• Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.251-258
• /
• 2002

Objective : The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of the GnRH antagonist (Cetrotide) minimal stimulation protocol comparing with GnRH agonist combined long step down stimulation protocol in PCOS patients. Materials and Method: From Apr 2001 to May 2002, 22 patients (22 cycles) were performed in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation using by GnRH antagonist and GnRH agonist for PCOS patients. GnRH antagonist (Cetrotide) combined minimal stimulation protocol was administered in 10 patients (10 cycles, Study Group) and GnRH agonist long step down stimulation protocol was administered in 12 patients (12 cycles, Control Group). We compared the pregnancy rate/cycle, total FSH (A)/cycle, Retrieved oocyte/cycle, the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, multiple pregnancy rate between the two groups. Student-t test were used to determine statistical significance. Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05. Results: Group of GnRH antagonist (Cetrorelix) minimal stimulation protocol produced fewer oocytes (6.4 versus 16.3 oocytes/cycle) using a lower dose of FSH (22.2 versus 36.1 Ample/cycle) and none developed OHSS and multiple pregnancy. Although the trends were in favour of the GnRH antagonist (Cetrorelix) protocol, the differences did not reach statistical significance. This was probably due to small sample size. Conclusion: The use of GnRH antagonist reduce the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation and multiple pregnancy. We suggest that GnRH antagonist might be alternative controlled ovarian hyperstimulation method, especially in PCOS patients who will be ovarian high response.

• Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
• /
• v.41 no.4
• /
• pp.158-164
• /
• 2014

Objective: To assess whether an early GnRH antagonist start leads to better follicular synchronization and an improved clinical pregnancy rate (CPR). Methods: A retrospective cohort study. A total of 218 infertile women who underwent IVF between January 2011 and February 2013. The initial cohort (Cohort I) that underwent IVF between January 2011 and March 2012 included a total of 68 attempted IVF cycles. Thirty-four cycles were treated with the conventional GnRH antagonist protocol, and 34 cycles with an early GnRH antagonist start protocol. The second cohort (Cohort II) that underwent IVF between June 2012 and February 2013 included a total of 150 embryo-transfer (ET) cycles. Forty-three cycles were treated with the conventional GnRH antagonist protocol, 34 cycles with the modified early GnRH antagonist start protocol using highly purified human menopause gonadotropin and an addition of GnRH agonist to the luteal phase support, and 73 cycles with the GnRH agonist long protocol. Results: The analysis of Cohort I showed that the number of mature oocytes retrieved was significantly higher in the early GnRH antagonist start cycles than in the conventional antagonist cycles (11.9 vs. 8.2, p=0.04). The analysis of Cohort II revealed higher but non-significant CPR/ET in the modified early GnRH antagonist start cycles (41.2%) than in the conventional antagonist cycles (30.2%), which was comparable to that of the GnRH agonist long protocol cycles (39.7%). Conclusion: The modified early antagonist start protocol may improve the mature oocyte yield, possibly via enhanced follicular synchronization, while resulting in superior CPR as compared to the conventional antagonist protocol, which needs to be studied further in prospective randomized controlled trials.

• Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.95-103
• /
• 2003

Objective : To assess and compare the clinical outcomes between GnRH agonist long protocol and GnRH antagonist short protocol in oocyte donation program. Materials and Methods: Of total 18 oocyte donation cycles, controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) were performed with GnRH agonist long protocol and GnRH antagonist short protocol in initial 9 cycles and later 9 cycles, respectively. Oral estradiol valerate and progesterone in oil we re administrated to all recipients for endometrial preparation. Oral estradiol administration was started from donor cycle day 1 after full shut down of gonadal axis with GnRH agonist in patients with ovarian function. Progesterone was injected from oocyte retrieval day of donor initially, then continuously till pregnancy 12 weeks if pregnancy was ongoing. We compared the parameters of clinical outcomes, such as number of the retrieved oocytes, fertilization rate, high grade embryo production rate, clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, COH duration, total gonadotropin dose for COH between GnRH agonist long protocol group and GnRH antagonist group. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney test, p<0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results: The number of retrieved oocytes, fertilization rate, high grade embryo production rate, clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, ongoing pregnancy rate were $14.89{\pm}7.83$, 81%, 64%, 78%, 31%, 78%, respectively in GnRHa long protocol group and $11.22{\pm}8.50$, 79%, 64%, 67%, 34%, 56%, respectively in GnRH antagonist group. There was no significant differences in parameters of clinical outcomes between 2 groups (all p value >0.05). Duration and total gonadotropin dose for COH were $10.94{\pm}1.70$ days and $43.78{\pm}6.8$ vials in 18 cycles, $12.00{\pm}1.73$ days and $48.00{\pm}6.93$ vials in agonist group, $9.88{\pm}0.78$ days and $39.55{\pm}3.13$ vials in antagonist group, respectively. In GnRH agonist long protocol group, significantly longer duration and higher gonadotropin dose for COH were needed (p=0.012). Conclusion: In oocyte donation program, clinical outcomes from controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with GnRH antagonist were comparable to those from GnRH agonist long protocol group, so controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with GnRH antagonist may be effective as GnRH agonist long protocol. At least there may not be harmful effects of GnRH antagonist on oocyte development and quality.

• Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.125-131
• /
• 2007

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare GnRH antagonist and agonist flare-up treatment in the management of poor responder patients. Methods: One hundred forty-four patients from Jan. 1, 2002 to Aug. 31, 2005 undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment who responded poorly to the previous cycle (No. of oocyte retrieved$\leq$5) and had high early follicular phase follicle stimulating hormone (FSH>12 mIU/ml were selected. Seventy-five patients received agonist flare-up protocol and 71 patients received antagonist protocol. We analyzed the number of oocytes retrieved, number of good embryos (GI, GI-1), total dose of hMG administered, implantation rate, cycle cancellation rate, pregnancy rate, live birth rate. Results: The cancellation rate was high in antagonist protocol (53.5% vs. 30.1%). The number of oocyte retrieved, the number of good embyos were high in agonist flare-up group. There was no statistical difference between GnRH agonist flare up protocol and GnRH antagonist protocol in implantation rate (14.5%, 10.1%), clinical pregnancy rate per transfer (29.4%, 21.2%) and live birth rate per transfer (21.6%, 18.2%). Although the result was not statistically significant, GnRH agonist flare up group showed a nearly doubled pregnancy rate and live birth rate per initial cycle than GnRH antagonist group. Conclusions: The agonist flare-up protocol appears to be slightly more effective than the GnRH antagonist protocol in implantation rate, pregnancy rate, live birth rate but shows statistically no significance. Agonist flare-up protocol improved the ovarian response in poor responders. However, based of the result of the study, we can expect improved ovarian response in poor responders by GnRH agonist flare up protocol.

• Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.259-267
• /
• 2002

Objective: This study was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of GnRH antagonist (Cetrorelix) single dose and multiple dose protocols for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with GnRH agonist long protocol. Materials and Method: From September 2001 to March 2002, 48 patients (55 cycles) were performed controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for ART using by either GnRH antagonist and GnRH agonist. Single dose of 3 mg GnRH antagonist was administered in 15 patients (17 cycles, single dose group) at MCD #8 and multiple dose of 0.25 mg of GnRH antagonist was administered in 15 patients (18 cycles, multiple dose group) from MCD #7 to hCG injection day. GnRH agonist was administered in 18 patients (20 cycles, control group) by conventional GnRH agonist long protocol. We compared the implantation rate, number of embryos, and clinical pregnancy rate among three groups. Student-t test and Chi-square were used to determine statistical significance. Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05. Results: There were no significant differences in ampules of used gonadotropins, number of mature oocytes, obtained embryos between single and multiple dose group, but compared with control group, ampules of used gonadotropins, number of mature oocytes, obtained embryos were decreased significantly in both groups. Clinical pregnancy rate and implantation rate were not different in three groups. There were no premature LH surge and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in three groups. Multiple pregnancy were occurred 1 case in multiple dose group and 2 case in control group. Conclusions: GnRH antagonist is a safe, effective, and alternative method in the controlled ovarian hyperstimulation compared with GnRH agonist. Clinical outcomes and efficacy of both single and multiple dose protocol are similar between two groups.

• Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
• /
• v.37 no.3
• /
• pp.239-244
• /
• 2010

Objective: The objective of this retrospective study was to compare the in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes of gonadotropinreleasing hormone (GnRH) agonist and GnRH antagonist protocols in poor responders. Methods: A total of 172 cycles in subjects with less than 5 oocytes retrieved treated with either GnRH agonist long protocols or antagonist protocols were included. The outcome variables such as numbers of growing follicles and retrieved oocytes, and the fertilization rate were evaluated as the main outcome measures. Results: There was no difference in regard to the numbers of growing follicles and oocytes, and fertilization rate between the two groups. $E_2$ level on Day 7/8, mean gonadotropin dose, and the days of stimulation were shown to be statistically different (p<0.01, respectively). Conclusion: Considering that similar results were observed with less time and gonadotropin dose, GnRH antagonist protocol may be considered as a preferable choice over GnRH agonist protocols in poor responders.

• Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
• /
• v.45 no.3
• /
• pp.135-142
• /
• 2018

Objective: To prospectively evaluate the efficacy and safety of a fixed early gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol compared to a conventional midfollicular GnRH antagonist protocol and a long GnRH agonist protocol for in vitro fertilization (IVF) in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Methods: Randomized patients in all three groups (early antagonist, n = 14; conventional antagonist, n = 11; long agonist, n = 11) received 21 days of oral contraceptive pill treatment prior to stimulation. The GnRH antagonist was initiated on the 1st day of stimulation in the early antagonist group and on the 6th day in the conventional antagonist group. The GnRH agonist was initiated on the 18th day of the preceding cycle. The primary endpoint was the number of oocytes retrieved, and the secondary endpoints included the rate of moderate-to-severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and the clinical pregnancy rate. Results: The median total number of oocytes was similar among the three groups (early, 16; conventional, 12; agonist, 19; p= 0.111). The early GnRH antagonist protocol showed statistically non-significant associations with a higher clinical pregnancy rate (early, 50.0%; conventional, 11.1%; agonist, 22.2%; p= 0.180) and lower incidence of moderate-to-severe OHSS (early, 7.7%; conventional, 18.2%; agonist, 27.3%; p= 0.463), especially among subjects at high risk for OHSS (early, 12.5%; conventional, 40.0%; agonist, 50.0%; p= 0.324). Conclusion: In PCOS patients undergoing IVF, early administration of a GnRH antagonist may possibly lead to benefits due to a reduced incidence of moderate-to-severe OHSS in high-risk subjects with a better clinical pregnancy rate per embryo transfer. Further studies with more subjects are required.

• Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.265-270
• /
• 2001

Objective : The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome the GnRH antagonist (Cetrotide) short protocol in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation comparing with GnRH agonist long protocol. Materials and Method: From July 2000 to November 2001, 26 patients, 28 cycles were performed in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation by GnRH antagonist and GnRH agonist. GnRH antagonist (Cetrotide) was administered in 12 patients (14 cycles, Group 1) and GnRH agonist (Lucrin, Sub Q, Group 2) in 14 patients (14 cycles). Ovulation induction was performed by hMG (Pergonal) in group 1, and by Combo (Metrodine HP + Pergonal) in group 2. We compared the fertilization rate, good quality embryo, and clinical pregnancy rate between the two groups. Student-t test and Chi-square were used to determine statistical significance. Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05. Results: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome did not occurred in which estradiol (E2) level was $3874{\pm}809\;pg/ml$ and the number of retrieved oocytes was $18.4{\pm}2.4$. The number of used gonadotropin ampules was significantly decreased in Group 1 (26.0 vs. 33.1, p<0.04). There were no significant difference in the number of preovulatory oocyte ($10.6{\pm}6.9$ vs. $10.0{\pm}6.1$), fertilization rate ($74.8{\pm}23.4$ vs. $72.2{\pm}21.8$), good quality embryo ($58.7{\pm}23.6$ vs. $38.7{\pm}36.6$), and embryo transfer ($4.3{\pm}1.6$ vs. $4.4{\pm}1.6$). Although the age of the group 1 was older than the group 2 (34.4 vs. 30.8), there was no significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate (50.0% vs. 57.1%). Conclusions: We suggest that GnRH antagonist was a safe, effective, and alternative method in the controlled ovarian hyperstimulation, especially in PCOD patients who will be develop the ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

• Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
• /
• v.33 no.3
• /
• pp.149-157
• /
• 2006

Objective: This study was to investigate the clinical efficiency of clomiphene citrate/GnRH antagonist protocol comparing with the clomiphene citrate only protocol in infertile women with normal ovulatory cycles. Method: Among 116 patients, 43 were received assisted reproductive technologies using natural ovulatory cycle, 38 and 35 were received clomiphene citrate only protocol and clomiphene citrate/GnRH antagonist combined protocol, respectively, and the clinical results were compared and analyzed Results: In each group, basal levels of LH, FSH, $E_2$ and FSH, $E_2$ on hCG day injected were not different, but LH level and endometrial thickness on hCG injected day were decreased significantly and the pregnancy rate was increased significantly in clomiphene citrate/GnRH antagonist group. Conclusion: The pregnancy rate was increased significantly in clomiphene citrate/GnRH antagonist group compared with natural ovulatory cycle and clomiphene citrate only group.

• Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
• /
• v.32 no.4
• /
• pp.315-324
• /
• 2005

Objectives: To compare the efficacy of GnRH antagonist multiple dose protocol (MDP) with that of GnRH agonist long protocol (LP) in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization in patients with high basal FSH (follicle stimulating hormone) level or old age, a retrospective analysis was done. Methods: Two hundred ninety four infertile women (328 cycles) who were older than 41 years of age or had elevated basal FSH level (> 8.5 mIU/mL) were enrolled in this study. The patients had undergone IVF-ET after controlled ovarian hyperstimulation using GnRH antagonist multiple dose protocol (n=108, 118 cycles) or GnRH agonist long protocol (n=186, 210 cycles). The main outcome measurements were cycle cancellation rate, consumption of gonadotropins, the number of follicles recruited and total oocytes retrieved. The number of fertilized oocytes and transferred embryos, the clinical pregnancy rates, and the implantation rates were also reviewed. And enrolled patients were divided into three groups according to their age and basal FSH levels; Group A - those who were older than 41 years of age, Group B - those with elevated basal FSH level (> 8.5 mIU/mL) and Group C - those who were older than 41 years of age and with elevated basal FSH level (> 8.5 mIU/mL). Poor responders were classified as patients who had less than 4 retrieved oocytes, or those with $E_2$ level <500 pg/mL on the day of hCG injection or those who required more than 45 ampules of exogenous gonadotropin for stimulation. Results: The cancellation rate was lower in the GnRH antagonist group than in GnRH agonist group, but not statistically significant (6.8% vs. 9.5%, p=NS). The amount of used gonadotropins was significantly lower in GnRH antagonist group than in agonist group ($34.8{\pm}11.3$ ampules vs. $44.1{\pm}13.4$ ampules, p<0.001). The number of follicles > 14 mm in diameter was significantly higher in agonist group than in antagonist group ($6.7{\pm}4.6$ vs. $5.0{\pm}3.4$, p<0.01). But, there were no significant differences in clinical pregnancy rate (24.5% in antagonist group vs. 27.4% in agonist group, p=NS) and implantation rate (11.4% in antagonist group vs. 12.0% in agonist group, p=NS) between two groups. Mean number of retrieved oocytes was significantly higher in GnRH agonist LP group than in GnRH antagonist MDP group ($5.4{\pm}3.5$ vs. $6.6{\pm}5.0$, p<0.0001). But, the number of mature and fertilized oocytes, and the number of good quality (grade I and II) and transferred embryos were not different between two groups. In each group A, B, and C, the rate of poor response did not differ according to stimulation protocols. Conclusions: In conclusion, for infertile women expected poor ovarian response such as who are old age or has elevated basal FSH level, a protocol including a controlled ovarian hyperstimulation using GnRH antagonist appears at least as effective as that using a GnRH agonist, and may offer the advantage of reducing gonadotropin consumption and treatment period. However, much work remains to be done in optimizing the GnRH antagonist protocols and individualizing these to different cycle characteristics.