Scientific Reports (Jul 2024)

In vitro fertilization results of GNRH antagonists and medroxyprogesterone acetate used to prevent premature LH surge during ovarian hyperstimulation

  • Can Dinç,
  • Saltuk Buğra Arıkan,
  • Mustafa Özer,
  • Şafak Olgan

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-67280-7
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 14, no. 1
pp. 1 – 8

Abstract

Read online

Abstract The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) treatment in comparison to those of gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists for the prevention of premature luteinizing hormone surges during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (OS) and the impact of these effects on developing embryos and pregnancy outcomes. Data from 757 cycles of GnRH antagonist treatment and 756 cycles of MPA treatment were evaluated at the Akdeniz University Faculty of Medicine Assisted Reproductive Treatment Center between October 2018 and April 2022. Patient records were obtained from the electronic database of the centre and analysed. In our centre, GnRH antagonist protocols were used between 2018 and 2020, and MPA protocols were used between 2020 and 2022. We chose our study population by year. Our study is a comparative retrospective study. All methods in this study were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations. Patients using MPA were significantly older (33.9 ± 5.6 vs. 32.6 ± 5.6, p < 0.001) and had a lower number of antral follicles (AFC) (10.7 ± 8.6 vs. 11.9 ± 10.8, p = 0.007) than those using GnRH antagonists. Both MPA (2.9%) and GnRH antagonists (2.2%) had similar effectiveness in preventing premature ovulation (p = 0.415). There was no significant difference between the two groups in terms of the number of total developed embryos (1.3 ± 1.3 vs. 1.2 ± 1.2, p = 0.765). There was no significant difference in the clinical pregnancy rates with the first ET (%35.4 vs. %30.1, p = 0.074), per total number of transfers (35.3% vs. 30.1%, p = 0.077). MPA was found to be effective at preventing premature ovulation during OS treatment, and the incidence of developing embryo and pregnancy outcomes in patients using MPA were similar to those in patients using GnRH antagonists. Therefore, the use of MPA instead of GnRH antagonists during OS may be a viable alternative for patients not scheduled for fresh ET.

Keywords