Purpose: To investigate whether progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) can be an alternative as gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) long protocol for infertile women with normal ovarian reserve during IVF/ICSI. Methods: A prospective randomized controlled trial (RCT) including 257 patients was conducted between 1 August 2017 to 1 January 2018. Computerized randomization was performed to assign participants into two treatment groups at a 1:1 ratio: PPOS (130 patients) or GnRHa long protocol (127 patients) followed by their first IVF/ICSI with fresh/frozen embryo transfer. The primary outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved. Patients with normal ovarian reserve undergoing their first IVF/ICSI procedure were included. The embryological and clinical outcomes were measured. Only the first embryo transfer cycle was followed-up. Results: Basic characteristics such as infertility duration, age, and body mass index (BMI) were comparable in both groups. No significant difference was found in the number (mean ± SD) oocytes retrieved [11.8 ± 6.5 for PPOS vs 11.3 ± 5.6 for GnRHa long protocol] or viable embryos [4.5 ± 3.0 for PPOS vs 4.2 ± 2.9 for GnRHa long protocol] between the groups. No patient from either group experienced a premature LH surge during the whole process of ovarian stimulation. Besides, there was no moderate or severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome during the ovarian stimulation in PPOS group while three patients suffered it in the GnRHa long protocol group. There was no significant difference in the clinical pregnancy rate of the first embryos transfer cycle between the two groups. Conclusion: PPOS in combination with embryo cryopreservation as an ovarian stimulation regimen was as effective as GnRHa long protocol during controlled ovarian stimulation (COH) under different endocrinal mechanisms. It can also achieve comparable embryological and clinical outcomes while reducing the incidence of moderate and severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and HMG dosage. It can be an alternative of the treatments for infertile patients with normal ovarian reserve undergoing IVF as well as traditional protocols.
The aims of this study were to purify and characterize a bacteriocin produced by a strain of Enterococcus faecalis TG2 and to test the safety of the strain. In this work, the active peptide was purified through precipitation with 70% saturated ammonium sulfate, cation-exchange chromatography, and gel filtration. The specific activity of purified bacteriocin was 30,073.42 AU/mg of protein, which corresponded to a 33.34-fold increase. The molecular mass of the purified bacteriocin was 6.3362 kDa determined by LC-MS/MS. The ten amino acid of N-terminal was MTRSKKLNLR and the ten amino acid of C-terminal was ATGGAAGWKS. The activity of the bacteriocin was unaffected by pH 2-10 and thermostable but was sensitive to proteolytic enzymes. The antimicrobial activity of the bacteriocin was not affected by metal ions. Tween-20, Tween-80, Triton X-100, and EDTA did not affect the bacteriocin activity and SDS was able to increase the activity of bacteriocin. Bacteriocin activity was not lost after treatment by < 8% NaCl. Inhibitory spectrum of the bacteriocin showed a wide range of activities against other lactic acid bacteria, food-spoilage, and food-borne pathogens. Ent. faecalis TG2 was sensitive to tetracycline and erythromycin but resistant to ampicillin, gentamicin, kanamycin, and chloramphenicol. Results from PCR indicated that Ent. faecalis TG2 did not harbor any virulence genes. The study suggests that Ent. faecalis TG2 and its bacteriocin might be used as bio-preservatives in food products.
Background This study aimed to investigate the medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) + HMG protocol vs ultra-long gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist protocol in patients with advanced ovarian endometriosis who received in vitro fertilization (IVF). Methods Three hundred patients with advanced ovary endometriosis who underwent IVF were included, and embryological and clinical outcomes were assessed between March 2017 and September 2017. Patients were divided into MPA + HMG group and 1-month ultra-long GnRHa protocol group. Results Lower hMG dose and shorter medication time were found in the MPA + HMG group than in the GnRHa group (P < 0.05). Follicle to-Oocyte Index was significantly different between MPA + HMG group and GnRHa group (P < 0.001). No differences were found in the ovary response and numbers of mature oocytes, fertilized oocytes and viable embryos. The clinical pregnancy and live birth outcomes were similar between MPA + HMG group and GnRHa group, and these outcomes were independent of fresh or frozen embryo transfer in the GnRHa protocol group. There were no significant differences in the time to embryo transfer, medical cost and adverse effects. Conclusion The number of oocytes retrieved and pregnancy outcomes after MPA + HMG protocol are similar to those after ultra-long GnRHa protocol in women with ovarian endometriosis. MPA + HMG protocol may be an alternative to ultra-long GnRHa protocol for IVF in ovary endometriosis patients. Trial registration The trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR-INR-17010924) Plain English summary In conclusion, the administration of MPA in COH showed similar number of oocytes retrieved, no premature LH surge, and similar pregnancy and live birth outcomes in patients with advanced ovarian endometriosis undergoing IVF/ICSI as compared to the one-month long protocol. The use of MPA in COH appears to be promising although many questions remain to be elucidated, including the dose and time of progestin priming as well as its possible influence on the oocyte development potential and microenvironment. Given their good tolerability, few metabolic influence, and low cost, progestogens provide a novel alternative to the conventional protocol for patients with endometriosis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.