Effectiveness of GnRH Agonist Short Protocol Versus GnRH Antagonist Protocol in POSEIDON Groups 3 and 4: a Retrospective Cohort Study.

The aim of this study is to compare the ART (assisted reproductive technology) outcomes and cancellation rates between GnRH antagonist protocol and GnRH agonist short protocol in POSEIDON (Patient-Oriented Strategy Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number) groups 3 and 4. It is a retrospective cohort study conducted in the Department of Reproductive Medicine and Surgery of a tertiary-level hospital. Women who underwent ART treatment with either GnRH antagonist or GnRH agonist short protocol with fresh embryo transfer, between January 2012 and December 2019 belonging to POSEIDON 3 and 4 groups, were included. Among the 295 women who belonged to the POSEIDON groups 3 or 4, 138 women received GnRH antagonist and 157 women received GnRH agonist short protocol. The median total dose of gonadotropin in the GnRH antagonist protocol was not significantly different from GnRH agonist short protocol [3000, IQR (2481-3675) vs. 3175, IQR (2643-3993), p = 0.370]. There was a significant difference in the duration of stimulation between the GnRH antagonist and GnRH agonist short protocol [10, IQR (9-12) vs. 10, IQR (8-11), p = 0.002]. The median number of mature oocytes retrieved was significantly different in the cohort of women receiving GnRH antagonist protocol compared to GnRH agonist short protocol [3, IQR (2-5) vs. 3, IQR (2-4), p = 0.029]. There was no significant difference in the clinical pregnancy rate (24% vs. 20%, p = 0.503) and cycle cancellation rate (29.7% vs. 36.3%, p = 0.290) between the GnRH antagonist and agonist short protocols respectively. Live birth rate was not significantly different between the GnRH antagonist protocol (16.7%) and GnRH agonist short protocol (14.0%) [OR 1.23, 95% CI (0.56-2.68), p = 0.604]. After adjusting for the significant confounding factors, the live birth rate was not significantly associated with the antagonist protocol compared with the short protocol [aOR 1.08, 95% CI (0.44-2.63), p = 0.870]. Though GnRH antagonist protocol results in higher mature oocyte yield when compared with GnRH agonist short protocol, it does not translate into an increase in live birth in POSEIDON groups 3 and 4.

Knowledge, anxiety levels and attitudes of infertile couples towards COVID-19 and its impact on self-funded fertility treatment: a cross-sectional questionnaire survey.

STUDY QUESTION: What is the knowledge, anxiety levels and attitudes of infertile couples towards coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its impact on undergoing self-funded treatment cycles? SUMMARY ANSWER: In spite of a high level of awareness about COVID-19, anxiety levels were low and many participants wanted to continue fertility treatment during the pandemic. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The COVID-19 pandemic has strained the already overburdened public health infrastructure in many of the resource-limited settings across the world. After an initial decision to suspend fertility treatments, regulatory authorities advocated phased resumptions of treatment. Owing to limited healthcare resources and the detrimental impact of COVID-19 on the economy and job losses, fertility services have been disproportionately affected. It is important to understand the perceptions of infertile couples, who are the key stakeholders in shared decision-making, especially for self-funded treatments, on the continuation of fertility treatment during the current COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN SIZE DURATION: This was a questionnaire-based cross-sectional study conducted among 502 participants (251 infertile couples) at a tertiary level infertility clinic between May 2020 and November 2020. The study recruitment period (6 months) coincided with the increase and peak of COVID-19 infection in India. The study included infertile couples who had attended the clinic either for assessment or fertility treatment. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS SETTING METHODS: An interviewer administered the questionnaire survey, which was conducted in two stages for each participant. In the first stage, knowledge about COVID-19 and anxiety levels caused by the ongoing pandemic were assessed using a validated Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) tool. Following this, all the participants were provided with a COVID-19 information pamphlet. Subsequently, in the second stage, participants were administered another questionnaire to assess their attitudes towards fertility treatment and pregnancy during the COVID-19 pandemic. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: The results showed that the knowledge levels and awareness about COVID-19 was high among infertile couples attending the infertility clinic. The majority of the participants were aware of the mode of spread (87.6-93.4% correct answers to different questions), common symptoms (64.1-96.2%) and the importance of preventative measures (95.6-97.4%). Most of the participants (474/502; 94.4%) did not show anxiety when being assessed using GAD-7. A vast majority (96.5-99.2%) of the participants were in agreement with the need for following preventative measures for reducing the spread of COVID-19. About one-third of the participants wanted to delay the fertility treatment until the pandemic is over (166/502; 33.1%). Approximately 42.2% (212/502) of the participants did not feel the need to suspend fertility treatment during the pandemic. Further analysis revealed that participants' education levels significantly influenced the desire to continue fertility treatment: participants with lower levels of education (below graduate) were less likely to continue fertility treatment (adjusted odds ratio 0.34, 95% CI, 0.12-0.98). LIMITATIONS REASONS FOR CAUTION: Questionnaire-based responses could have limited the ability of the interviewer to capture the entire range of thoughts and views of the participants on the COVID pandemic and their fertility treatments. Furthermore, a language barrier was encountered for some couples for which assistance from a translator was sought. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Given the impact of infertility and the associated stigma, public health policy makers, regulatory authorities and fertility societies should consider a way to sustain the treatment options and develop appropriate guidelines to continue treatment, particularly when much of the world is experiencing the second and third waves of the COVID pandemic. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS: This study has not received any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. M.S.K. is an associate editor with Human Reproduction Open. The other authors have no competing interests to declare. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.