Next Article in Journal
Preliminary Evidence to Support a De-Escalated Cochlear Implant Programming Paradigm for New Adult Recipients: A Systematic Review
Next Article in Special Issue
The Effect of Latent Tuberculosis Infection on Ovarian Reserve and Pregnancy Outcomes among Infertile Women Undergoing Intrauterine Insemination: A Retrospective Cohort Study with Propensity Score Matching
Previous Article in Journal
Impact of Prenatal and Postnatal Diagnosis on Parents: Psychosocial and Economic Aspects Related to Congenital Heart Defects in Children
Previous Article in Special Issue
Outcomes of the Next In Vitro Fertilization Cycle in Women with Polycystic Ovary Syndrome after a Failed In Vitro Maturation Attempt
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 18
10.3390/jcm12185775
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparison of Cumulative Live Birth Rates between Flexible and Conventional Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol in Poor Ovarian Response Patients According to POSEIDON Criteria: A Cohort Study

by
Ying Chen
1,2,
Yifan Chu
1,
Wen Yao
1,
Luyao Wang
1,
Wanjiang Zeng
2 and
Jing Yue
1,*
1
Reproductive Medical Center, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
2
Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430030, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(18), 5775; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12185775
Submission received: 8 July 2023 / Revised: 6 August 2023 / Accepted: 31 August 2023 / Published: 5 September 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Advances in Clinical Reproductive Medicine)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Research Question: To compare the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) per oocyte retrieval cycle of a conventional progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (cPPOS) regimen with a flexible progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (fPPOS) regimen in poor ovarian response patients, according to POSEIDON criteria. Design: Poor ovarian response women, according to POSEIDON criteria, who underwent the first PPOS protocol for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) between January 2018 and December 2020 were included. The fPPOS group involved 113 participants, and the cPPOS group included 1119 participants. In the cPPOS group, medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) (10 mg/d) was administrated on the gonadotropin injection the same day as gonadotropin injections in the cPPOS group, while MPA was started either on the day when the leading follicle with mean diameter > 12mm was present and/or serum E2 was >300 pg/mL in the fPPOS protocol group. The primary outcome was CLBR. Results: The fPPOS protocol had higher CLBR per oocyte retrieval cycle compared to the cPPOS group, even without a statistically significant difference (29.6% vs. 24.9%, p = 0.365). The fPPOS group had fewer numbers of retrieved oocytes (2.87 ± 2.03 vs. 3.76 ± 2.32, p < 0.001) but a higher MII oocyte rate (89.8% vs. 84.7%, p = 0.016). In addition, the number of available embryos in the two groups was comparable (1.37 ± 1.24 vs. 1.63 ± 1.38, p = 0.095). There were five women in the fPPOS group, and 86 women in the cPPOS group had a premature LH surge (4.2% vs. 6.8%, p = 0.261). In the fPPOS group, there was one instance of premature ovulation, while in the cPPOS group, there were six occurrences of premature ovulation (0.8 vs. 0.5%, p = 1.000). Conclusion(s): The novel fPPOS protocol appears to achieve higher CLBR even without significant differences and with MPA consumption compared with cPPOS protocol in low-prognosis patients.

1. Introduction

Poor ovarian response (POR) is characterized by poor response to standard regimens in assisted reproduction technology (ART), resulting in an insufficient number of retrieved oocytes, a higher cancellation rate, and a lower live birth rate [1]. The Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing Individualized Oocyte Number (POSEIDON) criteria proposed in 2016 stratified POR patients into four groups by age, anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), antral follicle count (AFC), body mass index (BMI), and the number of oocytes in the previous oocyte retrieval cycle [2,3,4]. Women who meet the POSEIDON criteria are presumed to have a lower prognosis after ART treatment than normal responders with the same ovarian reserve [5]. Therefore, how to improve the clinical outcomes of POSEIDON patients remains to be one of the greatest agendas in ART [6].
With the advent of in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF–ET) treatment, in order to increase the efficacy of the treatment, ovarian stimulation (OS) was introduced to retrieve more oocytes and generate more embryos available for transfer. Nevertheless, multi-follicular growth results in increased production of sex steroids, which can lead to an extemporaneous LH surge and spontaneous ovulation prior to oocyte collection [7]. Thus, pituitary suppression becomes an important research topic of reproductive physiology during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) for good outcomes in ART [8]. Following gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists (GnRH-ant) protocol and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) protocol, experts proposed a progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) regimen. The PPOS regimen was proposed by Kuang et al. in 2014 [9], in which progesterone, instead of GnRH analogs, is administered during the follicular phase to prevent the LH surge [9].
The advantages of PPOS are avoiding daily injections and being low-cost. It has been proved that this protocol can obtain competent or better oocytes, embryos, and clinical outcomes compared to other protocols in specific populations [8,10,11,12]. However, fresh cycle transfer cannot be performed in patients who performed the PPOS protocol, which may induce new questions, such as the possible adverse effects of cryopreservation on embryos and offspring. With the further improvement of in vitro culture and freeze–thaw technology, some recent studies have confirmed that the freeze-all approach does not have an effect on cumulative live birth rate (CLBR), but on the contrary, avoids the negative effects of offspring in the state of high estrogen [13,14]. Additionally, the security of the protocol remains in question. Whether high progesterone status, particularly the heavy use of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) in artificial PPOS regimens, negatively affects oocyte quality and offspring safety remains controversial. Based on this, a novel flexible progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (fPPOS) regimen was applied recently [15]. Unlike the conventional PPOS (cPPOS) protocol, oral progestin administration was not started simultaneously with gonadotrophins but was added flexibly according to the follicular size and/or serum E2 levels in the fPPOS protocol. Compared to the cPPOS protocol, the dosage of MPA was lower in the fPPOS protocol. Therefore, the fPPOS protocol was more advantageous in terms of security and may be more effective in poor ovarian response patients. Indeed, the safety and effectiveness of the fPPOS protocol have been approved, especially in poor ovarian response patients [16].
As far as we know, no previous study has compared the efficacy and safety of fPPOS protocol and cPPOS protocol in POR patients. Therefore, the purpose of the present study was to investigate whether fPPOS for the treatment of POR patients according to POSEIDON criteria achieved the same or better pregnancy outcomes than those of cPPOS protocol.

2. Methods

2.1. Study Population

We carried out a retrospective cohort study that included women undergoing in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) from January 2018 to December 2020 at the reproductive center of Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College of Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, China. All data were extracted from the electronic medical record database. This study was approved by the Ethical Committee of Tongji Hospital on 28 March 2021 (TJ-IRB20210528).
Patients who met the POSEIDON criteria and underwent the first PPOS protocol were enrolled in this study. The POSEIDON criteria were defined as the criteria proposed in 2016 [2]. We further excluded 146 women for (i) oocyte cryopreservation, (ii) in vitro maturation, (iii) oocyte artificial activation, (iv) maternal or paternal chromosome abnormality, and (v) moderate to severe intrauterine adhesions. Finally, 113 women were included in the fPPOS group, and 1119 women were included in the cPPOS group (Figure 1).

2.2. Ovarian Stimulation Protocols and Fertilization

As described previously, baseline characteristics were collected on days 2–3 of the menstrual cycle to exclude any follicles > 12 mm and uterine or ovarian pathology [15]. Then, the patients were given gonadotropin daily at a dose of 150–300 IU/day and MPA 10 mg/day daily simultaneously in the conventional group. In the flexible group, MPA at 10 mg/day was started either when the leading follicle with a mean diameter > 12 mm was present and/or serum E2 was >300 pg/mL. The Gn doses were adjusted based on the ovarian response assessed by serum hormone levels and the development of follicles by transvaginal ultrasonography every 2–3 days. For both groups, ovulation was triggered with subcutaneous injections of human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG 10,000 IU, Lizhu Pharmaceutical Trading Co. Ltd., Zhuhai, China) when the leading follicle exceeded 17 mm diameter, or the majority growing follicles reached 14 mm or more. Oocytes were retrieved via transvaginal aspiration 34–36 h after ovulation was triggered. Fertilization was carried out in vitro, by either conventional insemination or ICSI, depending on semen parameters. All embryos were vitrified, considering the detrimental endometrial receptivity by MPA.

2.3. Transfer of Cryopreserved-Thawed Embryos

Frozen embryo transfer (FET) was performed in the subsequent cycle, as described previously [17,18]. Endometrial preparation protocols included the natural cycle and hormone replacement protocol, which were primarily determined by the patient’s ovulation status [19]. Natural cycles were adopted for patients with regular menstrual cycles. Dydrogesterone was administered orally, and progesterone was administered vaginally on the ovulation day for the luteal phase support. The hormone replacement protocol was adopted for irregular menstrual cycles. Valerate estrogen was orally administered until the endometrial thickness reached a maximum of 7 mm. Luteal phase support was similar to the natural cycle. The maximum number of transferred embryos was two. The progesterone supplementation was continued until 10 weeks of gestation after pregnancy was achieved.

2.4. Primary and Secondary Outcomes

The primary outcome is the cumulative live birth rate (CLBR). The secondary outcomes are cumulative pregnancy rate (CPR), the number of oocytes retrieved, MII oocytes, available embryos, the MII oocytes rate, the two pronuclei (2PN) embryos rate, duration of ovarian stimulation, total usage of gonadotropin, the incidence of premature LH surge, cancellation rate, follicular output rate (FORT), follicle-to-oocyte (FOI), and blastocyst rate per patient.
CLBR is defined as the rate of at least one live birth per oocyte retrieval cycle; women with the surplus embryo(s) by the end of an agreed follow-up period (two years) have been excluded [20,21,22]. CPR is defined as the cumulative clinical pregnancy rate per oocyte retrieval cycle or until all embryos are used. The available embryos are defined as cryopreserved embryos. The 2PN embryo rate is calculated as the rate of 2PN embryos to all MII oocytes per woman. The premature LH surge is defined as serum LH > 10 IU/L or rising above twice the basal level before trigger day. The cancellation rate is defined as the rate of cancel cycle due to premature ovulation or follicle dysplasia [9]. Neonatal complications included stillbirth, neonatal jaundice, pneumonia of the newborn, neonatal pulmonary insufficiency, and birth defects [21]. FORT is calculated as pre-ovulatory follicle (>14 mm in diameter) count on dhCG × 100/small antral follicle (3–8 mm in diameter) count at baseline [23]. FOI is defined as the total number of oocytes retrieved/the number of antral follicles available (AFC) [24]. The blastocyst formation rate is calculated as the number of blastocysts/all embryos per patient (B group) per oocyte retrieval. The endpoint is the same as CLBR.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed with SPSS 26.0 software (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). The distribution of variables was evaluated visually with histograms. Continuous variables were presented with mean ± (SD) and compared via Student’s t-test or Mann–Whitney U Test. Categorical variables were compared with the Chi-square test or Fisher’s exact tests. A two-sided p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Propensity score is a statistical method used in non-randomized studies to control confounding factors in a non-parsimonious way. Five covariates were selected to estimate the propensity score by unconditional multivariate logistic regression, including age, BMI, AFC, AMH, and infertility type, for their potential to be confounders for the effectiveness of both ovarian stimulation protocols. Women of the fPPOS and cPPOS groups were propensity-matched in a 1:3 ratio without replacement. Since this is a retrospective study, all women stimulated with the fPPOS protocol were included and matched with women stimulated with the cPPOS protocol.

