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.

How effective are the non-conventional ovarian stimulation protocols in ART? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: To compare the effectiveness of starting the ovarian stimulation on the early follicular phase ("Conventional") with the newer range of non-conventional approaches starting in the luteal phase ("Luteal"), random-start, and studies implementing them in DuoStim ("Conventional"+"Luteal"). METHODS: Systematic review. We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, and Embase, on March 2020. We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials that compared "Luteal," random-start ovarian stimulation or DuoStim with "Conventional"; we analyzed them by subgroups: oocyte freezing and patients undergoing ART treatments, both, in the general infertile population and among poor responders. RESULTS: The following results come from a sensitivity analysis that included only the low/moderate risk of bias studies. When comparing "Luteal" to "Conventional," clinically relevant differences in MII oocytes were ruled out in all subgroups. We found that "Luteal" probably increases the COH length both, in the general infertile population (OR 2.00 days, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.19, moderate-quality evidence) and in oocyte freezing cycles (MD 0.85 days, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.18, moderate-quality evidence). When analyzing DuoStim among poor responders, we found that it appears to generate a higher number of MII oocytes in comparison with a single "Conventional" (MD 3.35, 95%CI 2.54-4.15, moderate-quality evidence). CONCLUSION: Overall, this systematic review of the available data demonstrates that in poor responders, general infertile population and oocyte freezing for cancer stimulation in the late follicular and luteal phases can be utilized in non-conventional approaches such as random-start and DuoStim cycles, offering similar outcomes to the conventional cycles but potentially with increased flexibility, within a reduced time frame. However, more well-designed trials are required to establish certainty.

First custom next-generation sequencing infertility panel in Latin America: design and first results.

OBJECTIVE: To present the development of the first custom gene panel for the diagnosis of male and female infertility in Latin America. METHODS: We developed a next-generation sequencing (NGS) panel that assesses genes associated with infertility. The panel targeted exons and their flanking regions. Selected introns in the CFTR gene were also included. The FMR1 gene and Y chromosome microdeletions were analyzed with other recommended methodologies. An in-house developed bioinformatic pipeline was applied for the interpretation of the results. Clear infertility phenotypes, idiopathic infertility, and samples with known pathogenic variants were evaluated. RESULTS: A total of 75 genes were selected based on female (primary ovarian insufficiency, risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, recurrent pregnancy loss, oocyte maturation defects, and embryo development arrest) and male conditions (azoospermia, severe oligospermia, asthenozoospermia, and teratozoospermia). The panel designed was used to assess 25 DNA samples. Two of the variants found were classified as pathogenic and enable the diagnosis of a woman with secondary amenorrhea and a man with oligoasthenoteratozoospermia. Targeted NGS assay metrics resulted in a mean of 180X coverage, with more than 98% of the bases covered ≥20X. CONCLUSION: Our custom gene sequencing panel designed for the diagnosis of male and female infertility caused by genetic defects revealed the underlying genetic cause of some cases of infertility. The panel will allow us to develop more precise approaches in assisted reproduction.

Correlation between Cytoplamic Oocyte Maturation and Chromosomal Aneuploidies - Impact on fertilization, embryo quality and pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE: To establish the relationship between oocyte cytoplasmic maturation and its chromosomal status and determine the effect of this feature over the reproductive outcome in patients with sub-optimal fertilization in ART. METHODS: Fifty couples who underwent ART were selected. From nineteen patients, 22 metaphase II-MII and 18 failed-fertilized oocytes after ICSI were studied. The first polar body was collected for chromosomal analysis by aCGH. Oocytes were processed by immunocytochemistry (ICC) to determine oocyte maturation: assessment of inactive MPF status and the conformation-alignment of the metaphase plate.Other 31 couples presented sub-optimal fertilization (<50%) after ICSI, and failed-fertilized oocytes were studied by ICC. Two groups were conformed according to the main feature observed: A) cytoplasmic immaturity and sperm premature chromosome condensation and B) sperm nuclear decondensation failure with mature cytoplasm. RESULTS: Regarding MII mature oocytes, 87% had a normal metaphase plate and 84% were chromosomally normal. Contrary, immature oocytes presented abnormal metaphase plate (86%) and just 33% were euploid. In failed-fertilized oocytes: 100% of mature oocytes had a normal metaphase plate and 71% were euploid. When oocytes were cytoplasmic immature, 37% of them were normal (metaphase plate) and 50% were chromosomally normal.The global rate of aneuploidies and metaphase plate disarrangements in immature oocytes (MII+failed-fertilized) were significantly higher than mature oocytes (P<0.05).In patients with sub-optimal fertilization, the percentage of top quality embryos and pregnancy rate was significantly higher in group B (P<0.05). CONCLUSION: Oocyte cytoplasmic immaturity is related to metaphase plate anomalies and aneuploidies. Fertilized oocytes, from a cohort with sub optimal fertilization with cytoplasmic immaturity, had poorer reproductive outcomes.