RESUMO
The menopausal transition, or perimenopause, is characterized by menstrual irregularities, vasomotor symptoms, sleep disturbances, mood symptoms, and urogenital tract atrophy. These changes can also affect the quality of life and one's self-esteem. Hormone replacement therapy (HRT) is considered the best option to achieve therapeutic relief of different menopausal symptoms but is usually restricted to moderate or severe symptoms. Moreover, many women refuse HRT for a variety of reasons concerning the fear of cancer and other adverse effects. According to these considerations, new topics are emerging: Dissatisfaction with drug costs and conventional healthcare, desire for personalized medicines, and the public perception that "natural is good". In this context, nonhormonal therapies are mostly evolving, and it is not unusual that women often request a "natural" approach for their symptoms. The aim of this study is to investigate nonhormonal therapies that have been identified to reduce the menopausal symptoms.
Assuntos
Suplementos Nutricionais , Menopausa , Fitoterapia , Contraindicações de Medicamentos , Terapia de Reposição Hormonal , Fogachos/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Osteoporose Pós-Menopausa/prevenção & controle , Fitoestrógenos/efeitos adversos , Fitoestrógenos/uso terapêutico , Fitoterapia/efeitos adversos , Transtornos do Sono-Vigília/tratamento farmacológico , Vitaminas/uso terapêuticoRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To outline oocyte competence after progestin primed ovarian stimulation with Norethisterone acetate (NETA-PPOS) compared to conventional GnRH-antagonist protocol. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective matched case-control study involving advanced-maternal-age women undergoing ICSI with PGT-A. 89 NETA-PPOS were matched with 178 control patients based on maternal age and ovarian reserve biomarkers. Both groups underwent recombinant-FSH OS with GnRH-agonist ovulation trigger and collected ≥1 MII. In the study group, NETA (10 mg/day) was administered orally starting from day2 of the menstrual cycle. Euploid blastocyst rate per cohort of metaphase-II oocytes (EBR per MII) was the primary outcome. All other embryological and clinical outcomes were reported. Gestational age, birthweight and length were also assessed. RESULTS: The EBR per MII was comparable among PPOS and control (13.9 % ± 19.3 % versus 13.3 % ± 17.9 %; the sample size allowed to exclude up to a 10 % difference). Blastocysts morphology and developmental rate were similar. No difference was reported for all clinical outcomes among the 61 and 107 vitrified-warmed euploid single blastocyst transfers respectively conducted. The cumulative live birth delivery rate per concluded cycles was also comparable (24.7 % versus 21.9 %). Neonatal outcomes were analogous. CONCLUSIONS: Oocyte competence after NETA-PPOS and standard OS is comparable. This evidence is reassuring and, because of its lower cost and possibly higher patients' compliance, supports PPOS administration whenever the patients are indicated to freeze-all (e.g., fertility preservation, PGT-A, oocyte donation). More data are required about follicle recruitment, oocyte yield, gestational and perinatal outcomes. Randomized-controlled-trials are advisable to confirm our evidence.