3. Results

Between January 2018 and December 2020, there were 1378 women who underwent a PPOS cycle in our reproductive center. Among these, 14 women underwent oocyte cryopreservation, two women underwent in vitro maturation, one woman underwent oocyte artificial activation, and 40 couples had maternal or paternal chromosome abnormalities. Overall, 1232 women who underwent their first PPOS were included (Figure 1). There were nine patients in the fPPOS group and 41 patients in the cPPOS group who did not obtain live birth/clinical pregnancy with surplus embryos, so they were excluded after PSM (8.4% vs. 12.9%, p = 0.213).
Among the 1232 women who were included, 1119 underwent a cPPOS protocol, and 113 women underwent a fPPOS protocol. Table 1 shows the demographic, clinical, and IVF treatment characteristics of those patients. Before PSM, significant differences were observed between the two protocols in age, AFC, and infertility type. Subsequent PSM minimized the imbalance of baseline characteristics (Table 1). A total of seven cycles were canceled due to premature ovulation or follicle dysplasia. Of these, one premature ovulation happened in the fPPOS group, and six premature ovulations happened in the cPPOS group (0.8 vs. 0.5%, p = 1.000). There were four women in the fPPOS group and 85 women in the cPPOS group who had a premature LH surge without premature ovulation (3.3% vs. 6.8%, p = 0.145) (Table 2).
The fPPOS group had fewer numbers of retrieved oocytes (3.20 ± 2.14 vs. 4.45 ± 2.75, p < 0.001), MII oocytes (2.87 ± 2.03 vs. 3.76 ± 2.32, p < 0.001), and 2PN embryos, but a higher MII oocytes rate (89.8% vs. 84.7%, p = 0.016). The number of available embryos was comparable between the two groups (1.37 ± 1.24 vs. 1.63 ± 1.38, p = 0.095). After fertilization in vitro, the 2PN embryo rate, the duration of ovarian stimulation, and total gonadotropin usage (2912.59 ± 1230.01 vs. 2948.25 ± 987.45, p = 0.194) were comparable. The total MPA usage of the fPPOS group was significantly lower than the cPPOS group (75.61 ± 29.34 vs. 120.20 ± 23.54, p < 0.001) (Table 2). Ovarian sensitivity indexes involve FORT and FOI. FORT was comparable between the two groups (80.31% ± 64.01 vs. 85.26% ± 54.45, p = 0.437), whereas FOI was significantly lower in the fPPOS group than the cPPOS group (61.33% ± 32.68 vs. 75.3 ± 30.20, p < 0.001). We compared the blastocyst rate of patients in the B group (Figure 1) to reduce bias. The blastocyst rate was comparable in the two groups (19.44% vs. 23.86%, p = 0.407). The fPPOS group showed a higher trend of CLBR (29.6% vs. 24.9%, p = 0.365) and CPR (37.8% vs. 32.9%, p = 0.379) than the cPPOS group, even without a significant difference. In group 1, stratified by POSEIDON criteria, the CLBR of fPPOS was lower than the cPPOS group without a significant difference (15.4% vs. 40.0%, p = 0.189), but in the rest of the groups, the CLBR of fPPOS were all higher than cPPOS. In group 4, the CLBR of the fPPOS group was significantly higher than the cPPOS group (34.6% vs. 14.8%, p = 0.024) (Table 3).
Of all the pregnancies, 113 women in the fPPOS group and 1119 women in the cPPOS group had 34 and 73 deliveries, respectively. The incidence of twin pregnancy (82.8% vs. 94.2%, p = 0.159) was comparable in the two groups. Total neonatal complications (5.9% vs. 9.6%, p = 0.788), gestational age (265.48 ± 2.40 vs. 269.10 ± 1.38, p = 0.172), and the sex distribution of newborns (32.4% vs. 43.9%, p = 0.100) were also similar between the two groups (Table 4).

