Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Not Yet Recruiting

NCT Number: NCT06738602

Difference Between Progestin Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol and Antagonist Protocol

compare the effectiveness and safety of the progestin primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol versus the antagonist protocol in hyper-responder patients scheduled for a freeze-all policy

Not Yet Recruiting

Trial opening soon.

Get Notified

Key information

Age range

20 year–40 year

Sex eligibility

Female

Study type

Observational

About this study

Infertility treatments have evolved significantly over the past few decades, with various protocols being developed to optimize ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology (ART). Among these protocols, the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) and the antagonist protocols have gained prominence, especially in hyper-responders who are scheduled for a freeze-all policy. Hyper-responders are patients who produce an excessive number of eggs in response to ovarian stimulation, which increases the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), a potentially severe complication .

The PPOS protocol involves the administration of progestins to suppress the premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge during ovarian stimulation, thereby providing a controlled environment for follicle development. This method has been found to be effective in reducing the risk of OHSS and improving clinical outcomes . On the other hand, the antagonist protocol employs gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists to prevent the LH surge, offering a more immediate suppression compared to progestins .

A freeze-all policy, where all viable embryos are frozen for future use rather than being transferred immediately, is often recommended for hyper-responders to further minimize the risk of OHSS . This approach allows for the transfer of embryos in a more physiologically normal uterine environment, potentially improving implantation rates and pregnancy outcomes .

This study aims to compare the effectiveness and safety of the PPOS protocol versus the antagonist protocol in hyper-responder patients scheduled for a freeze-all policy. By examining outcomes such as the number of retrieved oocytes, incidence of OHSS, and pregnancy rates, this research seeks to provide insights into the optimal ovarian stimulation strategy for this specific patient population.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • All hyper responder patients according to Olivera equation for overian response peridiction index

Exclusion criteria

  • All normal and poor responder patients according to Olivera equation for overian response peridiction index.
  • Sever male factor infertility

Treatment and study plan

Primary outcomes

  1. • Clinical pregnancy rate: The presence of a gestational sac with fetal heartbeat on ultrasound at 7 weeks of gestation. • Live birth rate: The delivery of a live-born infant beyond 24 weeks of gestation

    Time frame: 1 year

    the measure unit is the presence of pulsation in 7-week gestational sac or delivery if fetus beyond 24 weeks as if fetus below 24 w gestation , it's considered abortion

Study contacts

Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.

Khaled Mostafa Principal Investigator, M.Sc

CONTACT

[email protected]

01004770872

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Assiut University

Other

Registry information

Official study title

Comparison Between Progestin Primed Ovarian Stimulation Protocol and Antagonist Protocol in Hyper-responder Patients Schaduled for Freeze All Policy

Important dates

Study start
2024
Primary completion
2026
Study completion
2027
First posted
Dec 17, 2024
Registry last updated
Dec 17, 2024

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.