Comparison of Medroxyprogesterone Acetate With Cetrotide for Prevention of Premature Luteinizing Hormone Surges in Women Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization

Hamdi, Kobra; Farzadi, Laya; Ghasemzadeh, Alea; Navali, Nazli; Atashkhoei, Simin; Pia, Helen; Shahnazi, V; Fattahi, Amir; Bahrami-Asl, Zahra; Sepasi, Farnaz; Faliz, Massomeh Dopour; Lahroudi, Nahid; Hakimi, Parvin

doi:10.15296/ijwhr.2018.31

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results showed that Duphaston at the dose used in the study did not have a negative impact on follicle and egg development and caused more egg recovery than that with GnRH antagonists. These study findings are consistent with those of previous studies, indicating that medroxyprogesterone (progesterone) does not negatively affect eggs or follicles [16,17] . Additional evaluation of higher doses should be performed to investigate the role of Duphaston or other progesterone compounds in follicle development.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Duphaston as a suitable medication for women taking intracytoplasmic sperm injection to treat infertility

Naserpour,

Berjis,

Soleymani Moud

et al. 2023

Reproductive and Developmental Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Duphaston is used as an alternative to gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists for suppressing premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of Duphaston protocols with that of Cetrotide in suppressing the LH surge. Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, 669 infertile women (aged 25–40 years) were administered recombinant follicle-stimulating (rFSH) hormone from the third day of their menstrual cycle. After the follicular diameter reached–13-14 mm, Cetrotide was prescribed orally to the control subjects, also case subjects took Duphaston orally. The retrieved oocytes were fertilized by an intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Results: The levels of FSH, LH, and estradiol did not differ significantly between the groups (P >0.05). However, the findings indicated that Duphaston led to greater oocyte retrieval than Cetrotide (P=0.006). However, the number of mature oocytes and viable embryos in the case subjects did not reach a significant difference compared to that in the control subjects (P >0.05). The number of good-quality embryos (stage1) was significantly higher in the case subjects (P =0.04). In addition, there is no significant difference in the chemical, clinical pregnancy, implantation rate, and miscarriage rate between both groups (P >0.05) . Conclusion: Duphaston could be utilized as a suitable medication rather than a GnRH antagonist in women subjected to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Duphaston as a suitable medication for women taking intracytoplasmic sperm injection to treat infertility

Naserpour,

Berjis,

Soleymani Moud

et al. 2023

Reproductive and Developmental Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There have been several reports on PPOS using exogenous synthetic progestin, such as MPA, dydrogesterone (DYG). Some studies have indicated that clinical outcomes, neonatal outcomes, and the incidence of congenital deformities are similar in PPOS using MPA and conventional ovarian stimulation protocols, such as the GnRH antagonist protocol, the short protocol or mild ovarian stimulation 3–5 . According to Yu et al, DYG could be an appropriate alternative progestin for PPOS 6 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some studies have indicated that clinical outcomes, neonatal outcomes, and the incidence of congenital deformities are similar in PPOS using MPA and conventional ovarian stimulation protocols, such as the GnRH antagonist protocol, the short protocol or mild ovarian stimulation. 3 , 4 , 5 According to Yu et al, DYG could be an appropriate alternative progestin for PPOS. 6 It has been reported that the clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates in PPOS with dydrogesterone are comparable to those of a GnRH antagonist protocol.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Chlormadinone acetate in progestin‐primed ovarian stimulation does not negatively affect clinical results

Shibasaki,

Hattori,

Koizumi

et al. 2023

Reprod Medicine & Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeTo investigate whether progestin‐primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) with chlormadinone acetate (CMA) adversely affects clinical results and neonatal outcomes, or causes congenital deformities.MethodsThis retrospective study was conducted at private IVF clinic from November 2018 to November 2021. Women underwent oocyte retrieval using gonadotropin‐releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol (n = 835) or PPOS protocol (n = 57) were included. Eligible patients were normal ovarian responders (aged <40, AMH ≧1.0 ng/mL) with freeze‐all cycle. Embryo developments, clinical results, or neonatal outcomes of singletons derived from transfer of frozen single blastocysts were compared within each group.ResultsPatient characteristics were similar in both groups. The median LH level (mIU/mL) at trigger in the GnRH antagonist group [2.0 (1.2–3.7)] was significantly higher than in the PPOS group [0.9 (0.3–1.7)]. There was no cycle with premature LH surge in the PPOS group. Fertilization and blastocyst formation rates did not differ significantly between groups. Furthermore, clinical outcomes were also similar in the two groups. Congenital abnormality rates did not differ significantly [0.9% (3/329), 0.0% (0/17)].ConclusionsCMA using ovarian stimulation did not negatively affect clinical results. Our data suggest that PPOS with CMA is an appropriate ovarian stimulation method for normal ovarian responders.

