Dataset Information

Pre-IVF treatment with a GnRH antagonist in women with endometriosis (PREGNANT): study protocol for a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Infertility is a common complication of endometriosis. While in vitro fertilisation-embryo transfer (IVF) successfully treats endometriosis-associated infertility, there is some evidence that pregnancy rates may be diminished in women seeing fertility treatment for endometriosis-associated infertility compared with other etiologies of infertility. The use of gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist prior to IVF has been suggested to improve success, however studies have been small and rarely reported live birth rates. Recent approval of an oral GnRH antagonist for endometriosis provides a novel option for women with endometriosis who are undergoing IVF. There have been no studies on the efficacy of GnRH antagonists for the treatment of endometriosis-related infertility.

Methods and analysis

This study is a multicentre, prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to study the efficacy of GnRH antagonist pretreatment for women with endometriosis who are undergoing IVF. A total of 814 patients with endometriosis undergoing fertility treatment will be enrolled and randomised 1:1 into two groups: elagolix 200 mg two times per day or placebo for 8 weeks, prior to undergoing IVF. All participants will then undergo IVF treatment per local protocols. The primary outcome is live birth. Secondary outcomes include oocyte number, fertilisation rate, embryo morphology and implantation rates, as well as rates of known endometriosis-related obstetrical outcomes (pregnancy-induced hypertension, antepartum haemorrhage, caesarean delivery and preterm birth).

Ethics and dissemination

The PREGnant trial was approved by the Institutional Review Board at Johns Hopkins University. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Trial registration number

NCT04173169.

SUBMITTER: Taylor H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9207753 | 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:Intravenous N-methyl-d-aspartate (NMDA) antagonists have shown promising results in rapidly ameliorating depression symptoms, but placebo-controlled trials of oral NMDA antagonists as monotherapy have not observed efficacy. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of the NMDA antagonist memantine as an augmentation treatment for patients with DSM-IV major depressive disorder.Adult outpatients with major depressive disorder and partial response or nonresponse to their current antidepressant (as indicated by a 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale score of ? 16 at baseline) were randomized (from July 2006-December 2011) to add memantine (flexible dose 5-20 mg/d, with all memantine group participants reaching the dose of 20 mg/d) (n = 15) or placebo (n = 16) to their existing treatment for 8 weeks. The primary outcome, change in Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Score (MADRS), was evaluated with repeated-measures mixed effects models using last-observation-carried-forward methods. Secondary outcomes included other depression and anxiety rating scales, suicidal and delusional ideation, and other adverse effects.84% of participants completed the trial, including 93% of participants receiving memantine. Participants receiving memantine did not show a statistically or clinically significant change in MADRS scores compared to placebo, either over the entire study (? = 0.133, favoring placebo, P = .74) or at study completion (week 8 mean [SD] MADRS score change = -7.13 [6.61] [memantine]; -7.25 [11.14] [placebo]; P = .97). A minimal to small effect size (comparing change to baseline variability) favoring placebo was observed (Cohen d = 0.19). Similarly, no substantial effect sizes favoring memantine nor statistically significant between-group differences were observed on secondary efficacy outcomes.This trial did not detect significant statistical or effect size differences between memantine and placebo augmentation among nonresponders or poor responders to conventional antidepressants. While the small number of participants is a limitation, this study suggests memantine lacks substantial efficacy as an augmentation treatment for major depressive disorder.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00344682.