4. Discussion

This is the first clinical study to compare the fPPOS protocol with the cPPOS protocol on CLBR for low-prognosis women who met POSEIDON criteria undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment. Our study showed that the novel fPPOS protocol involves a trend toward higher CLBR with less MPA consumption compared with the cPPOS protocol in low-prognosis patients. In addition, no differences in the incidence of premature ovulation or premature LH surge were detected. The results provided evidence that the fPPOS protocol seems to be a promising choice for aged and low-prognosis patients who met the POSEIDON criteria.
Since the advent of ART, how to improve clinical outcomes of IVF/ICSI in low-prognosis patients has been one of the most important topics. GnRH-ant and GnRH-a [25] are equally recommended for predicted poor responders according to ESHER guidelines [26]. Recently, progestins have been used as an alternative to GnRH analogs for preventing ovulation during ovarian stimulation [27]. High progesterone can inhibit LH peaks when multiple follicles are recruited with exogenous gonadotropin. The fPPOS regimen costs less and can be administered orally, which is more convenient for infertile women. Previously published studies have demonstrated that the PPOS protocol showed comparable oocyte retrieval and pregnancy outcomes compared with other protocols [7,12,28]. Our study focused on a low-response population and confirmed that compared to the cPPOS regimen, the fPPOS regimen can achieve similar clinical outcomes, even with better clinical outcomes in group 4 of the POSEIDON criteria.
The safety of PPOS protocol regarding neonatal outcomes and congenital malformations is still controversial. Several studies have been published recently regarding the safety of the PPOS regimen, indicating that no changes were observed in the newborn congenital malformations of the PPOS regimen and other regimens. The outcomes of our study indicate that the PPOS protocol seems to be an effective choice for reaching competent CLBR. Even though the indicators assessing infants in our study were comparable, the long-term safety of babies is still questioned. A retrospective cohort study included patients with advanced endometriosis induced by GnRH-a, GnRH-ant, and PPOS protocols demonstrated that there were no apparent differences concerning newborn congenital malformations [29]. A meta-analysis involving 9274 live-born infants also showed no detrimental effect detected with PPOS on congenital malformations and low birth weight compared with GnRH-a short protocols [30]. In summary, published studies so far confirmed the safety of the regimen on neonatal outcomes. The patients in the cPPOS group were given gonadotropin and MPA simultaneously, which led to heavy use of progestogens. Researchers have expressed concerns regarding the potential negative impact of high progesterone status on the oocyte retrieved day. Therefore, the fPPOS regimen was proposed in 2019. In the fPPOS regimen, MPA was started depending on the leading follicle size and serum E2 level. Compared to the cPPOS regimen, the usage time of MPA was significantly reduced in the fPPOS regimen. Our data showed that the total MPA consumption of fPPOS was significantly less than the cPPOS group (75.61 ± 29.34 vs. 120.20 ± 23.54, p < 0.001), which may be more favorable in terms of safety.
An early LH peak or premature ovulation is more prone to occur in the POR patients [31], for decreased activity of gonadotrophin surge-attenuating factor [32,33] may lead to a high cancel rate in IVF/ICSI. A review published recently has proved POR patients receiving the PPOS protocol had fewer canceled cycles compared to those receiving other protocols [33]. However, the studies included in this review were the cPPOS protocol. Additionally, the flexible addition of progestogens may increase the risk of the occurrence of premature LH surge, premature ovulation (0.8 vs. 0.5%, p = 1.000), and cancel cycle, but our results showed no difference between the flexible and conventional PPOS protocols. A study has investigated the use of the fPPOS protocol for pituitary suppression, specifically targeting patients with POR [16]. The results showed four instances of premature LH surge among 27 women who underwent the fPPOS protocol, which aligns with our findings. PPOS is recommended to apply before the rise of estrogen levels in the early stage of follicular development. During ovarian stimulation, both estrogen and progesterone levels increase simultaneously. It is advised not to use PPOS for patients with high baseline estrogen levels (E, 70 pg/mL). When the estrogen level is 70 pg/mL, and the follicle diameter is 7–8 mm, it is not recommended to add progesterone due to the risk of early LH surge, which may lead to luteinization [34]. Though the potential mechanism of LH suppression remains to be explored, progesterone can be applied clinically to prohibit estradiol-induced LH surges by blocking the initiation of the GnRH surge induction system [10].
Several studies have suggested that progesterone in PPOS protocol may offer a variety of choices, such as MPA, dydrogesterone (DYG), or dienogest (DNG). Among these studies, one study that compared DNG and DYG reported a reduced number of oocytes in the DNG group [35]. Three studies comparing DYG, MPA, and progesterone reported that MPA displayed effective blocking effects in premature LH surges [36,37,38]. MPA is the most commonly used treatment among them. The effective dosage has also raised concerns. Two studies compared different dosages of MPA (4 vs. 10 mg/day), and one of them reported similar oocytes retrieved outcomes, while another one reported better clinical outcomes in the 10 mg/d group [8,39]. In our study, MPA (10 mg/day) was chosen, and the results showed that MPA administration in PPOS protocol produces comparable clinical outcomes [35,36,37,38,40,41,42]. However, further randomized controlled trials are [35,36,37,38] warranted to confirm this conclusion.
Interestingly, the number of retrieved oocytes and MII oocytes was lower significantly in the fPPOS group, which was consistent with ovarian sensitivity indexes (FORT and FOI) results. Sara Cesarano et al. reported that the FORT index is of high accuracy in predicting the number of MII oocytes. The FOI index demonstrated a statistical correlation with both the number of MII oocytes and the success of embryonic culture [43]. However, both indexes are not statistically predictive for CLBR. After embryonic culture, the available embryos were comparable between the two groups. Based on the findings of this study, the fPPOS group achieved a trend toward higher CPR and CLBR (29.6% vs. 24.9%, p = 0.365) than the cPPOS group overall. A study published by Zhang et al. reported a similar CLBR (25.2%) in low-prognosis women who received the PPOS protocol with other protocols [28]. Then, the patients were stratified into four groups by POSEIDON criteria. It is reported that a minimum of 6–9 and 10–15 mature oocytes are required to obtain one euploid blastocyst for transfer in POSEIDON groups 3 and 4. CLBR of the fPPOS group was lower in group 1 (age < 35 years with normal ovarian reserve) but higher in group 2 (aged ≥ 35 years with normal ovarian reserve), group 3 (age < 35 years with poor ovarian reserve), and group 4 (aged ≥ 35 years with poor ovarian reserve), proving fPPOS regimen may be more suitable for low-prognosis women [44]. A multicenter retrospective cohort study showed that POSEIDON patients have a lower prognosis than normal responders [4,45]. Therefore, stimulation regimens should be chosen more carefully. The CLBR of the fPPOS group was lower in group 1 (age < 35 years with normal ovarian reserve) but higher in group 2 (aged ≥ 35 years with normal ovarian reserve), group 3 (age < 35 years with poor ovarian reserve), and group 4 (aged ≥ 35 years with poor ovarian reserve), proving that the fPPOS regimen may be more suitable for low-prognosis women [44]. Nevertheless, the accuracy of outcomes was limited by the sample size. Larger sample size studies could further illuminate these questions. These observations speak against any harmful effect of fPPOS protocol on pregnancy outcomes.
There are still several limitations in the present study. First, it was a retrospective cohort study conducted in a single center, and the limited sample size may introduce a selection bias. Then, the health condition of neonatal was not followed up, and the negative effect on neonatal outcomes and congenital malformations in children born with fPPOS protocol has not been revealed. Therefore, more prospective multicenter studies with a larger number of patients need to be conducted in the future.
In conclusion, it appears that the fPPOS protocol is better than the cPPOS protocol, considering the higher probability of pregnancy in low-prognosis women. The premature LH surge rate and premature ovulation rate support that the fPPOS protocol does not hamper the effect of pituitary suppression in low-prognosis women undergoing ovarian stimulation. Further studies are warranted to confirm these findings, especially with neonatal outcomes and congenital malformations in POR populations.

