Journal of Human Reproductive Science
Home Ahead of Print Current Issue Archives
   Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size    Users online: 1421

ORIGINAL ARTICLE Table of Contents   
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 15  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 278-283
Comparing progesterone primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) to GnRH antagonist protocol in oocyte donation cycles

Department of Reproductive Medicine, Milann Fertility Centre, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Rupali Khaparde Khurana
18A/6C, Vibhav Nagar Road, Agra - 282 001, Uttar Pradesh
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jhrs.jhrs_85_22

Rights and Permissions

Background: Progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol is based on the principle of preventing pre-mature luteinising hormone surge during ovarian stimulation using progesterone. Aims: In this study, we aimed to compare the cost-effectiveness of PPOS over GnRH antagonist cycles in oocyte donor cycles where freeze all is a norm. Settings and Design: It is a prospective cohort study with 130 participants. Materials and Methods: We included all women undergoing oocyte donation using PPOS protocol and antagonist protocol at our centre. Fifty-seven belonged to the PPOS group and were given medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) and 73 belonged to the GnRH antagonist group who received cetrorelix. The primary outcome was the number of mature oocyte retrieved at OPU and the cost involved per stimulation cycle. Statistical Analysis Used: For normally distributed observations, we used t-test, and for the variables of non-normal distribution, Mann–Whitney U-test was used. The significance was accepted for P < 0.05. Results: The baseline clinical characteristics of the donors were comparable with a mean age of 25.42 ± 2.90 years, body mass index of 24.00 ± 4.00 kg/m2 and antral follicle count of 18.63 ± 5.23. The duration of stimulation was similar in both the groups as well as the total gonadotropin dose required was not significantly different. The number of mature oocytes retrieved was same in both the groups (10.41 ± 4.04 with antagonist and 10.25 ± 3.23 with PPOS, P = 0.964). There were no reported cases of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in any of the groups. The incidence of mild-to-moderate OHSS in the antagonist group was 5.4% and in the PPOS group was 3.6%, and the difference was not significant (P = 0.69). The cost per mature oocyte (M2) was significantly higher in the antagonist protocol in comparison to the PPOS protocol (INR 9485.69 ± 5751.11 vs. Rs. 5945.86 ± 2848.59, respectively, P < 0.001). Conclusion: Our study identifies PPOS protocol using MPA to be more cost-effective and patient-friendly than conventional GnRH antagonist protocol in oocyte donor cycles.

Print this article  Email this article

  Similar in PUBMED
    Search Pubmed for
    Search in Google Scholar for
  Related articles
   Citation Manager
  Access Statistics
   Reader Comments
   Email Alert *
   Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded117    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal