scholarly journals Comparison of the C Umulative Live Birth Rates After One ART Cycle Including All Subsequent Frozen–thaw Cycles in Women Undergoing IVF Using Progestin Primed Ovarian Stimulation Versus Long GnRH Agonist Protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong Chen ◽  
Zhi qin Chen ◽  
Ernest Hung Yu Ng ◽  
zili sun ◽  
Zheng wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Live Birth ◽  
Gnrh Agonist ◽  
Ovarian Reserve ◽  
Ovarian Stimulation ◽  
Birth Rate ◽  
Live Birth Rate ◽  
Stimulation Protocol ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Live Birth Rates ◽  
Cumulative Live Birth

Abstract Background: The efficacy and reproductive outcomes of progestin primed ovarian stimulation protocol (PPOS) were previously compared to rarely used ovarian stimulation protocol and also the live birth rate were reported by per embryo transfer rather than cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs). Does the use of PPOS improve the cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) and shorten time to live birth when compared to long GnRH agonist protocol in women with normal ovarian reserve?Methods: A retrospective cohort study was designed to include women aged<40 with normal ovarian reserve (regular menstrual cycles, FSH <10 IU/L, antral follicle count >5) undergoing IVF from January 2017 to December 2019. The primary outcome was cumulative live birth rates (CLBRs) within 18 months from the day of ovarian stimulation.Results: A total of 995 patients were analyzed. They used either PPOS (n=509) or long GnRH agonist (n=486) protocol at the discretion of the attending physicians. Both groups had almost comparable demographic and cycle stimulation characteristics except for duration of infertility which was shorter in the PPOS group. In the GnRH agonist group 372 cases (77%) completed fresh embryo transfer, resulting into 218 clinical pregnancies and 179 live birth. The clinical pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy, and live birth per transfer were 58.6%, 54.0%, 53.0% respectively. In the PPOS, no fresh transfer was carried out. During the study period, the total number of initiated FET cycles with thawed embryos was 665 in the PPOS group and 259 in the long agonist group. Of all FET cycles, a total of 206/662 (31.1%) cycles resulted in a live birth in the PPOS group versus 110/257 (42.8%) in the long agonist group (OR: 0.727; 95% CI: 0.607–0.871; p<0.001) .The implantation rate of total FET cycles was also lower in the PPOS group compared with that in the agonist group 293/1004 (29.2%) and 157/455 (34.5%) (OR: 0.846; 95% CI: 0.721–0.992; p= 0.041). Cumulative live birth rates after one complete IVF cycle including fresh and subsequent frozen embryo cycles within 18 months follow up were significantly lower in the PPOS group compared that in the long agonist group 206/509 (40.5%) and 307/486 (63.2%), respectively (OR: 0.641; 95% CI: 0.565-0.726). The average time from ovarian stimulation to pregnancy and live birth was significantly shorter in the long agonist group compared to the PPOS group (p<0.01) In Kaplan-Meier analysis, the cumulative incidence of ongoing pregnancy leading to live birth was significantly higher in the long agonist compared in the PPOS group(Log rank test, p<0.001). Cox regression analysis revealed stimulation protocol adopted was strongly associated with the cumulative live birth rate after adjusting other confounding factors (OR =1.917 (1.152-3.190), p=0.012) .Conclusion: Progestin primed ovarian stimulation was associated with a lower cumulative live birth rates and a longer time to pregnancy / live birth than the long agonist protocol in women with a normal ovarian reserve.

scholarly journals Comparison of the cumulative live birth rates after one ART cycle including all subsequent frozen--thaw cycles in women undergoing IVF using progestin primed ovarian stimulation versus long GnRH agonist protocol

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hong Chen ◽  
zhi qin chen ◽  
Hung Yu Ernest Ng ◽  
Zheng Wang ◽  
Di Yao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Live Birth ◽  
Gnrh Agonist ◽  
Ovarian Reserve ◽  
Ovarian Stimulation ◽  
Cox Regression ◽  
Stimulation Protocol ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Cox Regression Analysis ◽  
Live Birth Rates ◽  
Cumulative Live Birth

Background There is scarcity of information about the cumulative live birth rates(CLBRs) and time to live birth(TTLB) between progestin primed ovarian stimulation protocol(PPOS) and long GnRH agonist protocol. Objective To compare CLBRs and TTLB in women with normal ovarian reserve following PPOS with long GnRH agonist protocol. Methods A total of 995 women who underwent IVF using either PPOS (n=509) or GnRH antagonist (n=486) ovarian stimulation at the discretion of the attending physicians. The primary outcome measure was the CLBRs within 18 months from the day of ovarian stimulation. Results Both groups had almost comparable demographic and cycle stimulation characteristics except for duration of infertility which was shorter in the PPOS group. CLBRs after one complete IVF cycle including fresh and subsequent FET cycles within 18 months follow up were significantly lower in the PPOS group compared that in the long agonist group 206/509 (40.5%) and 307/486 (63.2%), respectively (odds ratio (OR): 0.641; 95% CI: 0.565-0.726). The average TTLB was significantly shorter in the long agonist group compared to the PPOS group (P < 0.01). In Kaplan-Meier analysis, the cumulative incidence of ongoing pregnancy leading to LB was significantly higher in the long agonist compared in the PPOS group (P < 0.001). Cox regression analysis revealed stimulation protocol adopted was strongly associated with the CLBRs after adjusting other confounding factors (OR =1.917 (1.152-3.190), P=0.012). Conclusion PPOS offers no advantage over conventional protocol in women with a normal ovarian reserve undergoing IVF. Keywords: PPOS, long GnRH agonist protocol, IVF, CLBRs, TTLB

scholarly journals Applying growth hormone as an adjuvant to correct poor prognosis outcomes in IVF: Study 2 compares dehydroepiandrosterone

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 164-190
Author(s):  
John Lui Yovich ◽  
Shanthi Srinivasan ◽  
Mark Sillender ◽  
Shipra Gaur ◽  
Philip Rowlands ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Live Birth ◽  
Ovarian Reserve ◽  
Poor Prognosis ◽  
Birth Rate ◽  
Live Birth Rate ◽  
Utilization Rate ◽  
Recurrent Implantation Failure ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Live Births ◽  
Live Birth Rates

This retrospective study examines the influence of recombinant growth hormone (rGH) and dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) adjuvants on oocyte numbers, embryo utilization and live births arising from 3637 autologous IVF±ICSI treatment cycles undertaken on 2376 women across ten years (2011-2020) within a pioneer Australian facility. Despite using an FSH-dosing algorithm enabling maximal doses up to 450 IU for women with reduced ovarian reserve, younger women had significantly higher mean numbers of oocytes recovered than older women ranging from 11.1 for women <35 years to 9.4 for women aged 35-39 years reducing to 6.5 for women aged 40-44 years and 4.1 for those aged ≥45 years (p<0.0001). Overall, the embryo utilization rate was 48.5% and live birth productivity rate was 35.4 % across all ages and neither rGH nor DHEA showed any benefit on these rates, in fact, those women with nil adjuvants showed the highest live birth rate per initiated cycle (44.94% overall: p<0.0001, and 55.2% for the youngest group: p<0.001). Embryo utilization was increased by rGH in those women aged 40-44 years who had low ovarian reserve (p<0.0001), but this benefit did not translate into any improvement in the live birth rate, in fact those women who did not use adjuvants had the highest overall birth rate (p<0.0001). Similarly, other factors known to cause a poor prognosis, including low IGF-1 profile, recurrent implantation failure, and low oocyte numbers at OPU, showed no improvement in embryo utilization nor in live births from the adjuvants. The relevance of embryo quality was examined on 1135 women whose residual embryos after a single fresh-embryo transfer failed to develop to a suitable grade for cryopreservation. From 1727 cycles such women often displayed an improved embryo utilization rate with both rGH, and with DHEA or combined rGH+DHEA. Even so, live birth rates were not improved by either of the adjuvants excepting young women <35 years using rGH without DHEA (p<0.05). Examining poor prognosis sub-groups, indicated both rGH and DHEA or combined rGH+DHEA consistently improved embryo utilization in those women with low ovarian reserve (p<0.0001), or those with low IGF-1 levels (p<0.0001) or with recurrent implantation failure (p<0.02). All the poor-prognosis sub-groups showed low live birth rates and, notwithstanding the improvements in embryo utilization, the live birth rates were not significantly improved by the adjuvants, albeit the rates were closer to the nil adjuvant groups (not significantly different).

P–660 Impact of elevated late-follicular phase serum estrogen and progesterone levels on blastocyst utilization and cumulative live birth rates in freeze-all cycles

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
K Yakin ◽  
S Ertas ◽  
C Alatas ◽  
O Oktem ◽  
B Urman
Keyword(s):  
Live Birth ◽  
Birth Rate ◽  
Live Birth Rate ◽  
Follicular Phase ◽  
Utilization Rate ◽  
Cumulative Live Birth Rate ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Live Birth Rates ◽  
Cumulative Live Birth ◽  
Late Follicular Phase

Abstract Study question Does elevated late-follicular phase estrogen and progesterone levels have an impact on blastocyst utilization and/or cumulative live birth rates in freeze-all cycles? Summary answer High estrogen or progesterone on the day of ovulation trigger is associated with poor blastocyst utilization but comparable cumulative live birth rates in freeze-all cycles. What is known already Several studies suggest impaired clinical outcome in cycles with high estrogen (&gt;3500 pg/ml) or progesterone (&gt;1.5 ng/ml) levels. However, these data were derived from cycles where top-quality embryo(s) were transferred in the fresh cycle and surplus embryos were frozen. These findings might be confounded by alterations in endometrial receptivity. Freeze-all cycles might provide a better model to assess the impact of high late-follicular estrogen or progesterone levels on laboratory and clinical outcome. Study design, size, duration We performed a retrospective cohort study of all IVF cycles (n = 712) between 2016 and 2018 where the entire cohort of embryos was cryopreserved at the blastocyst stage. After excluding cases with &lt;4 oocytes or preimplantation genetic test, the study group comprised 459 women who had 699 frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles. Participants/materials, setting, methods Women were classified into four groups by the indication for freeze-all strategy as elevated progesterone (high P, n = 61), high estrogen (high E, n = 224), elective freezing (elective, n = 114) and tubal-endometrial pathologies (TEP, n = 60). The primary outcome was the cumulative live birth rate in subsequent thaw-transfer cycles and the secondary outcome was the blastocyst utilization rate. Groups were compared using ANOVA and Cox regression analyses to adjust for confounding variables. Main results and the role of chance The mean age of the study group was 32.8 ± 5.3 years, total number of oocytes and cryopreserved blastocysts were 15.0±7.6 and 4.2±3.0, respectively. The high-E group was younger (31.5 ± 5.2 years) and had higher peak E2 levels (4078.9 ± 588.4 pg/ml), number of oocytes (19.7 ± 7.0), cryopreserved embryos (5.3 ± 3.3) and transfer cycles (2.3 ± 1.4) than the other groups. Blastocyst utilization rate was significantly lower (40.4%) compared to elective freezing (53.6%) and TEP groups (55.7%) (both p = 0.001). The high-P group had higher peak progesterone levels (2.1 ± 0.5 ng/ml, p = 0.001), number of oocytes (14.0 ± 5.2) and frozen embryos (4.1 ± 3.5) compared to elective and TEP groups (both p = 0.04). Blastocyst utilization rate was lower (45.7%) than elective freezing and TEP groups but the difference lacked statistical significance (p = 0.33 and p = 0.21, respectively). Cumulative live birth rates were 42.6% in high-P, 59.8% in high-E, 44.7% in elective freezing and 46.7% in TEP groups. Significant predictors of cumulative live birth were female age (aHR: 0.97, 95%CI:0.95–0.99, p = 0.02) and number of frozen blastocysts (aHR:1.05, 95%CI:1.01–1.10), p = 0.02). When adjusted for these confounders, the cumulative live birth rate was not associated with high-E (aHR: 0.86, 95%CI:0.56–1.31) or high-P (aHR: 0.76,95%CI:0.44–1.32). Limitations, reasons for caution This was a retrospective study with small sample size performed at a single fertility center, which may limit the generalizability of our findings. Wider implications of the findings: While lower blastocyst utilization rates are observed in women high late-follicular estradiol or progesterone levels, cumulative live birth rates in subsequent thaw-transfer cycles were not impaired. However, unfavorable outcome parameters observed in women with elevated progesterone deserve further research. Trial registration number Not applicable

scholarly journals ICSI Versus Conventional IVF in Women Aged 40 Years or More and Unexplained Infertility: A Retrospective Evaluation of 685 Cycles with Propensity Score Model

