Comparison between a GnRH antagonist and a GnRH agonist flare-up protocol in oocyte donors: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND: Little information is available on the outcome of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) using GnRH antagonist in oocyte donation cycles especially in comparison with the short GnRH agonist protocol. This study was aimed at comparing the two stimulation protocols in oocyte donation (OD) cycles. METHODS: A total of 113 donors randomly received COH using either GnRH antagonist or GnRH agonist. The primary endpoint was the mean number of mature oocytes retrieved per started donor cycle. Secondary endpoints were the mean number of cumulus-oocyte-complexes (COCs) retrieved, the mean proportion of mature oocytes, pregnancy and implantation rates in recipients. RESULTS: Oocytes were distributed to 166 recipients. The mean number (+/- SD) of COC (11.6 +/- 5.8 versus 12.1 +/- 6.7), mature oocytes (8.4 +/- 4.4 versus 8.9 +/- 5.3) and the proportion of mature oocytes (70.8 versus 75.7%) retrieved per started donor cycle were similar in the antagonist and agonist groups, respectively. The implantation rate (26.1 versus 30.1%), clinical (40.2 versus 45.6%) and ongoing pregnancy rate per recipient cycle (32.2 versus 37.9%) were comparable in antagonist and agonist protocols, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Similar mean number of mature oocytes and comparable pregnancy rates are achieved after OD in which donors received COH using GnRH antagonist or short GnRH agonist protocols.     

GnRH antagonist in assisted reproduction: a Cochrane review

BACKGROUND: In the present systematic review, we wished to compare the efficacy of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist and GnRH agonist administration for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in assisted conception. METHODS: Five randomized controlled trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria. In four studies, the multiple low-dose (0.25 mg) antagonist regimen was applied and, in one study, the single high-dose (3 mg) antagonist regimen was investigated. In all trials, reference treatment included a long protocol of GnRH agonist (buserelin, leuprorelin or triptorelin) starting in the mid-luteal phase of the preceding cycle. RESULTS: In comparison with the long protocol of GnRH agonist, the overall odds ratio for the prevention of premature LH surges was 1.76 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-4.16], which was not statistically significant. There were significantly fewer clinical pregnancies in those treated with GnRH antagonists (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.63-0.99). There was no statistically significant reduction in incidence of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome between the two regimens (relative risk 0.51; OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.22-1.18). CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that the fixed GnRH antagonist protocol is a short and simple protocol with good clinical outcome, but the lower pregnancy rate compared with the GnRH agonist long protocol and the non-significant difference between both protocols regarding prevention of premature LH surge and prevention of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome necessitates counselling subfertile couples before recommending change from GnRH agonist to antagonist. The clinical outcome may be further improved by developing more flexible antagonist regimens, taking into account individual patient characteristics.     

Initiation of GnRH antagonist on Day 1 of stimulation as compared to the long agonist protocol in PCOS patients. A randomized controlled trial: effect on hormonal levels and follicular development

BACKGROUND The optimal time for GnRH antagonist initiation is still debatable. The purpose of the current randomized controlled trial is to provide endocrine and follicular data during ovarian stimulation for IVF in patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) treated either with a long GnRH agonist scheme or a fixed day-1 GnRH antagonist protocol. METHODS Randomized patients in both groups (antagonist: n = 26; long agonist: n = 52) received oral contraceptive pill treatment for three weeks and a starting dose of 150 IU of follitropin beta. The primary outcome was E(2) level on Day 5 of stimulation, while secondary outcomes were follicular development, LH during ovarian stimulation and progesterone levels. RESULTS Significantly more follicles on days 5, 7 and 8 of stimulation, significantly higher estradiol (E(2)) levels on days 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8 and significantly higher progesterone levels on days 1, 5 and 8 of stimulation were observed in the antagonist when compared with the agonist group. E(2) was approximately twice as high in the antagonist when compared with the agonist group on day 5 of stimulation (432 versus 204 pg ml(-1), P lt; 0.001). These differences were accompanied by significantly lower LH levels on days 3 and 5 and significantly higher LH levels on days 1, 7 and 8 of stimulation in the antagonist when compared with the agonist group. CONCLUSIONS In PCOS patients undergoing IVF, initiation of GnRH antagonist concomitantly with recombinant FSH is associated with an earlier follicular growth and a different hormonal environment during the follicular phase when compared with the long agonist protocol.     

Addition of GnRH antagonist in cycles of poor responders undergoing IVF

Concern about the use of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists in ovarian stimulation of poor responder IVF patients has arisen from the claim that GnRH agonists might have a direct deleterious effect through their receptors on the ovary. In this study, we compared two ovarian stimulation protocols in which no GnRH agonists were used. In all, 40 patients with a poor response in previous treatment cycles were included. They were divided into two groups: group I (n = 20) received ovarian stimulation for 20 cycles, without the addition of either GnRH agonist or antagonist; while group II (n = 20) patients received ovarian stimulation for 20 cycles, including the administration of a GnRH antagonist (Cetrorelix, 0.25 mg daily) during the late follicular phase. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for mean age, duration of infertility, baseline FSH concentration, cancellation rate, number of ampoules of gonadotrophin used, number of mature oocytes retrieved, oestradiol concentrations on the day of injection of human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG), fertilization rate and number of embryos transferred. The clinical pregnancy and implantation rates in group II appeared higher than in group I, but were not significantly different (20 and 13.33% compared with 6.25 and 3.44% respectively). The addition of GnRH antagonists to ovarian stimulation protocols might be a new hope for poor responder IVF patients, but this report is preliminary and further controlled randomized prospective studies with larger sample sizes are required.     

GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in oocyte donation cycles: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND: The specific role of LH in folliculogenesis and oocyte maturation is unclear. GnRH antagonists, when administered in the late follicular phase, induce a sharp decrease in serum LH which may be detrimental for IVF outcome. This study was performed to evaluate whether the replacement of GnRH agonist (triptorelin) by a GnRH antagonist (ganirelix; NV Organon) in oocyte donation cycles has any impact on pregnancy and implantation rates. METHODS: A total of 148 donor IVF cycles was randomly assigned to use either a GnRH antagonist daily administered from the 8th day of stimulation (group I) or a GnRH agonist long protocol (group II) for the ovarian stimulation of their donors. The primary endpoints were the pregnancy and the implantation rates. RESULTS: The clinical pregnancy rate per transfer (39.72%, 29/73 versus 41.33%, 31/75) based on transvaginal scan findings at 7 weeks of gestation, the implantation rate (23.9 versus 25.4%) and the first trimester abortion rate (10.34 versus 12.90%) were similar in the two groups. CONCLUSION: In oocyte donation cycles the replacement of GnRH agonist by a GnRH antagonist appears to have no impact on the pregnancy and implantation rates when its administration starts on day 8 of stimulation.     

Beneficial effect of luteal-phase GnRH agonist administration on embryo implantation after ICSI in both GnRH agonist- and antagonist-treated ovarian stimulation cycles

BACKGROUND: GnRH agonist was recently suggested as a novel luteal-phase support that may act at different levels, including the pituitary gonadotrophs, the endometrium and the embryo itself. This prospective randomized study evaluates the effect of GnRH agonist administered in the luteal phase on ICSI outcomes in both GnRH agonist- and GnRH antagonist-treated ovarian stimulation protocols. METHODS: Six hundred women about to undergo ovarian stimulation for ICSI (300 using a long GnRH agonist protocol and 300 using a GnRH antagonist protocol) were enrolled in this study. Patients treated with each of these two protocols were randomly assigned to receive a single injection of GnRH agonist or placebo 6 days after ICSI. Implantation and live birth rates were the primary outcomes. RESULTS: Administration of 0.1 mg of GnRH agonist triptorelin on day 6 after ICSI led to a significant improvement of implantation and live birth rates after ICSI as compared with placebo. In GnRH antagonist-treated ovarian stimulation cycles, luteal-phase GnRH agonist also increased ongoing pregnancy rate. Moreover, luteal-phase GnRH agonist administration increased luteal-phase serum HCG, estradiol and progesterone concentrations in both ovarian stimulation regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Luteal-phase GnRH agonist administration enhances ICSI clinical outcomes after GnRH agonist- and GnRH antagonist-treated ovarian stimulation cycles, possibly by a combination of effects on the embryo and the corpus luteum.     