Author Contributions

Y.C. (Ying Chen), Y.C. (Yifan Chu) and L.W. performed data collection and outline design. Y.C. (Ying Chen) drafted the manuscript, which was revised by W.Y., J.Y. and W.Z. All authors approved the submitted version. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the Natural Science Foundation of Hubei Province, China [grant numbers 2021CFB361] and the International Scientific and Technological Cooperation Project of Hubei Province, China [grant numbers 2021EHB025].

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of Tongji Hospital on 28 March 2021 (TJ-IRB20210528) for studies involving humans.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author. The data are not publicly available due to privacy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Massin, N.; Abdennebi, I.; Porcu-Buisson, G.; Chevalier, N.; Descat, E.; Piétin-Vialle, C.; Goro, S.; Brussieux, M.; Pinto, M.; Pasquier, M.; et al. The BISTIM study: A randomized controlled trial comparing dual ovarian stimulation (duostim) with two conventional ovarian stimulations in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF. Hum. Reprod. 2023, 38, 927–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Alviggi, C.; Andersen, C.Y.; Buehler, K.; Conforti, A.; De Placido, G.; Esteves, S.C.; Fischer, R.; Galliano, D.; Polyzos, N.P.; Sunkara, S.K.; et al. A new more detailed stratification of low responders to ovarian stimulation: From a poor ovarian response to a low prognosis concept. Fertil. Steril. 2016, 105, 1452–1453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Abu-Musa, A.; Haahr, T.; Humaidan, P. Novel Physiology and Definition of Poor Ovarian Response; Clinical Recommendations. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 2110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Esteves, S.C.; Yarali, H.; Vuong, L.N.; Conforti, A.; Humaidan, P.; Alviggi, C. POSEIDON groups and their distinct reproductive outcomes: Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness insights from real-world data research. Best Pract. Res. Clin. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2022, 85 Pt B, 159–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Leijdekkers, J.A.; Eijkemans, M.J.C.; van Tilborg, T.C.; Oudshoorn, S.C.; van Golde, R.J.T.; Hoek, A.; Lambalk, C.B.; de Bruin, J.P.; Fleischer, K.; Mochtar, M.H.; et al. Cumulative live birth rates in low-prognosis women. Hum. Reprod. 2019, 34, 1030–1041. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Polyzos, N.P.; Popovic-Todorovic, B. SAY NO to mild ovarian stimulation for all poor responders: It is time to realize that not all poor responders are the same. Hum. Reprod. 2020, 35, 1964–1971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Ata, B.; Capuzzo, M.; Turkgeldi, E.; Yildiz, S.; La Marca, A. Progestins for pituitary suppression during ovarian stimulation for ART: A comprehensive and systematic review including meta-analyses. Hum. Reprod Update 2021, 27, 48–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Wang, L.; Yin, M.; Liu, Y.; Chen, Q.; Wang, Y.; Ai, A.; Fu, Y.; Yan, Z.; Jin, W.; Long, H.; et al. Effect of Frozen Embryo Transfer and Progestin-primed Ovary Stimulation on IVF outcomes in women with high body mass index. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 7447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Qin, N.; Chen, Q.; Hong, Q.; Cai, R.; Gao, H.; Wang, Y.; Sun, L.; Zhang, S.; Guo, H.; Fu, Y.; et al. Flexibility in starting ovarian stimulation at different phases of the menstrual cycle for treatment of infertile women with the use of in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil. Steril. 2016, 106, 334–341.e1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Guo, H.; Wang, Y.; Chen, Q.; Chai, W.; Sun, L.; Ai, A.; Fu, Y.; Lyu, Q.; Kuang, Y. Use of medroxyprogesterone acetate in women with ovarian endometriosis undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 11927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chen, Q.; Chai, W.; Wang, Y.; Cai, R.; Zhang, S.; Lu, X.; Zeng, X.; Sun, L.; Kuang, Y. Progestin vs. Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Antagonist for the Prevention of Premature Luteinizing Hormone Surges in Poor Responders Undergoing in vitro Fertilization Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Front. Endocrinol. 2019, 10, 796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Xi, Q.; Tao, Y.; Qiu, M.; Wang, Y.; Kuang, Y. Comparison between PPOS and GnRHa-Long Protocol in Clinical Outcome with the First IVF/ICSI Cycle: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Clin. Epidemiol. 2020, 12, 261–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Shi, Y.; Sun, Y.; Hao, C.; Zhang, H.; Wei, D.; Zhang, Y.; Zhu, Y.; Deng, X.; Qi, X.; Li, H.; et al. Transfer of Fresh versus Frozen Embryos in Ovulatory Women. N. Engl. J. Med. 2018, 378, 126–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Chen, Z.J.; Shi, Y.; Sun, Y.; Zhang, B.; Liang, X.; Cao, Y.; Yang, J.; Liu, J.; Wei, D.; Weng, N.; et al. Fresh versus Frozen Embryos for Infertility in the Polycystic Ovary Syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 2016, 375, 523–533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Yildiz, S.; Turkgeldi, E.; Angun, B.; Eraslan, A.; Urman, B.; Ata, B. Comparison of a novel flexible progestin primed ovarian stimulation protocol and the flexible gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol for assisted reproductive technology. Fertil. Steril. 