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 1694 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gianluca Gennarelli ◽  
Andrea Carosso ◽  
Stefano Canosa ◽  
Claudia Filippini ◽  
Sara Cesarano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Propensity Score ◽  
Pregnancy Rate ◽  
Live Birth ◽  
Birth Rate ◽  
Live Birth Rate ◽  
Unexplained Infertility ◽  
Unbiased Estimation ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Live Birth Rates ◽  
Cumulative Live Birth

This study compared the cumulative live birth rates following Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) versus conventional in vitro fertilization (cIVF) in women aged 40 years or more and unexplained infertility. A cohort of 685 women undergoing either autologous conventional IVF or ICSI was retrospectively analyzed. The effects of conventional IVF or ICSI procedure on cumulative pregnancy and live birth rates were evaluated in univariate and in multivariable analysis. In order to reduce potential differences between women undergoing either IVF or ICSI and to obtain unbiased estimation of the treatment effect, propensity score was estimated. ICSI was performed in 307 couples (ICSI group), whereas cIVF was performed in 297 couples (cIVF group), resulting in 45 and 43 live deliveries, respectively. No differences were observed in morphological embryo quality, in the number of cleavage stage embryos, in the number of transferred embryos, and in the number of vitrified embryos. As for the clinical outcome, no differences were observed in pregnancy rate, cumulative pregnancy rate, live birth rate, cumulative live birth rate, and abortion rate. The present results suggest that ICSI is not associated with increased likelihood of a live birth for unexplained, non-male factor infertility, in women aged 40 years or more.

O-014 How effective is oocyte cryopreservation?

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Cobo
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Patients ◽  
Live Birth ◽  
Ovarian Reserve ◽  
Oocyte Retrieval ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Oocyte Vitrification ◽  
Live Birth Rates ◽  
Cumulative Live Birth ◽  
Different Populations

Abstract text The challenge of cryopreserve, store for prolonged period, and successfully implant the female gamete is nowadays feasible thanks to vitrification. The technology that was initially validated in oocyte recipients is currently applied to a vast population, including women at risk of losing their ovarian function due either to iatrogenic causes as occurs in cancer patients, or due to the natural depletion of the ovarian reserve as a result of age related fertility decline. That is the case of a growing population of women who wish to postpone childbearing and decide on oocyte vitrification as a means of fertility preservation (FP). At present, there is a growing body of evidence regarding the use of vitrified oocytes by many women under different indications, which makes it possible to evaluate the approach from different scenarios. So that vitrification can be evaluated in terms on survival rates, embryo development and the rate at which vitrified oocytes develop into live-born children in IVF cycles using vitrified oocytes which were initially stored due to different reasons. The effects of vitrification at the subcellular level and its impact on oocyte competence is of interest in the evaluation of the efficacy of the technology. Some studies have indicated that vitrification may affect ultrastructure, reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation, gene expression, and epigenetic status. However, it is still controversial whether oocyte vitrification could induce DNA damage in the oocytes and the resulting early embryos. Recent studies show that oocytes survival and clinical outcome after vitrification can be impaired by patients’ age and the clinical indication or the reason for vitrification. These studies show that age at oocyte retrieval strongly affects the survival and reproductive prognosis. In our experience, oocyte survival, pregnancy and cumulative live birth rates are significantly higher when patients are aged 35 years or younger versus patients older than 35 years at oocyte retrieval. Therefore, elective-FP patients should be encouraged to decide at young ages to significantly increase their chances of success. There is also evidence that the reason for vitrification is associated to the success rates. Poorer reproductive outcome was reported in cancer patients, low responders and endometriosis patients when compared to healthy women in age matching groups. Moreover, there are certain individualities linked to specific populations, as occurs when endometriosis patients had cystectomy earlier than the oocyte retrieval for FP. These women achieved lower success rates as compared to non-operated age matching counterparts. In this case, the lower cumulative live birth rates observed in operated women are, most probably, due to the smaller number of oocytes available, as a consequence of the detrimental effect of the surgery on the ovarian reserve. In this regard, several reports show that the number of oocytes available per patient is another variable closely related to the outcome in all populations using vitrified oocytes after FP. Thus, a significant improvement in the cumulative live birth rates can be achieved by adding a few oocytes, especially in healthy young patients. Different populations using vitrified oocytes under several indications achieve differential results in terms of pregnancy rates, when calculated in overall. Nonetheless, when the calculations for the cumulative probability of achieving a baby are made according the number of oocytes used per patient belonging to the same group of age, the results become comparable between different populations, as shown by the comparison between elective freezers versus endometriosis patients. Undoubtedly, vitrification can be recognized as one of the latest brakethrough in the ART field, but certainly the next step forward would be the successfull automatization of the vitrification and warming processes to achieve fully consistency among different laboratories.

P-377 Association between antinuclear antibodies and pregnancy prognosis in recurrent pregnancy loss patients

2021 ◽  
Vol 36 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
H Yoshihara ◽  
M Sugiura-Ogasawara ◽  
T Kitaori ◽  
S Goto
Keyword(s):  
Live Birth ◽  
Pregnancy Loss ◽  
Birth Rate ◽  
Recurrent Pregnancy Loss ◽  
Live Birth Rate ◽  
Negative Group ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Positive Group ◽  
Live Birth Rates ◽  
Uterine Anomaly

Abstract Study question Can antinuclear antibody (ANA) affect the subsequent live birth rate in patients with recurrent pregnancy loss (RPL) who have no antiphospholipid antibodies (aPLs)? Summary answer ANA did not affect the pregnancy prognosis of RPL women. What is known already The prevalence of ANA is well-known to be higher in RPL patients. Our previous study found no difference in the live birth rates of ANA-positive and -negative patients who had no aPLs. Higher miscarriage rates were also reported in ANA-positive patients compared to ANA-negative patients with RPL. The RPL guidelines of the ESHRE state that “ANA testing can be considered for explanatory purposes.” However, there have been a limited number of studies on this issue and sample sizes have been small, and the impact of ANA on the pregnancy prognosis is unclear. Study design, size, duration An observational cohort study was conducted at Nagoya City University Hospital between 2006 and 2019. The study included 1,108 patients with a history of 2 or more pregnancy losses. Participants/materials, setting, methods 4D-Ultrasound, hysterosalpingography, chromosome analysis for both partners, aPLs and blood tests for ANA and diabetes mellitus were performed before a subsequent pregnancy. ANAs were measured by indirect immunofluorescence. The cutoff dilution used was 1:40. In addition, patients were classified according to the ANA pattern on immunofluorescence staining. Live birth rates were compared between ANA-positive and ANA-negative patients after excluding patients with antiphospholipid syndrome, an abnormal chromosome in either partner and a uterine anomaly. Main results and the role of chance The 994 patients were analyzed after excluding 40 with a uterine anomaly, 43 with a chromosome abnormality in either partner and 32 with APS. The rate of ANA-positive patients was 39.2 % (390/994) when the 1: 40 dilution result was positive. With a 1:160 dilution, the rate of ANA-positive patients was 3.62 % (36/994). The live birth rate was calculated for 798 patients, excluding 196 patients with unexplained RPL who had been treated with any medication. With the use of the 1 40 dilution, the subsequent live birth rates were 71.34 % (219/307) for the ANA-positive group and 70.67 % (347/491) for the ANA-negative group (OR, 95%CI; 0.968, 0.707-1.326). After excluding miscarriages with embryonic aneuploidy, chemical pregnancies and ectopic pregnancies, live birth rates were 92.41 % (219/237) for the ANA-positive group and 92.04 % (347/377) for the ANA-negative group (0.951, 0.517-1.747). Using the 1:160 dilution, the subsequent live birth rates were 84.62 % (22/26) for the ANA-positive group, and 70.47 % (544/772) for the ANA-negative group (0.434, 0.148-1.273). Subgroup analyses were performed for each pattern on immunofluorescence staining, but there was no significant difference in the live birth rate between the two groups. Limitations, reasons for caution The effectiveness of immunotherapies could not be evaluated. However, the results of this study suggest that it is not necessary. Wider implications of the findings The measurement of ANA might not be necessary for the screening of patients with RPL who have no features of collagen disease. Trial registration number not applicable