Use of a single bolus of GnRH agonist triptorelin to trigger ovulation after GnRH antagonist ganirelix treatment in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for assisted reproduction, with special reference to the prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: preliminary report: short communication

A new treatment option for patients undergoing ovarian stimulation is the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol, with the possibility to trigger a mid-cycle LH surge using a single bolus of GnRH agonist, reducing the risk of developing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in high responders and the chance of cycle cancellation. This report describes the use of 0.2 mg triptorelin (Decapeptyl) to trigger ovulation in eight patients who underwent controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with recombinant FSH (rFSH, Puregon) and concomitant treatment with the GnRH antagonist ganirelix (Orgalutran) for the prevention of premature LH surges. All patients were considered to have an increased risk for developing OHSS (at least 20 follicles > or =11 mm and/or serum oestradiol at least 3000 pg/ml). On the day of triggering the LH surge, the mean number of follicles > or =11 mm was 25.1 +/- 4.5 and the median serum oestradiol concentration was 3675 (range 2980-7670) pg/ml. After GnRH agonist injection, endogenous serum LH and FSH surges were observed with median peak values of 219 and 19 IU/l respectively, measured 4 h after injection. The mean number of oocytes obtained was 23.4 +/- 15.4, of which 83% were mature (metaphase II). None of the patients developed any signs or symptoms of OHSS. So far, four clinical pregnancies have been achieved from the embryos obtained during these cycles, including the first birth following this approach. It is concluded that GnRH agonist effectively triggers an endogenous LH surge for final oocyte maturation after ganirelix treatment in stimulated cycles. Our preliminary results suggest that this regimen may prove effective in triggering ovulation and could be said to prevent OHSS in high responders. The efficacy and safety of such new treatment regimen needs to be established in comparative randomized studies.     

The use of GnRH antagonists in ovarian stimulation

GnRH antagonists induce a rapid decrease in LH and FSH, preventing and interrupting LH surges. Their properties do not require a desensitization period, and this allows their use in the late follicular phase. GnRH antagonists could replace GnRH agonists in controlled ovarian stimulation without their side-effects and their long desensitization period. Two protocols for assisted reproduction technology (ART) cycles were designed: the single-dose protocol allies simplicity and efficacy, while the multiple-dose protocol is efficient and could reduce monitoring of the cycle, though compliance is mandatory. A review of the available literature on GnRH antagonists in ART cycles is presented, focusing on phase III controlled trials and ART results. Both protocols using GnRH antagonists were associated with the need for a smaller dose of gonadotrophin, a shorter stimulation period and a lower incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), albeit with statistically comparable pregnancy rates. A trend is observed in all studies showing a lower pregnancy rates in GnRH antagonist cycles as compared with GnRH agonist cycles. The role of the lower number of embryos, and the potential adverse effects of GnRH antagonists on endometrium or follicle must be studied. More cycles using GnRH antagonists are necessary to confirm their equivalent pregnancy rates. There is room for improvement in both protocols with regard to scheduling, antagonist dose level and the timing of its administration. Until further studies have been conducted, luteal support seems to remain mandatory. Perinatal outcome appears similar to that with other stimulation regimens. Triggering of ovulation can be obtained with GnRH agonist for patients at risk of OHSS. With regard to GnRH antagonists, questions remain regarding pregnancy rates, the indications of their use in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome or poor responders, and in ovarian stimulation outside IVF.     

The effect of an individualized GnRH antagonist protocol on folliculogenesis in IVF/ICSI

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of an individualized GnRH antagonist regimen on folliculogenesis. METHODS: In a multicentre, randomized, clinical trial, IVF/ICSI patients were allocated to a standard regimen, in which they received daily 0.25 mg GnRH antagonist ganirelix (Orgalutran) from the 6th day of stimulation onward (fixed regimen n = 102) or to an individualized regimen, in which IVF/ICSI patients received daily 0.25 mg GnRH antagonist starting on the day that the dominant follicle had reached a diameter of > or = 15 mm (flexible regimen n = 103). The primary endpoint was to assess the difference in the total number of oocytes. RESULTS: The mean (SD) number of retrieved oocytes was not statistically significantly different: 9.4 (5.8) in the flexible group versus 9.7 (6.5) in the fixed group. The clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates were 22.7 and 21.8% respectively in the flexible group versus 33 and 31.1% in the fixed group [relative rate ratio 0.69 (95% confidence interval 0.44-1.08) and 0.7 (0.44-1.12) respectively]. CONCLUSION: The individualized flexible regimen did not result in an increase in the total number of oocytes obtained.     

GnRH agonist protocol administration in the luteal phase in ICSI-ET cycles stimulated with the long GnRH agonist protocol: a randomized, controlled double blind study

BACKGROUND: GnRH agonist administration in the luteal phase was reported to beneficially affect the clinical outcome of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and embryo transfer (ET) cycles. This double blind, randomized, placebo controlled trial evaluates whether a single dose GnRH agonist administered 6 days after ICSI increases ongoing pregnancy rates following ET in cycles stimulated with the long GnRH agonist protocol. METHODS: Five hundred and seventy women undergoing ET following controlled ovarian stimulation with a long GnRH agonist protocol were included. In addition to routine luteal phase support with progesterone, women were randomized to receive a single 0.1 mg dose of triptorelin or placebo 6 days after ICSI. Randomization was done on the day of ET according to a computer generated randomization table. Ongoing pregnancy rate beyond 20th week of gestation was the primary outcome measure. The trial was powered to detect a 12% absolute increase from an assumed 38% ongoing pregnancy rate in the placebo group, with an alpha error level of 0.05 and a beta error level of 0.2. RESULTS: There were 89 (31.2%) ongoing pregnancies in the GnRH agonist group, and 84 (29.5%) in the control group (absolute difference +1.7%, 95% confidence interval -5.8% to +9.2%). Implantation, clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy rates were likewise similar in the GnRH agonist and placebo groups. CONCLUSIONS: Single 0.1 mg triptorelin administration 6 days after ICSI following ovarian stimulation with the long GnRH agonist protocol does not seem to result in an increase >or=12% in ongoing pregnancy rates.     

Timing ovulation for intrauterine insemination with a GnRH antagonist

BACKGROUND: We aimed to assess the efficacy of a GnRH antagonist in intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles to increase number of mature ovulatory follicles and pregnancy rates. METHODS: Prospective randomized study. Women (18-38 years old) with primary/secondary infertility were included. Eighty-two patients were randomly assigned to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) consisting of rFSH + GnRH antagonist or rFSH alone. RESULTS: A non-significant increase in the total amount of rFSH was seen in the GnRH antagonist group (707+/-240 IU) with respect to the control group (657+/-194 IU). The number of mature follicles (> or =16 mm) was significantly higher in the GnRH antagonist group than in the control group (2.4+/-1.4 versus 1.7+/-1.2, P<0.05). Pregnancy rates were significantly increased in the group of patients receiving the GnRH antagonist (38%) compared to the control group (14%). The only non-single pregnancy (triplets) occurred in the antagonist group. CONCLUSIONS: In this preliminary study, adding the GnRH antagonist to the COS protocol for IUI cycles significantly increased pregnancy rates. Nevertheless, these results may not be associated directly with the antagonist itself but with the fact that more mature ovulatory follicles are present by the day of the hCG. Finally, the risk for multiple gestations needs to be carefully evaluated.     

Embryo implantation and GnRH antagonists: GnRH antagonists do not activate the GnRH receptor

Recent suggestions that gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists activate the GnRH receptor are discussed. Most of the studies cited in support of this suggestion are in-vitro studies, testing supra-pharmacological doses of GnRH analogues in cancer cell lines, whereas GnRH antagonists, e.g. ganirelix or cetrorelix, do not affect the steroidogenesis of human granulosa cells in vitro. In patients treated with GnRH antagonists prior to IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), oocyte maturity and fertilization rates are equal to those achieved following a long protocol of GnRH agonists. Although there is a tendency towards a lower pregnancy rate (not statistically significant) in the initial trials using GnRH antagonist with either recombinant FSH or human menopausal gonadotrophin (HMG) for ovarian stimulation, this new treatment option of GnRH antagonists facilitates short and simple treatment and improves the convenience and safety for the patient. As with GnRH agonists in the past, the clinical outcome of GnRH antagonist treatment will improve with time as more clinical experience is gained (learning curve) and the treatment protocol is optimized. Moreover, a GnRH agonist instead of human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) may be used for triggering ovulation and will decrease the cancellation rate and minimize the risk for developing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS).     

Recombinant human LH supplementation during GnRH antagonist administration in IVF/ICSI cycles: a prospective randomized study

BACKGROUND: When administered in the late follicular phase to prevent an LH surge, GnRH antagonists induce a sharp decrease in serum LH levels that may be detrimental for assisted reproductive technology cycle outcome. Therefore, a prospective study was designed to assess the effects of recombinant human (r)LH supplementation during GnRH antagonist (cetrorelix) administration. METHODS: The protocol consisted of cycle programming with oral contraceptive pill, ovarian stimulation with rFSH and flexible administration of a single dose of cetrorelix (3 mg). A total of 218 patients from three IVF centres were randomized (by sealed envelopes or according to woman's birth date) to receive (n = 114) or not (n = 104) a daily injection of rLH 75 IU from GnRH antagonist initiation to hCG injection. RESULTS: The only significant difference was a higher serum peak E2 level in patients treated with rLH (1476 +/- 787 versus 1012 +/- 659 pg/ml, P < 0.001) whereas the numbers of oocytes and embryos as well as the delivery rate (25.2 versus 24%) and the implantation rate per embryo (19.1 versus 17.4%) were similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results show that in an unselected group of patients, there is no evident benefit to supplement GnRH antagonist-treated cycles with rLH.     

A comparative randomized trial to assess the impact of oral contraceptive pretreatment on follicular growth and hormone profiles in GnRH antagonist-treated patients

BACKGROUND: This randomized controlled trial was designed to assess the impact of oral contraceptive (OC) scheduling with a GnRH antagonist (ganirelix) regimen on the ovarian response of women undergoing recombinant FSH (rFSH) stimulation for IVF, compared with a non-scheduled ganirelix regimen and a long GnRH agonist (nafarelin) protocol. METHODS: A total of 110 women was treated with an OC and ganirelix, 111 with ganirelix alone and 111 with nafarelin. The OC (containing 30 microg ethinylestradiol/150 microg desogestrel) was taken for 14-28 days and stopped 2 days prior to the start of rFSH treatment. Primary efficiency parameters were the number of cumulus-oocyte complexes (per attempt) and the number of grade 1 or 2 embryos (per attempt). RESULTS: In terms of follicular growth and hormone profiles, the OC-scheduled antagonist regimen mimicked the agonist regimen rather than the (non-scheduled) GnRH antagonist regimen. In the OC-scheduled GnRH antagonist group and the nafarelin group (versus the non-scheduled antagonist group), pituitary suppression was more profound at the start of stimulation (P < or = 0.001), there was a slower start of follicular growth (P < or = 0.001), longer stimulation was required (11.7 and 10.3 days respectively versus 9.4; P < or = 0.001), and more rFSH was used (2667 and 2222 IU versus 1966 IU; P < or = 0.001). In the three groups, the number of oocytes was similar (13.1, 12.9 and 11.5 respectively; not significant) as well as the number of good quality embryos (5.1, 5.7 and 5.0 respectively; not significant). CONCLUSION: OC treatment prior to the rFSH/ganirelix regimen can be successfully applied to schedule patients, although more days of stimulation and more rFSH are required than with a non-scheduled GnRH antagonist regimen.     

Ovarian cyst formation following GnRH agonist administration in IVF cycles: incidence and impact

BACKGROUND: The formation of functional ovarian cysts has been recognized as one of the side effects of GnRH agonist administration. The formation of cysts during IVF treatment may be of no clinical significance or may negatively influence its outcome. The objective of this study was to determine the incidence of ovarian cyst formation following GnRH agonist administration and to examine their effect on IVF outcome. METHODS: A prospective study of 1317 IVF patients who developed one or more functional ovarian cysts of >or=15 mm following GnRH agonist treatment was performed. Transvaginal ultrasonographic-guided cyst aspiration was carried out in 76 randomly allocated patients out of 122 patients who were found to have functional ovarian cysts before starting ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins. RESULTS: The incidence of follicular cyst formation was 9.3%. Cyst cycles in comparison with non-cyst cycles had significantly elevated day 3 basal FSH (mean+/-SD of 8.3+/-3.2 versus 5.3+/-2.6 mIU/ml, P<0.05) and required more ampoules of gonadotropins (46.3+/-16.5 versus 35+/-14.6, P<0.01). Furthermore, they showed a statistically significant decrease in the quality and number of oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate, number and quality of embryos, implantation and pregnancy rates, with a significant increase in cancellation and abortion rates. Patients with bilateral cysts had a significantly lower number of oocytes and embryos retrieved, with a lower proportion of metaphase II oocytes. They also had a higher proportion of poor quality embryos. Cyst aspiration was not associated with a significant difference in the above parameters. CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of cyst formation during GnRH agonist treatment is lower than previously reported. In such cases, the quality of oocytes and embryos were significantly compromised, with a significant increase in the cycle cancellation rate and a decrease in the implantation and pregnancy rates. Neither conservative management nor cyst aspiration improved the IVF outcome.     

Comparison of agonistic flare-up-protocol and antagonistic multiple dose protocol in ovarian stimulation of poor responders: results of a prospective randomized trial

The management of poor responders in IVF has always been a big problem. The ideal approach has yet to be formulated. In this study we aim to compare two alternative stimulation protocols. A total of 48 poor responder patients described from previous cycles were included and grouped into two: group I consisted of 24 patients in 24 cycles in which leuprolide acetate (40 microg s.c. per day) was initiated on cycle day 2 followed by exogenous gonadotrophins on cycle day 3; group II consisted of 24 patients in 24 cycles in which ovarian stimulation included gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist (cetrorelix, 0.25 mg daily during late follicular phase) administration. While only the oestradiol concentrations on the day of HCG were lower in group II compared with group I, the clinical pregnancy and implantation rates among groups did not show any significance. The impact of these two regimens in ovarian stimulation of poor responders seem to be same and to establish these results further randomized studies with larger sample sizes are required.     

GnRH antagonists and mild ovarian stimulation for intrauterine insemination: a randomized study comparing different gonadotrophin dosages

BACKGROUND: The precise role of GnRH antagonists in the armamentarium of drugs for stimulation of ovulation associated with intrauterine insemination remains to be clarified. In this study, we have compared two different protocols employing GnRH antagonists in order to determine the lower effective dose of gonadotrophins to use. METHODS: Sixty-six couples with unexplained infertility or moderate male subfertility were recruited. Starting on day 3 of the cycle, 32 patients were randomized to receive 50 IU of recombinant FSH per day, whereas 34 were treated with 50 IU of recombinant FSH on alternate days. Women received the GnRH antagonist Ganirelix at a dose of 0.25 mg per day starting on the day in which a leading follicle > or =14 mm in mean diameter was visualized, until HCG administration. Insemination was performed 34 h after HCG injection. RESULTS: The regimen with daily recombinant FSH was associated with a lower rate of mono-ovulation (53.3% versus 78.8%, P=0.06) but also with a higher clinical pregnancy rate per initiated cycle (34.4% versus 5.9%, P=0.005). CONCLUSIONS: A protocol of recombinant FSH 50 IU daily and GnRH antagonist may represent an effective and safe regimen for ovulation induction associated with intrauterine insemination.     

Effect of GnRH antagonists in FSH mildly stimulated intrauterine insemination cycles: a multicentre randomized trial

BACKGROUND: The usefulness of GnRH antagonists in mild controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) and intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles is debated. METHODS: Two-hundred and ninety-nine couples with unexplained or mild male factor infertility were enrolled in this international multicentre randomized controlled trial. Women allocated to the GnRH antagonist group (n=148) received 50 IU recombinant FSH starting on day 3 of the menstrual cycle and Ganirelix 0.25 mg daily starting from the day in which a follicle with a mean diameter of 13-14 mm was visualized at ultrasound. Women allocated to the control group (n=151) were administered only 50 IU recombinant FSH starting on day 3 of the menstrual cycle. Couples were recruited only for their first treatment cycle. The primary outcome was the clinical pregnancy rate per initiated cycle. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics of the two treatment groups were similar. Clinical pregnancy rates per initiated cycle in women who did and did not receive GnRH antagonists were 12.2 and 12.6%, respectively (P=1.00). The relative risk of conception (95% confidence interval) for the use of GnRH antagonists was 1.0 (0.5-1.9). CONCLUSIONS: In mild COH and IUI cycles, any benefit of the use of GnRH antagonists in improving pregnancy rates is <2-fold increase.     

Addition of estradiol to progesterone for luteal supplementation in patients stimulated with GnRH antagonist/rFSH for IVF: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND: The role of progesterone for luteal support in stimulated cycles for IVF is well established. However, controversy still surrounds the benefit of additional supplementation with estradiol (E2) in GnRH agonist (GnRHa) cycles, while no such data are available for GnRH antagonists. The aim of this randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to compare ongoing pregnancy rates in patients stimulated with recombinant FSH (rFSH) and GnRH antagonist for IVF, who received micronized progesterone for luteal phase supplementation, with or without the addition of E2. METHODS: Two hundred and one patients underwent ovarian stimulation with a fixed dose of 200 IU rFSH and GnRH antagonist. Patients were randomized to receive, for luteal phase supplementation, either 600 mg of micronized progesterone vaginally (n=100, progesterone group) or 600 mg of micronized progesterone and 4 mg of E2 valerate orally (n=101, progesterone/E2 group). The main outcome measure was ongoing pregnancy at 12 weeks per patient randomized. RESULTS: Demographics, stimulation parameters and embryological data were comparable for the two groups compared. Twenty-six ongoing pregnancies were achieved in the progesterone (26%) and 30 in the progesterone/E2 group (29.7%). (Difference: 3.7 and 95%, CI: -15.8 to 8.6%). CONCLUSION: It appears that the addition of E2 to progesterone in the luteal phase after stimulation with rFSH and GnRH antagonist does not enhance the probability of pregnancy.