitropin delta in either protocol. The trial was funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals. EE, EP, and MS have no competing interests. AP has received research support from Ferring, and Gedeon Richter, and honoraria or consultation fees from Preglem, Novo Nordisk, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Cryos, Merck A/S. BC has received consulting fees from Ferring and Merck, and his department received fees from Ferring to cover the costs of patient enrolment. MBS has received support to attend meetings and/or travel from Ferring, and was a board member for FertiPROTEKT e.V. until 2023. JS has received honoraria or consultation fees from Ferring and Merck, and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Ferring, Merck, and GoodLife. TS has received support/travel expenses from Ferring for attending a congress meeting, and participated in an advisory board for Merck. YS has received grants/research support from Ferring and support to attend a professional society congress meeting from Merck. RL and PP are employees of Ferring Pharmaceuticals. PP is a BOD member of PharmaBiome and owns stocks of Takeda Pharmaceuticals. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03809429; EudraCT Number 2017-002783-40. 7 April 2019. 2 May 2019.

Lobo R ，Soerdal T ，Ekerhovd E ，Cohlen B ，Porcu E ，Schenk M ，Shufaro Y ，Smeenk J ，Suerdieck MB ，Pinton P ，Pinborg A ，BEYOND Investigators ... -  《-》