The effect of type of oral contraceptive pill and duration of use on fresh and cumulative live birth rates in IVF/ICSI cycles

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (4) ◽  
pp. 826-836 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pedro Montoya-Botero ◽  
Francisca Martinez ◽  
Jorge Rodríguez-Purata ◽  
Ignacio Rodríguez ◽  
Buenaventura Coroleu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Oral Contraceptive ◽  
Live Birth ◽  
Ovarian Stimulation ◽  
Oral Contraceptive Pill ◽  
Controlled Ovarian Stimulation ◽  
Fourth Generation ◽  
Birth Rates ◽  
Live Birth Rates ◽  
Cumulative Live Birth ◽  
Published Evidence

Abstract STUDY QUESTION Are there any differences in the fresh (LB) and cumulative live birth rates (CLBR) of women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for IVF/ICSI following pretreatment with different types of oral contraceptive pills (OCP) for different durations as compared to no-OCP? SUMMARY ANSWER OCP administration for an interval of 12- to 30-day treatment period and with a 5-day washout period does not affect clinical pregnancy, LB nor cumulative LB in patients undergoing COS for an IVF cycle. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY The use of OCP is an effective way of treatment planning in IVF/ICSI cycles, but published evidence about its effect on pregnancy and LBR is inconsistent, some studies finding decreased rates but others no difference. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION This is a retrospective analysis carried out in a University-affiliated tertiary centre between January 2009 and December 2017. Overall, 4116 infertile women between 18 and 45 years, who underwent their first ovarian stimulation cycle in our centre, were included. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS Patients were categorised into two groups as receiving OCP (n = 3517) or not (no OCP, n = 599). All patients with OCP pretreatment initiated controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) 5 days post-pill. Overall, two types of OCP were used at the study’s centre: ethinylestradiol (EE) 30 μg/desogestrel 150 μg, a third-generation progesterone; or EE 30 μg/drospirenone 3 mg, a fourth-generation progestin with mild antiandrogenic activity. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE A total of n = 4116 patients were analysed, (OCP n = 3517 and non-OCP n = 599). The use of OCP was independently associated with a small increase in the number of oocytes retrieved after adjusting for age, BMI, use of OCP, cause of infertility, initial dose (IU), type of gonadotropin, stimulation days, total stimulation units (total IU) (β 0.22, 95% CI 0.12–0.31). Cumulative LBRs were comparable between groups OCP versus non-OCP (32.4 versus 31.6%, P = 0.712). Following adjustment for age, BMI, infertility diagnosis, starting and total dose, type of gonadotropin, total days of stimulation, type of insemination, number of oocytes retrieved, day of transfer and number of embryos transferred in a multiple logistic analysis, patients using OCPs had a similar probability of achieving a LB as compared with patients not-using OCPs following fresh embryo transfer (ORadj 0.89, 95% CI 0.69–1.15) and a similar probability for CLBR after the use of fresh and frozen embryos (ORadj 0.94, 95% CI 0.73–1.21). No differences were observed in ovarian stimulation and clinical outcomes between drospirenone and desogestrel OCP groups. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION Limitations are related to the retrospective nature of the study; despite the sample size, the adjustments and the multivariable regression analysis conducted, we cannot exclude the presence of confounding bias. OCP administration was not randomly assigned, not allowing to exclude the presence of selection bias. Lastly, we only used two types of OCP with durations and washout periods as per institution protocol. Therefore, we cannot exclude that longer duration of administration, a different type of OCP or different pill-free interval might have had an alternative effect on LBR or CLBR; thus, the generalizability of this study’s results should be considered with caution. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS Our study provides reassuring evidence that the use of 12–30 days OCP for cycle programming, prior to IVF, does not decrease the chance of live birth and cumulative live birth rates. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S) No external funding was used for this study. This research was performed under the auspices of ‘Càtedra d’Investigació en Obstetrícia I Ginecologia’ of the Department of Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Medicine, Hospital Universitario Dexeus, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. The authors report no conflict of interest associated with the current study. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER NA

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document