2019, 112, 677–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Turkgeldi, E.; Yildiz, S.; Cekic, S.G.; Shakerian, B.; Keles, I.; Ata, B. Effectiveness of the flexible progestin primed ovarian stimulation protocol compared to the flexible GnRH antagonist protocol in women with decreased ovarian reserve. Hum. Fertil. 2022, 25, 306–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Xu, B.; Geerts, D.; Hu, S.; Yue, J.; Li, Z.; Zhu, G.; Jin, L. The depot GnRH agonist protocol improves the live birth rate per fresh embryo transfer cycle, but not the cumulative live birth rate in normal responders: A randomized controlled trial and molecular mechanism study. Hum. Reprod. 2020, 35, 1306–1318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Esteves, S.C.; Conforti, A.; Sunkara, S.K.; Carbone, L.; Picarelli, S.; Vaiarelli, A.; Cimadomo, D.; Rienzi, L.; Ubaldi, F.M.; Zullo, F.; et al. Improving Reporting of Clinical Studies Using the POSEIDON Criteria: POSORT Guidelines. Front. Endocrinol. 2021, 12, 587051. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Du, M.; Zhang, J.; Ren, B.; Guan, Y. Comparison of the neonatal outcomes of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation and flexible GnRH antagonist protocols: A propensity score-matched cohort study. Front. Endocrinol. 2023, 14, 1156620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Maheshwari, A.; McLernon, D.; Bhattacharya, S. Cumulative live birth rate: Time for a consensus? Hum. Reprod. 2015, 30, 2703–2707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zegers-Hochschild, F.; Adamson, G.D.; Dyer, S.; Racowsky, C.; de Mouzon, J.; Sokol, R.; Rienzi, L.; Sunde, A.; Schmidt, L.; Cooke, I.D.; et al. The International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care, 2017. Hum. Reprod. 2017, 32, 1786–1801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Goldman, R.H.; Farland, L.V.; Thomas, A.M.; Zera, C.A.; Ginsburg, E.S. The combined impact of maternal age and body mass index on cumulative live birth following in vitro fertilization. Am. J. Obstet. Gynecol. 2019, 221, 617.e1–617.e13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Genro, V.K.; Grynberg, M.; Scheffer, J.B.; Roux, I.; Frydman, R.; Fanchin, R. Serum anti-Müllerian hormone levels are negatively related to Follicular Output RaTe (FORT) in normo-cycling women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Hum. Reprod. 2011, 26, 671–677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Alviggi, C.; Conforti, A.; Esteves, S.C.; Vallone, R.; Venturella, R.; Staiano, S.; Castaldo, E.; Andersen, C.Y.; De Placido, G. Understanding Ovarian Hypo-Response to Exogenous Gonadotropin in Ovarian Stimulation and Its New Proposed Marker-The Follicle-To-Oocyte (FOI) Index. Front. Endocrinol. 2018, 9, 589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Orvieto, R. Stop GnRH-agonist/GnRH-antagonist protocol: A different insight on ovarian stimulation for IVF. Reprod. Biol. Endocrinol. RB&E 2023, 21, 13. [Google Scholar]
  26. Ovarian Stimulation, T.; Bosch, E.; Broer, S.; Griesinger, G.; Grynberg, M.; Humaidan, P.; Kolibianakis, E.; Kunicki, M.; La Marca, A.; Lainas, G.; et al. ESHRE guideline: Ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI†. Hum. Reprod. Open 2020, 2020, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kalafat, E.; Dizdar, M.; Turkgeldi, E.; Yildiz, S.; Keles, I.; Ata, B. The Comparison of Fixed and Flexible Progestin Primed Ovarian Stimulation on Mature Oocyte Yield in Women at Risk of Premature Ovarian Insufficiency. Front. Endocrinol. 2021, 12, 797227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Zhang, S.; Yin, Y.; Li, Q.; Zhang, C. Comparison of Cumulative Live Birth Rates Between GnRH-A and PPOS in Low-Prognosis Patients according to POSEIDON Criteria: A Cohort Study. Front. Endocrinol. 2021, 12, 644456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Liang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Kuang, Y. Live-Birth Outcomes and Congenital Malformations After Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation in Maternal Endometriosis. Drug Des. Dev. Ther. 2020, 14, 5459–5467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Zolfaroli, I.; Ferriol, G.A.; Mora, J.H.; Cano, A. Impact of progestin ovarian stimulation on newborn outcomes: A meta-analysis. J. Assist. Reprod. Genet. 2020, 37, 1203–1212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Reichman, D.E.; Zakarin, L.; Chao, K.; Meyer, L.; Davis, O.K.; Rosenwaks, Z. Diminished ovarian reserve is the predominant risk factor for gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist failure resulting in breakthrough luteinizing hormone surges in in vitro fertilization cycles. Fertil. Steril. 2014, 102, 99–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Attardi, B.; Scott, R.; Pfaff, D.; Fink, G. Facilitation or inhibition of the oestradiol-induced gonadotrophin surge in the immature female rat by progesterone: Effects on pituitary responsiveness to gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH), GnRH self-priming and pituitary mRNAs for the progesterone receptor A and B isoforms. J. Neuroendocrinol. 2007, 19, 988–1000. [Google Scholar]
