GnRH antagonist protocol versus progestin-primed ovarian stimulation in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PurposeThe aim of this meta-analysis was comparing the efficacy of GnRH antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol and progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) in polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) women.MethodsA search was conducted from PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases to collect clinical papers regarding GnRH-ant protocol and PPOS protocol from inception to September 2023. Subsequently, the retrieved documents were screened, and the content of the documents that conformed to the requirements was extracted. Moreover, statistical meta-analyses were conducted using the RevMan 5.4 software. Furthermore, with the use of a star-based system and the Cochrane handbook, the methodological quality of the covered papers was evaluated on the Ottawa-Newcastle scale.ResultsA total of eight papers were covered in the meta-analysis, with 2156 PCOS women enrolled (i.e., 1085 patients in the GnRH-ant protocol group and 1071 patients in the PPOS group). As indicated by the meta-analysis results, the PPOS group was correlated with a lower risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (SMD = 9.24, [95% CI: (2.50, 34.21)], P = 0.0009), more gonadotropin (Gn) dose (SMD = - 0.34, [95% CI: (- 0.56, - 0.13)], P = 0.002) compared with GnRH-ant group. No statistical difference was identified on the oocytes condition and pregnancy outcomes.ConclusionsAs revealed by the data of this study, the progesterone protocol is comparable with the GnRH-ant protocol in oocytes condition and clinical outcomes. The progestin-primed ovarian stimulation could serve as an alternative for polycystic ovarian syndrome women who have failed in GnRH antagonist protocol. The above-described conclusions should be verified by more high-quality papers due to the limitation of the number and quality of included papers.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration: CRD42023411284.