Dataset Information

GnRH Antagonist Protocol With Cessation of Cetrorelix on Trigger Day Improves Embryological Outcomes for Patients With Sufficient Ovarian Reserve

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the efficiency and validity of cessation of cetrorelix on trigger day during gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant)-controlled ovarian stimulation of in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles.

Methods

In this retrospective study, a total of 1271 patients undergoing initial IVF cycles following the GnRH-ant protocol were enrolled; 832 patients received cetrorelix on trigger day (Group A) and 439 patients ceased cetrorelix on trigger day (Group B). We compared demographic characteristics, embryological and clinical outcomes between the two groups. A Poisson regression model was used to identify factors that significantly affected embryological outcomes. Patients were further divided into subgroups according to anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) and age, to assess associations between ceasing cetrorelix on trigger day and embryological outcomes.

Results

There was a significant improvement on embryological outcomes in patients who ceased cetrorelix on trigger day, and there were no significant differences in clinical outcomes or preovulation rates between the two groups. Furthermore, for patients with 1.1 ≤ AMH ≤ 4.7 ng/ml, all embryological outcomes were significantly higher in Group B compared with Group A. For patients with AMH > 4.7 ng/ml, the number of oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate (2PN) of IVF cycles and proportion of day 3 good quality embryos were all significantly higher in Group B. For patients with age < 35 years, all the embryological outcomes, besides the number of available embryos, were significantly higher in Group B than in Group A. There were no differences in embryological outcomes between the two groups when patients were stratified based on age > 35 years or AMH < 1.1 ng/ml.

Conclusion

GnRH-ant protocol with cessation of cetrorelix on trigger day improved embryological outcomes for young patients or patients with sufficient ovarian reserve, and was effective at preventing preovulation.

SUBMITTER: Xu H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8551826 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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:A suggested explanation for the pituitary-suppressive effects of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation cycles (PPOS) is pituitary luteinizing hormone (LH) depletion with progestin exposure during the follicular phase. The GnRH agonist (GnRHa) trigger releases endogenous LH from the pituitary, and if the LH depletion theory is correct, the response to the agonist trigger would be dampened in PPOS cycles. In this study, we compared the performance of the GnRHa trigger after PPOS and GnRH antagonist ovarian stimulation cycles. All women who underwent ovarian stimulation with the GnRH antagonist or flexible PPOS (fPPOS) and received a GnRH agonist trigger were eligible for inclusion. Outcomes included number of metaphase-II (MII) oocytes retrieved per cycle, rates of empty follicle syndrome, maturation, fertilization, blastulation, and cumulative clinical pregnancy per stimulation cycle. During the screening period, there were 166 antagonists and 58 fPPOS cycles triggered with a GnRH agonist. Groups were matched for potential confounders using propensity score matching. Progestin-downregulated cycles had 19% high mature oocyte yield (median: 14 vs. 19 MII oocytes, P = 0.03). Cumulative ongoing pregnancy or live birth rates were estimated after matching for transferred embryo count, and rates were similar between GnRH antagonist and fPPOS group (57.0% vs. 62.1%, P = 0.68). However, the number of remaining blastocysts was higher in the fPPOS group (median: 5.0 vs. 6.0, P < 0.001). LH levels were higher in fPPOS cycles compared to GnRH antagonist cycles up to the trigger day (P < 0.001). After the GnRHa trigger, fPPOS cycles were associated with a steeper LH surge compared with antagonist cycles (P = 0.02). Higher endogenous gonadotropin levels through the stimulation period and an LH surge of higher magnitude following a GnRHa trigger suggest a milder pituitary suppression by fPPOS, which needs to be confirmed in larger samples. It appears that progestins do not deplete pituitary LH reserves and a GnRHa trigger is usable after PPOS in women with high ovarian reserve.