  33. Cai, R.; Zheng, B.; Lin, Q.; Deng, J.; Zeng, X.; Lin, W.; Shi, D. A meta-analysis of the efficacy of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation with medroxyprogesterone acetate in ovulation induction in poor ovarian responders. J. Gynecol. Obstet. Hum. Reprod. 2021, 50, 102049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Liang, X.Y.; Fang, C.; Huang, R.; Silber, S.J. Clinical Techniques of Assisted Reproduction—Practice and Improvement; Chinese People’s Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  35. Iwami, N.; Kawamata, M.; Ozawa, N.; Yamamoto, T.; Watanabe, E.; Mizuuchi, M.; Moriwaka, O.; Kamiya, H. New treatment strategy for endometriosis using progestin-primed ovarian stimulation with dienogest: A prospective cohort study, comparison of dienogest versus dydrogesterone. Reprod. Biol. 2020, 21, 100470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Guo, H.; Li, J.; Shen, X.; Cong, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wu, L.; Li, B.; Gao, H.; Ma, M.; Zhang, W.; et al. Efficacy of Different Progestins in Women With Advanced Endometriosis Undergoing Controlled Ovarian Hyperstimulation for in vitro Fertilization-A Single-Center Non-inferiority Randomized Controlled Trial. Front. Endocrinol. 2020, 11, 129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Huang, J.; Xie, Q.; Lin, J.; Lu, X.; Zhu, J.; Gao, H.; Cai, R.; Kuang, Y. Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation with Dydrogesterone versus Medroxyprogesterone Acetate inWomen with Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome for in vitro Fertilization: A Retrospective Cohort Study. Drug Des. Dev. Ther. 2019, 13, 4461–4470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yu, S.; Long, H.; Chang, H.Y.; Liu, Y.; Gao, H.; Zhu, J.; Quan, X.; Lyu, Q.; Kuang, Y.; Ai, A. New application of dydrogesterone as a part of a progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol for IVF: A randomized controlled trial including 516 first IVF/ICSI cycles. Hum. Reprod. 2018, 33, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Dong, J.; Wang, Y.; Chai, W.R.; Hong, Q.Q.; Wang, N.L.; Sun, L.H.; Long, H.; Wang, L.; Tian, H.; Lyu, Q.F.; et al. The pregnancy outcome of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation using 4 versus 10 mg of medroxyprogesterone acetate per day in infertile women undergoing in vitro fertilisation: A randomised controlled trial. BJOG 2017, 124, 1048–1055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gurbuz, A.S.; Gode, F. Dydrogesterone-primed ovarian stimulation is an effective alternative to gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol for freeze-all cycles in polycystic ovary syndrome. J. Obstet. Gynaecol. Res. 2020, 46, 1403–1411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Iwami, N.; Kawamata, M.; Ozawa, N.; Yamamoto, T.; Watanabe, E.; Moriwaka, O.; Kamiya, H. New trial of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation using dydrogesterone versus a typical GnRH antagonist regimen in assisted reproductive technology. Arch. Gynecol. Obstet. 2018, 298, 663–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Huang, J.; Xie, Q.; Lin, J.; Lu, X.; Wang, N.; Gao, H.; Cai, R.; Kuang, Y. Neonatal outcomes and congenital malformations in children born after dydrogesterone application in progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol for IVF: A retrospective cohort study. Drug Des. Dev. Ther. 2019, 13, 2553–2563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Cesarano, S.; Pirtea, P.; Benammar, A.; De Ziegler, D.; Poulain, M.; Revelli, A.; Benedetto, C.; Vallée, A.; Ayoubi, J.M. Are There Ovarian Responsive Indexes That Predict Cumulative Live Birth Rates in Women over 39 Years? J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 2099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Haahr, T.; Dosouto, C.; Alviggi, C.; Esteves, S.C.; Humaidan, P. Management Strategies for POSEIDON Groups 3 and 4. Front. Endocrinol. 2019, 10, 614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Esteves, S.C.; Yarali, H.; Vuong, L.N.; Carvalho, J.F.; Özbek, İ.Y.; Polat, M.; Le, H.L.; Pham, T.D.; Ho, T.M.; Humaidan, P.; et al. Cumulative delivery rate per aspiration IVF/ICSI cycle in POSEIDON patients: A real-world evidence study of 9073 patients. Hum. Reprod. 2021, 36, 2157–2169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 12 05775 g001
Figure 1. Flow chart of the selection of patients for inclusion in this study. IVF, in vitro fertilization. ICSI, intracytoplasmic sperm injection. POSEIDON criteria, The Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing Individualized Oocyte Number criteria. fPPOS, flexible progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol. cPPOS, conventional progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol. PSM, propensity score matching.
Figure 1. Flow chart of the selection of patients for inclusion in this study. IVF, in vitro fertilization. ICSI, intracytoplasmic sperm injection. POSEIDON criteria, The Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing Individualized Oocyte Number criteria. fPPOS, flexible progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol. cPPOS, conventional progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol. PSM, propensity score matching.
Jcm 12 05775 g001
