Study Question:
Is oral medroxiprogesterone acetate (MPA) non-inferior compared to ganirelix with respect to the number of mature oocytes (MII) retrieved at ovum pick-up (OPU) in oocyte donation cycles?
Summary Answer:
MPA is comparable to ganirelix in terms of number of MII retrieved at OPU in oocyte donation cycles.
What Is Known Already:
Oral treatment with MPA inhibits the pituitary LH surge during ovarian stimulation in infertile patients. Because of its negative effect on the endometrium, MPA suppression is combined with freeze-all. Published reports indicate that both the number of MII retrieved and pregnancy rates from these oocytes are comparable to short protocol of GnRH agonists during IVF cycles with freeze-all. MPA might allow for more comfortable and cost-effective ovarian stimulation.
Study Design, Size, Duration:
Randomized clinical trial, open-label, single center, to assess the non-inferiority of MPA (10 mg/day) versus ganirelix (0.25 mg/day) from Day 7, in ovarian stimulation cycles triggered with triptoreline acetate. Trigger criterion was ≥3 follicles of diameter >18 mm.
Participants/materials, Setting, Methods:
Overall, 252 oocyte donors were selected (eligible), 216 were randomized and 173 reached OPU: 86 under MPA and 87 under ganirelix. The main outcome was the number of MII retrieved at OPU. Secondary outcomes were embryological laboratory outcomes and reproductive outcomes in recipients. The study was powered to test that the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the difference in retrieved MII between groups will be above the non-inferiority limit of -3. Differences were tested using a two-sided Student's t-test or a Pearson's Chi2 test, as appropriate.
Main Results And The Role Of Chance:
All participants were in their first cycle of oocyte donation. On average, donors were 24 (SD 4.5) years old and with a BMI of 23 (SD 2.9) kg/m2. Duration of stimulation was similar in both groups (11.2 days), as well as the total gonadotropin dose up to trigger (2162 IU in MPA and 2163 IU in ganirelix). The number of MII retrieved was no different: 15.1 (SD 8.3) with MPA and 14.6 (SD 7.0), 95% CI of the difference -2.78, -1.83 excluding the pre-defined non-inferiority limit (-3). Recipients and embryo transfer (ET) characteristics were also similar between groups. The average age of recipients was 42 (SD 4.8) years and the BMI was 24 (SD 4.4) kg/m2. The mean number of MII assigned to each recipients was 6.7 (SD 1.2) in MPA and 6.6 (SD 1.2) in ganirelix (P = 0.58). MII were fertilized with partner sperm in 84% cycles overall and fertilization rate was 76% in MPA versus 74% in ganirelix (P = 0.34). Overall, there was 54% of double ET and 46% of single ET, with 40% of ETs were performed in D5. In spite of similar recipients and cycle characteristics, reproductive outcomes were unexpectedly lower with MPA. Biochemical pregnancy rate was 44 versus 57% (P = 0.023); clinical pregnancy rate 31 versus 46% (P = 0.006); ongoing pregnancy rate 27 versus 40%, (P = 0.015) and live birth rate 22 versus 31%, (P = 0.10).
Limitations, Reasons For Caution:
Although oocyte recipient and ET characteristics are similar among groups, this RCT has been designed under a hypothesis of non-inferiority in the number of MII obtained and recipients were not randomized; therefore, the reproductive outcomes in recipients should be evaluated with extreme caution.
Wider Implication Of The Findings:
Ovarian stimulation using MPA for prevention of LH surge yields comparable number of MII oocytes compared to ganirelix in oocyte donation cycles. The unexpected finding in reproductive outcomes should be further investigated.
Study Funding/competing Interest(s):
None to report.
Trial Registration Number:
EudraCT number: 2015-004328-73; ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02796105.
Trial Registration Date:
29 September 2015 (EudraCT); 9 June 2016 (ClinicalTrials.gov).
Date Of First Patient’s Enrollment:
The date of enrollment of the first participant was 07 July 2016, and the last participant last visit in the study was on 10 July 2017.
Citing Articles
Exploring new frontiers in oncofertility preservation: a case of ovarian stimulation during pregnancy.
Pirooznia P, Meighani E, Ghaffari F
J Ovarian Res. 2025; 18(1):39.
PMID: 40011966
PMC: 11863525.
DOI: 10.1186/s13048-025-01615-4.
Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy: a retrospective study and meta-analysis.
Qin X, Fan L, Luo Y, Deng Z, Zeng Z, Jiang X
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2025; .
PMID: 39945792
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-024-07918-z.
A multicycle approach through DuoStim with a progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol: a valuable option in poor prognosis patients undergoing PGT-A.
Vaiarelli A, Pittana E, Cimadomo D, Ruffa A, Colamaria S, Argento C
J Assist Reprod Genet. 2024; 42(1):255-264.
PMID: 39538089
PMC: 11805732.
DOI: 10.1007/s10815-024-03317-0.
Comparison of fixed and flexible progestin-primed ovarian stimulation in women classified in patient-oriented strategies encompassing individualized oocyte number (POSEIDON) group 4.
Matsuda Y, Takebayashi A, Tsuji S, Hanada T, Kasei R, Hirata K
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024; 310(4):2203-2209.
PMID: 39162802
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-024-07690-0.
Micronized natural progesterone (Seidigestan) vs GnRH antagonists for preventing the LH surge during controlled ovarian stimulation (PRO_NAT study): study protocol of a randomized clinical trial.
Martinez-Moya M, Guerrero J, Girela J, Pitas A, Bernabeu A, Bernabeu R
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2024; 15:1350154.
PMID: 38577571
PMC: 10991791.
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2024.1350154.
Comparing blastocyst euploid rates between the progestin-primed and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist protocols in aneuploidy genetic testing: a randomised trial protocol.
Li H, Yu M, Zhang W, Chen J, Chen H, Lu X
BMJ Open. 2024; 14(3):e079208.
PMID: 38521533
PMC: 10961518.
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079208.
Comparison of progesterone protocol versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in terms of preventing premature LH surge and assisted reproductive technology outcome in infertile women: a randomized controlled trial.
Jabarpour M, Pouri S, Aleyasin A, Shabani Nashtaei M, Najafian A
Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2024; 309(5):1999-2008.
PMID: 38421423
DOI: 10.1007/s00404-024-07387-4.
The comparison between fixed versus degressive doses of medroxyprogesterone acetate combined with letrozole in patients of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol: a propensity score-matched study.
Zhang Y, Li H, Zhu S, Jiang S, Zhao W, Wang X
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023; 14:1295787.
PMID: 38155955
PMC: 10754509.
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1295787.
Correlation between controlled ovarian stimulation protocols and euploid blastocyst rate in pre-implantation genetic testing for aneuploidy cycles.
Huang B, Li H, Xu B, Li N, Wang X, Li Y
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2023; 21(1):118.
PMID: 38057895
PMC: 10698966.
DOI: 10.1186/s12958-023-01166-7.
Progestogens for prevention of luteinising hormone (LH) surge in women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation as part of an assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycle.
Glujovsky D, Pesce R, Miguens M, Sueldo C, Ciapponi A
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023; 11:CD013827.
PMID: 38032057
PMC: 10687848.
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD013827.pub2.
Switching from cetrorelix to dydrogesterone in an IVF cycle - a new strategy for unexpected freeze-all cycles.
Antunes R, Souza M, Marinho M, Raupp V, Melo G
JBRA Assist Reprod. 2023; .
PMID: 37850848
PMC: 10718554.
DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20230036.
Risk factors for low oocyte retrieval in patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome undergoing in vitro fertilization.
Jin H, Yang H, Zheng J, Zhou J, Yu R
Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2023; 21(1):66.
PMID: 37468927
PMC: 10355040.
DOI: 10.1186/s12958-023-01118-1.
Comparison of the neonatal outcomes of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation and flexible GnRH antagonist protocols: a propensity score-matched cohort study.
Du M, Zhang J, Ren B, Guan Y
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023; 14:1156620.
PMID: 37396165
PMC: 10313097.
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1156620.
Chlormadinone acetate in progestin-primed ovarian stimulation does not negatively affect clinical results.
Shibasaki S, Hattori H, Koizumi M, Nagaura S, Toya M, Igarashi H
Reprod Med Biol. 2023; 22(1):e12519.
PMID: 37265782
PMC: 10231652.
DOI: 10.1002/rmb2.12519.
Comparison of cumulative live birth rates between progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol and gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in different populations.
Zhou R, Dong M, Huang L, Wang S, Fan L, Liang X
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2023; 14:1117513.
PMID: 37143731
PMC: 10151746.
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2023.1117513.
Comparing Progesterone Primed Ovarian Stimulation (PPOS) to GnRH Antagonist Protocol in Oocyte Donation Cycles.
Khurana R, Rao V, Nayak C, Pranesh G, Rao K
J Hum Reprod Sci. 2022; 15(3):278-283.
PMID: 36341015
PMC: 9635379.
DOI: 10.4103/jhrs.jhrs_85_22.
Evaluation of pregnancy outcomes using medroxyprogesterone acetate versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist in ovarian stimulation: A retrospective cohort study.
Singh E, Blockeel C, Singh M, Gupta R, Kamdi S
Int J Reprod Biomed. 2022; 20(6):491-500.
PMID: 35958960
PMC: 9358237.
DOI: 10.18502/ijrm.v20i6.11445.
The Comparison of Fixed and Flexible Progestin Primed Ovarian Stimulation on Mature Oocyte Yield in Women at Risk of Premature Ovarian Insufficiency.
Kalafat E, Dizdar M, Turkgeldi E, Yildiz S, Keles I, Ata B
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2022; 12:797227.
PMID: 35185784
PMC: 8850276.
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2021.797227.
Corifollitropin alpha, clomiphene citrate and dydrogesterone without daily gonadotrophin: a new option of a friendly protocol for high-responder oocyte donors.
Melo A, Paula C, Santos T, Faria V, Rufato M, Barboza R
JBRA Assist Reprod. 2021; 26(2):315-320.
PMID: 34672261
PMC: 9118961.
DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20210082.
Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation is a non-inferior alternative to the GnRH Antagonist Protocol in patients undergoing assisted reproductive techniques: a retrospective study.
Caetano J, Calazans L, Amorim L, Pereira L, Xavier E, Campos A
JBRA Assist Reprod. 2021; 26(1):38-43.
PMID: 34609115
PMC: 8769185.
DOI: 10.5935/1518-0557.20210057.