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:BackgroundLuteinizing hormone (LH) and progesterone (PROG) on human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) trigger day are significantly correlated with assisted reproductive technology (ART) outcome. Moreover, LH and PROG are also involved in the functional preparation of the endometrium during the implantation window; however, whether they are related to endometrial thickness (EMT) is still unknown. The aim of the present study was to assess whether EMT has a positive correlation on the live birth rate following fresh embryo transfer (ET), and whether LH and PROG have an impact on EMT.MethodsA total of 2,260 normogonadotrophic women were treated with a GnRH agonist for in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Patients with advanced age and poor ovarian reserve were excluded. The levels of LH, PROG, and EMT on the hCG trigger day were divided into binary variables, respectively, by the cutoff values, and which were obtained based on receiver operating characteristic curve analysis of live birth among LH, PROG and EMT levels on the hCG trigger day, respectively. Multivariate binary logistic regression was used to confirm the role of LH, PROG, and EMT on the live birth, and stratified analysis was used to determine whether LH and PROG have an impact on EMT.ResultsEMT and LH were protective factors for live births, with odds ratios (OR) of 1.11 [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.066-1.157] and 1.696 (95% CI: 1.345-2.139), respectively. However, PROG was a risk factor for live birth, with an OR of 0.635 (95% CI: 0.526-0.766). The hierarchical cross-table analysis indicated that EMT had no significant difference for live birth in the combination of low LH and high PROG group. In the other subgroups, thick EMT was associated with a higher live birth rate (P<0.05).ConclusionsOn hCG trigger day, EMT, LH, and PROG all were independent factors that affected the live birth of fresh ETs. Thick EMT can significantly increase the live birth rate. However, multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that EMT does not affect the live birth rate in combination of low LH and high PROG environment.

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:Study questionCan predictors of low and high ovarian responses be identified in patients undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in a GnRH antagonist protocol?Summary answerCommon prognostic factors for high and low ovarian responses were female age, antral follicle count (AFC) and basal serum FSH and LH.What is known alreadyPredictors of ovarian response have been identified in GnRH agonist protocols. With the introduction of GnRH antagonists to prevent premature LH rises during COS, and the gradual shift in use of long GnRH agonist to short GnRH antagonist protocols, there is a need for data on the predictability of ovarian response in GnRH antagonist cycles.Study design, size, durationA retrospective analysis of data from the Engage trial and validation with the Xpect trial. Prognostic models were constructed for high (>18 oocytes retrieved) and low (<6 oocytes retrieved) ovarian response. Model building was based on the recombinant FSH (rFSH) arm (n = 747) of the Engage trial. Multivariable logistic regression models were constructed in a stepwise fashion (P < 0.15 for entry). Validation based on calibration was performed in patients with equivalent treatment (n = 199) in the Xpect trial.Participants/materials, setting, methodsInfertile women with an indication for COS prior to IVF. The Engage and Xpect trials included patients of similar ethnic origins from North America and Europe who had regular menstrual cycles. The main causes of infertility were male factor, tubal factor and endometriosis.Main results and the role of chanceIn the Engage trial, 18.3% of patients had a high and 12.7% had a low ovarian response. Age, AFC, serum FSH and serum LH at stimulation Day 1 were prognostic for both high and low ovarian responses. Higher AFC and LH were associated with an increased chance of high ovarian response. Older age and higher FSH correlated with an increased chance of low ovarian response. Region (North America/Europe) and BMI were prognostic for high ovarian response, and serum estradiol at stimulation Day 1 was associated with low ovarian response. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) for the model for a high ovarian response was 0.82. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.82 and 0.73; positive and negative predictive values were 0.40 and 0.95, respectively. The AUC for the model for a low ovarian response was 0.80. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.77 and 0.73, respectively; positive and negative predictive values were 0.29 and 0.96, respectively. In Xpect, 19.1% of patients were high ovarian responders and 16.1% were low ovarian responders. The slope of the calibration line was 0.81 and 1.35 for high and low ovarian responses, respectively, both not statistically different from 1.0. In summary, common prognostic factors for high and low ovarian responses were female age, AFC and basal serum FSH and LH. Simple multivariable models are presented that are able to predict both a too low or too high ovarian response in patients treated with a GnRH antagonist protocol and daily rFSH.Limitations, reasons for cautionAnti-Müllerian hormone was not included in the prediction modelling.Wider implications of the findingsThe findings will help with the identification of patients at risk of a too high or too low ovarian response and individualization of COS treatment.Study funding/competing interestsFinancial support for this study and the editorial work was provided by Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp. (MSD), a subsidiary of Merck & Co. Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA. F.J.B. received a grant from CVZ to his institution; P.J.M.V. and H.W. are employees of MSD, and B.M.J.L.M. was an employee of MSD at the time of development of this manuscript.Trial registration numbersNCT 00696800 and NCT00778999.