Table 1. Demographic, clinical, and IVF treatment characteristics of women in the fPPOS group and the cPPOS group.
Table 1. Demographic, clinical, and IVF treatment characteristics of women in the fPPOS group and the cPPOS group.
Outcome MeasureBefore Propensity Score MatchingAfter Propensity Score Matching
fPPOScPPOSp ValuefPPOScPPOSp Value
NO. of patients1131119 107318
Age, years34.10 ± 4.8736.61 ± 5.75<0.00134.40 ± 4.7734.29 ± 5.000.834
BMI, kg/m222.22 ± 2.9322.28 ± 2.850.88722.23 ± 2.9222.19 ± 2.960.423
AFC5.01 ± 2.214.12 ± 1.90<0.0014.83 ± 2.134.75 ± 1.870.702
AMH, μg/mL1.17 ± 0.851.10 ± 0.830.2711.17 ± 0.871.17 ± 0.880.983
Basal FSH, mIU/mL10.58 ± 4.7110.80 ± 5.710.86710.53 ± 4.7610.75 ± 5.510.717
Cause of infertility (%)
Male1/113 (0.90)12/1119 (1.10)0.8530/107 (0)6/318 (1.90)0.330
Female83/113 (73.5)841/1119 (75.2)0.69079/107 (73.8)237/318 (76.0)0.659
Mix28/113 (24.8)266/1119 (22.9)0.81127/107 (25.3)75/318 (24.0)0.804
Others1/113 (0.90)0/1119 (0)0.0921/107 (0.90)0/11119 (0)0.252
Infertility type (%)
Primary infertility72/113 (63.7)587/1119 (52.5)0.02268/107 (63.6)209/318 (65.7)0.683
Secondary infertility41/113 (36.3)532/1119 (47.5) 39/107 (36.4)109/318 (34.3)
Infertility time3.65 ± 3.573.58 ± 3.260.7323.63 ± 3.653.66 ± 2.960.920
Fertilization methods (%)
IVF82/113 (72.6)743/1119 (66.4)0.18464/107 (59.8)185/318 (58.2)0.766
ICSI31/113 (27.4)376/1119 (33.6) 43/107 (40.2)133/318 (41.8)
Values are presented as mean ± SD or proportion (%); AMH, anti-Müllerian hormone; AFC, antral follicle count; BMI, body mass index.
Table 2. Stimulation cycle characteristics and outcomes.
Table 2. Stimulation cycle characteristics and outcomes.
Outcome MeasurefPPOScPPOSp Value
No. of oocytes3.20 ± 2.14 4.45 ± 2.75<0.001
No. of MII oocytes2.87 ± 2.033.76 ± 2.32<0.001
No. of 2PN embryos1.93 ± 1.622.43 ± 2.010.022
No. of available embryos1.37 ± 1.241.63 ± 1.380.095
MIIoocyte rate (%)307/342 (89.8)1197/1414 (84.7)0.016
2PN embryo rate (%)207/307 (67.4)767/1197 (64.1)0.273
Duration of stimulation, days 9.64 ± 2.109.29 ± 2.080.134
Total usage of gonadotropin, IU2912.59 ± 1230.012948.25 ± 987.450.194
Total usage of MPA, IU75.61 ± 29.34120.20 ± 23.54<0.001
FORT (%)80.31 ± 64.0185.26 ± 54.450.437
FOI (%)61.33 ± 32.6875.34 ± 30.20<0.001
Premature LH surge rate (%)5/120 (4.2)86/1258 (6.8)0.261
Premature ovulation rate (%)1/120 (0.8)6/1258 (0.5)1.000
Cancellation rate (%)4/120 (3.3)85/1258 (6.8)0.145
MII, metaphase II. 2PN, two pronuclear fertilized. LH, luteinizing hormone.
Table 3. Comparison of clinical outcomes from fPPOS and cPPOS protocols.
Table 3. Comparison of clinical outcomes from fPPOS and cPPOS protocols.
Outcome MeasurefPPOScPPOSp Value
CPR (%)37/98 (37.8)91/277 (32.9)0.379
CLBR (%)29/98 (29.6)69/277 (24.9)0.365
12/13 (15.4)18/45 (40.0)0.189
26/20 (30.0)7/34 (20.6)0.652
312/39 (30.8)31/110 (28.2)0.759
49/26 (34.6)13/88 (14.8)0.024
CPR, cumulative pregnancy rate per oocyte retrieval cycle. CLBR, cumulative live birth rate per oocyte retrieval cycle.
Table 4. Comparison of neonatal outcomes from fPPOS and cPPOS protocols.
Table 4. Comparison of neonatal outcomes from fPPOS and cPPOS protocols.
Outcome MeasurefPPOScPPOSp Value
Infant number3473
P1 (%)24/29 (82.8)65/69 (94.2)0.159
P2 (%)5/29 (17.2)4/69 (5.8)
Gender (%)
Female11/34 (32.4)36/73 (43.9)0.100
Male23/34 (67.6)37/73 (56.1)
Gestational age265.48 ± 2.398269.10 ± 1.3770.172
Very preterm (%)000.291
Preterm (%)7/29 (24.1)9/69 (13.0)
Term (%)22/29 (75.9)60/69 (87.0)
Neonatal complications in total, %2/34 (5.9)7/73 (9.6)0.788
P1, pregnant with one newborn infant. P2, pregnant with two newborn infants.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Chen, Y.; Chu, Y.; Yao, W.; Wang, L.; Zeng, W.; Yue, J. Comparison of Cumulative Live Birth Rates between Flexible and Conventional Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol in Poor Ovarian Response Patients According to POSEIDON Criteria: A Cohort Study. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 5775. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12185775

AMA Style

Chen Y, Chu Y, Yao W, Wang L, Zeng W, Yue J. Comparison of Cumulative Live Birth Rates between Flexible and Conventional Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol in Poor Ovarian Response Patients According to POSEIDON Criteria: A Cohort Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(18):5775. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12185775

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chen, Ying, Yifan Chu, Wen Yao, Luyao Wang, Wanjiang Zeng, and Jing Yue. 2023. "Comparison of Cumulative Live Birth Rates between Flexible and Conventional Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol in Poor Ovarian Response Patients According to POSEIDON Criteria: A Cohort Study" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 18: 5775. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12185775

APA Style

Chen, Y., Chu, Y., Yao, W., Wang, L., Zeng, W., & Yue, J. (2023). Comparison of Cumulative Live Birth Rates between Flexible and Conventional Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol in Poor Ovarian Response Patients According to POSEIDON Criteria: A Cohort Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 12(18), 5775. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12185775

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop