Dataset Information

GnRH agonist long protocol versus GnRH antagonist protocol for various aged patients with diminished ovarian reserve: A retrospective study.

ABSTRACT: This retrospective analysis compared the efficiency of the gonadotropin- releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol and the GnRH agonist long (GnRH-a) protocol for patients with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR). A total of 1,233 patients with DOR (anti-Mullerian hormone <1.1 ng/mL) were recruited for this retrospective case-control study. They were divided into two groups according to female age. Younger patients were assigned to POSEIDON group3 (PG3: age ?35 years); older patients were assigned to POSEIDON group 4 (PG4: age >35 years). All patients with DOR underwent controlled ovarian stimulation and fresh embryo transfer (ET) on day 3. We recruited 283 GnRH-a and 54 GnRH-ant cycles for PG3, and 663 GnRH-a and 233 GnRH-ant cycles for PG4. In PG3, the GnRH-a protocol was associated with a lower ET cancellation rate (30/283 = 10.2% vs. 12/54 = 22.2%, p = 0.018) and a higher live birth rate (7/54 = 13.0% vs. 78/283 = 27.6%, p = 0.024) than the GnRH-ant protocol for the initiated cycles. Furthermore, the GnRH-a protocol was correlated with a higher implantation rate than the GnRH-ant protocol for ET cycles (146/577 = 25.3% vs. 11/103 = 10.7%, P = 0.027). No differences in the ET cancellation rate, live birth rate and implantation rate between GnRH-a and GnRH-ant groups were observed among PG4 patients. In conclusion, the GnRH-a protocol was more effective than the GnRH-ant protocol for young patients with DOR. The low ET cancellation rate and high implantation rate may be related to embryo quality or endometrial receptivity, which warrant further investigation.

SUBMITTER: Huang MC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6221355 | biostudies-literature | 2018

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

GnRH agonist long protocol versus GnRH antagonist protocol for various aged patients with diminished ovarian reserve: A retrospective study.

Huang Ming-Chao MC Tzeng Shu-Ling SL Lee Chun-I CI Chen Hsiu-Hui HH Huang Chun-Chia CC Lee Tsung-Hsien TH Lee Maw-Sheng MS

PloS one 20181107 11

This retrospective analysis compared the efficiency of the gonadotropin- releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol and the GnRH agonist long (GnRH-a) protocol for patients with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR). A total of 1,233 patients with DOR (anti-Mullerian hormone <1.1 ng/mL) were recruited for this retrospective case-control study. They were divided into two groups according to female age. Younger patients were assigned to POSEIDON group3 (PG3: age ≤35 years); older patients ...[more]

