Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare progestin ovarian stimulation protocols with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue (agonists and antagonists) protocols on newborn outcomes. METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and BioMed Central databases were searched for studies comparing progestin prime ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocols with gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues. Data were pooled by meta-analysis using a random effects model. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary endpoint was the risk of newborn congenital malformations. RESULTS: A total of 4 studies involving 9274 live-born infants were included. No important harm was observed with PPOS in terms of congenital malformations (OR 0.92; 95% CI 0.63-1.34; p = 0.65) (very low quality of evidence (QOE)) and low birth weight (OR 1.06; 95% CI 0.95-1.18; p = 0.29) (very low QOE) as compared with GnRH-a short protocols. In addition, a trend to a lower risk of preterm birth (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.80-1.02; p = 0.10) (very low QOE) was found among patients treated with a PPOS protocol. CONCLUSIONS: PPOS protocols, compared with GnRH-a protocols, are associated with a similar congenital malformation risk profile. Therefore, PPOS might represent a safe and appealing treatment option for infertile patients.