show abstract

ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI†

Bosch

Broer

Griesinger

et al. 2020

Human Reproduction Open

281

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

STUDY QUESTION What is the recommended management of ovarian stimulation, based on the best available evidence in the literature? SUMMARY ANSWER The guideline development group formulated 84 recommendations answering 18 key questions on ovarian stimulation. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY Ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI has been discussed briefly in the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline on fertility problems, and the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist has published a statement on ovarian stimulation in assisted reproduction. There are, to our knowledge, no evidence-based guidelines dedicated to the process of ovarian stimulation. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION The guideline was developed according to the structured methodology for development of ESHRE guidelines. After formulation of key questions by a group of experts, literature searches and assessments were performed. Papers published up to 8 November 2018 and written in English were included. The critical outcomes for this guideline were efficacy in terms of cumulative live birth rate per started cycle or live birth rate per started cycle, as well as safety in terms of the rate of occurrence of moderate and/or severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Based on the collected evidence, recommendations were formulated and discussed until consensus was reached within the guideline group. A stakeholder review was organized after finalization of the draft. The final version was approved by the guideline group and the ESHRE Executive Committee. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE The guideline provides 84 recommendations: 7 recommendations on pre-stimulation management, 40 recommendations on LH suppression and gonadotrophin stimulation, 11 recommendations on monitoring during ovarian stimulation, 18 recommendations on triggering of final oocyte maturation and luteal support and 8 recommendations on the prevention of OHSS. These include 61 evidence-based recommendations—of which only 21 were formulated as strong recommendations—and 19 good practice points and 4 research-only recommendations. The guideline includes a strong recommendation for the use of either antral follicle count or anti-Müllerian hormone (instead of other ovarian reserve tests) to predict high and poor response to ovarian stimulation. The guideline also includes a strong recommendation for the use of the GnRH antagonist protocol over the GnRH agonist protocols in the general IVF/ICSI population, based on the comparable efficacy and higher safety. For predicted poor responders, GnRH antagonists and GnRH agonists are equally recommended. With regards to hormone pre-treatment and other adjuvant treatments (metformin, growth hormone (GH), testosterone, dehydroepiandrosterone, aspirin and sildenafil), the guideline group concluded that none are recommended for increasing efficacy or safety. LIMITATIONS, REASON FOR CAUTION Several newer interventions are not well studied yet. For most of these interventions, a recommendation against the intervention or a research-only recommendation was formulated based on insufficient evidence. Future studies may require these recommendations to be revised. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS The guideline provides clinicians with clear advice on best practice in ovarian stimulation, based on the best evidence available. In addition, a list of research recommendations is provided to promote further studies in ovarian stimulation. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) The guideline was developed and funded by ESHRE, covering expenses associated with the guideline meetings, with the literature searches and with the dissemination of the guideline. The guideline group members did not receive payment. F.B. reports research grant from Ferring and consulting fees from Merck, Ferring, Gedeon Richter and speaker’s fees from Merck. N.P. reports research grants from Ferring, MSD, Roche Diagnositics, Theramex and Besins Healthcare; consulting fees from MSD, Ferring and IBSA; and speaker’s fees from Ferring, MSD, Merck Serono, IBSA, Theramex, Besins Healthcare, Gedeon Richter and Roche Diagnostics. A.L.M reports research grants from Ferring, MSD, IBSA, Merck Serono, Gedeon Richter and TEVA and consulting fees from Roche, Beckman-Coulter. G.G. reports consulting fees from MSD, Ferring, Merck Serono, IBSA, Finox, Theramex, Gedeon-Richter, Glycotope, Abbott, Vitrolife, Biosilu, ReprodWissen, Obseva and PregLem and speaker’s fees from MSD, Ferring, Merck Serono, IBSA, Finox, TEVA, Gedeon Richter, Glycotope, Abbott, Vitrolife and Biosilu. E.B. reports research grants from Gedeon Richter; consulting and speaker’s fees from MSD, Ferring, Abbot, Gedeon Richter, Merck Serono, Roche Diagnostics and IBSA; and ownership interest from IVI-RMS Valencia. P.H. reports research grants from Gedeon Richter, Merck, IBSA and Ferring and speaker’s fees from MSD, IBSA, Merck and Gedeon Richter. J.U. reports speaker’s fees from IBSA and Ferring. N.M. reports research grants from MSD, Merck and IBSA; consulting fees from MSD, Merck, IBSA and Ferring and speaker’s fees from MSD, Merck, IBSA, Gedeon Richter and Theramex. M.G. reports speaker’s fees from Merck Serono, Ferring, Gedeon Richter and MSD. S.K.S. reports speaker’s fees from Merck, MSD, Ferring and Pharmasure. E.K. reports speaker’s fees from Merck Serono, Angellini Pharma and MSD. M.K. reports speaker’s fees from Ferring. T.T. reports speaker’s fees from Merck, MSD and MLD. The other authors report no conflicts of interest. Disclaimer This guideline represents the views of ESHRE, which were achieved after careful consideration of the scientific evidence available at the time of preparation. In the absence of scientific evidence on certain aspects, a consensus between the relevant ESHRE stakeholders has been obtained. Adherence to these clinical practice guidelines does not guarantee a successful or specific outcome, nor does it establish a standard of care. Clinical practice guidelines do not replace the need for application of clinical judgment to each individual presentation, nor variations based on locality and facility type. ESHRE makes no warranty, express or implied, regarding the clinical practice guidelines and specifically excludes any warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular use or purpose. (Full disclaimer available at www.eshre.eu/guidelines.) †ESHRE Pages content is not externally peer reviewed. The manuscript has been approved by the Executive Committee of ESHRE.

show abstract

Comparison of Medroxyprogesterone Acetate With Cetrotide for Prevention of Premature Luteinizing Hormone Surges in Women Undergoing In Vitro Fertilization

Cited by 4 publications

References 13 publications

Duphaston as a suitable medication for women taking intracytoplasmic sperm injection to treat infertility

Duphaston as a suitable medication for women taking intracytoplasmic sperm injection to treat infertility

Chlormadinone acetate in progestin‐primed ovarian stimulation does not negatively affect clinical results

ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI†

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About