PMID: 30403766

Similar Datasets

Project description:Objective: To compare the cumulative live birth rates (cLBRs) after the first assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycle using flexible gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH)-antagonist protocol vs. standard long GnRH agonist protocol for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in infertile women with different ages and ovarian reserve. Methods: Women who underwent ART treatment at our center between June 1st, 2015 and December 31st, 2018 were screened. Among them, only women who underwent their first COS cycle with flexible GnRH antagonist protocol or standard long GnRH agonist protocol were included in this study. The main outcome measurement was cLBR. Results: A total of 4,402 patients were eligible for the analysis, of whom, 2,762 patients used the GnRH agonist protocol and 1,640 patients used the GnRH antagonist protocol. The cLBRs of women in the antagonist protocol group and long agonist protocol group were 45.3 and 50.0%, respectively. Subgroup multivariable regression analysis showed that, in patients with low ovarian reserve (AFC ? 7), the cLBR was significantly lower in the antagonist group than in the long agonist protocol group [OR (95% CI) 0.62 (0.41, 0.94)], which effect was more robust in younger patients (<30 y) [OR (95% CI) 0.29 (0.11, 0.74)]. The analysis also revealed remarkably lower cLBR in patients above 40 years regardless of their AFC, although the difference was not statistically significant. However, in patients with high ovarian reserve (AFC >24), the cLBR was higher in cycles with antagonist protocol than with the long agonist protocol [OR (95% CI) 1.43 (0.96, 2.12)], and the effect was of statistical significance in younger patients (< 30 y) [OR (95% CI) 1.78 (1.07, 2.96)]. Conclusion: The present study suggests that the flexible GnRH antagonist protocol might not be suitable for patients with low ovarian reserve (AFC ? 7) or patients aged over 40 years. However, flexible GnRH antagonist protocol might be strongly recommended for patients under 30 years old and with high ovarian reserve (AFC > 24). For the rest groups of patients in the present cohort, antagonist protocol was slightly favored because it had lower OHSS in general and in patients with poly-cystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) according to previous publications.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) long protocol in patients with normal ovarian reserve.MethodsWe searched the PubMed (1992-2016), Cochrane Library (1999-2016), Web of Science (1950-2016), Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM, 1979-2016), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI, 1994-2016). Any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared GnRH-ant protocol and GnRH-a long protocol in patients with normal ovarian reserve were included, and data were extracted independently by two reviewers. The meta-analysis was performed by Revman 5.3 software.ResultsTwenty-nine RCTs (6399 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Stimulation days (mean difference (MD) [95% confidence interval (CI)] = -0.8 [-1.36, -0.23], P = 0.006), gonadotrophin (Gn) dosage (MD [95% CI] = -3.52 [-5.56, -1.48], P = 0.0007), estradiol (E2) level on the day of human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) administration (MD [95% CI] = -365.49 [-532.93, -198.05], P<0.0001), the number of oocytes retrieved (MD [95% CI] = -1.41 [-1.84, -0.99], P<0.00001), the embryos obtained (MD [95% CI] = -0.99 [-1.38, -0.59], P<0.00001), incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (OR [95% CI] = 0.69 [0.57, 0.83], P<0.0001) were statistically significantly lower in GnRH-ant protocol than GnRH-a long protocol. However, the clinical pregnancy rate (OR [95% CI] = 0.90 [0.80, 1.01], P = 0.08), ongoing pregnancy rate (OR [95% CI] = 0.88 [0.77, 1.00], P = 0.05), live birth rate (OR [95% CI] = 0.95 [0.74, 1.09], P = 0.27), miscarriage rate (OR [95% CI] = 0.98 [0.69, 1.40], P = 0.93), and cycle cancellation rate (OR [95% CI] = 0.86 [0.52, 1.44], P = 0.57) showed no significant differences between the two groups.ConclusionGnRH-ant protocol substantially decreased the incidence of OHSS without influencing the pregnancy rate and live birth rate compared to GnRH-a long protocol among patients with normal ovarian reserve.

Project description:Gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) has been shown to negatively influence endometrial receptivity. Reducing the GnRH-ant dose during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) when using a GnRH-ant protocol may be beneficial to embryo implantation. However, whether or not the minimum daily GnRH-ant dose should be individualized remains uncertain. In this retrospective study, we aimed to elucidate the feasibility and effectiveness of moderately reducing the daily GnRH-ant dose to 0.125 mg, and then adjusting the dose to 0.25 mg based on subsequent luteinizing hormone (LH) levels. Of the 434 patients analyzed in this study, 209 received our new flexible low-dose GnRH-ant protocol (Group 1) and 225 received a conventional GnRH-ant protocol with a fixed daily dose of 0.25 mg (Group 2). Furthermore, 105 and 114 cycles from groups 1 and 2 received fresh embryo transfer. In Group 1, 30 patients whose dose of 0.125 mg GnRH-ant was adjusted according to their LH levels and 179 patients who received consistently low doses were further divided into subgroups 1 and 2, respectively. Neither the number of retrieved oocytes and available embryos nor the implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and ongoing pregnancy rate significantly differed between the two groups. However, GnRH-ant dose and stimulation duration were much lower and shorter in Group 1 than in Group 2 (p < 0.05). Subgroup 1 exhibited higher basal follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) and lower antral follicle count (AFC) than subgroup 2 significantly. The number of retrieved oocytes and available embryos were lower in subgroup 1 than in subgroup 2 (6.83 ± 3.28 vs. 11.83 ± 4.82, 2.93 ± 1.86 vs. 4.99 ± 3.46, respectively, p < 0.05), while more canceled cycles for pre-ovulation occurred in subgroup 1 than in subgroup 2 (3/30 vs. 1/179, p < 0.05). The results showed that the flexible low-dose GnRH-ant protocol was as effective as the conventional fixed-dose GnRH-ant protocol with 0.25 mg per day for most patients with normal ovarian reserve. This retrospective analysis and the small sample size are the main limitations of this study, and a large sample RCT will be carried out in the future.

Project description:BackgroundThe GnRH agonist long-acting protocol and GnRH antagonist protocol are widely used in ovarian stimulation. Which protocol eliciting higher live birth rate for IVF/ICSI patients with different ages, different ovarian reserves and different body mass index (BMI) has not been studied. However, among these protocols, the one that elicits higher live birth in IVF/ICSI patients with different ages, ovarian reserves and body mass indexes (BMI) has not been identified.MethodsThis was a retrospective cohort study about 8579 women who underwent the first IVF-ET from January, 2018 to August, 2021. Propensity Score Matching (PSM) was used to improve the comparability between two protocols.ResultsAfter PSM, significant higher live birth rates were found in the GnRH agonist long-acting protocol compared to GnRH antagonist protocol (44.04% vs. 38.32%) (p<0.001). Stratified analysis showed that for those with AMH levels between 3 ng/ml and 6 ng/ml, with BMI ≥ 24 kg/m2 and were aged ≥ 30 years old, and for those women with BMI < 24kg/m2 and were aged ≥30 years whose AMH levels were ≤ 3ng/ml, the GnRH agonist long-acting protocol was more likely to elicit live births [OR (95%CI), 2.13(1.19,3.80)], [OR (95%CI), 1.41(1.05,1.91)]. However, among women with BMI ≥ 24kg/m2 and were aged ≥30 years whose AMH levels were ≤ 3ng/ml, the GnRH agonist long-acting protocol had a lower possibility of eliciting live births [OR (95%CI), 0.54(0.32,0.90)]. Also, among women with AMH levels between 3 ng/ml and 6 ng/ml, with BMI ≥ 24 kg/m2 and with age < 30 years and for those with AMH levels between 3 ng/ml and 6 ng/ml, regardless of age, and with BMI<24kg/m2,, the possibility of live births was similar between the two protocols [OR (95%CI), 1.06(0.60,1.89)], [OR (95%CI), 1.38(0.97,1.97)], [OR (95%CI), 0.99(0.72,1.37)]. Among the women with AMH levels ≤ 3 ng/ml and with were aged < 30years, regardless of BMI, the possibility of live birth was similar between the two protocols [OR (95%CI), 1.02(0.68,1.54)], [OR (95%CI), 1.43(0.68,2.98)]. Moreover, among women with AMH levels ≥ 6ng/ml, the possibility of live birth was similar between the two protocols [OR (95%CI),1.42(0.75,2.69)], [OR (95%CI),1.02(0.19,5.35)], [OR (95%CI), 1.68(0.81,3.51)], [OR (95%CI), 0.51(0.10,2.55)].ConclusionsThe suitability of the GnRH agonist long-acting protocol or GnRH antagonist protocol to infertility patients is dependent on specific biological characteristics of the patients.

Dataset Information

GnRH agonist long protocol versus GnRH antagonist protocol for various aged patients with diminished ovarian reserve: A retrospective study.

Publications

GnRH agonist long protocol versus GnRH antagonist protocol for various aged patients with diminished ovarian reserve: A retrospective study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets