GnRH antagonist versus long GnRH agonist protocol in poor responders undergoing IVF: a randomized controlled trial. [Can the type of GnRH used during long in vitro fertilization protocols influence the pregnancy rate?]. Growth hormone co-treatment within a GnRH agonist long protocol in patients with poor ovarian response: a prospective, randomized, clinical trial. High doses of gonadotrophins combined with stop versus non-stop protocol of GnRH analogue administration in low responder IVF patients: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Is long-protocol gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist administration superior to the short protocol in ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization? Efficacy of low-dose hCG in late follicular phase in controlled ovarian stimulation using GnRH agonist protocol. Comparing GnRH agonist long protocol and GnRH antagonist protocol in outcome the first cycle of ART. Comparison of mild stimulation and conventional stimulation in ART outcome. The long-acting gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues impaired the implantation rate.
This is the first published report of a prospective, randomized, controlled trial comparing a fixed, multi-dose GnRH antagonist protocol with a long GnRH agonist protocol in poor responders undergoing IVF.
                Sixty-six poor responders were randomized into two groups: the study group received 0.25 mg of cetrorelix daily starting on day 6 of stimulation; the control group received 600 microg of buserelin acetate daily starting in the mid-luteal phase of the preceding cycle. Both groups were given a fixed dose of recombinant FSH (300 IU daily) for stimulation.
                There were no significant differences in the cycle cancellation rates, duration of stimulation, consumption of gonadotrophins, and mean numbers of mature follicles, oocytes and embryos obtained. The implantation rates were similar, but the number of embryos transferred was significantly higher for the antagonist group (2.32 +/- 0.58 versus 1.50 +/- 0.83; P = 0.01). The pregnancy rates were also higher in the antagonist group, but the difference was not statistically significant.
                A fixed multi-dose GnRH antagonist protocol is feasible for patients who are poor responders on a long agonist protocol; however, our study failed to demonstrate an overall improvement in ovarian responsiveness. Clinical outcomes may be improved by developing more flexible antagonist regimens, an approach that requires further evaluation. Luteal defect is common during IVF cycles using GnRH agonist. It could be interesting to make up for this problem by using short acting GnRH agonist (effective for 24 hours), more handy at the end of the stimulation. 160 patients included in a long IVF protocol at the Bordeaux CHRU FIV center have been randomized, from September 1993 to August 1994, for the analog's choice (long or short) at the beginning of the stimulation. The stimulation's parameters, the hormonal dosages and the pregnancy rate are independent of the galenic form used. In close, the use of long-acting GnRH analog (sympler to use) sems preferable. The efficacy of growth hormone co-stimulation to long luteal GnRHa regimen in poor responders to COH for IVF was assessed.
                This prospective, randomized, clinical trial was performed in a private assisted reproduction center. The study involved 61 patients who responded poorly to high dose gonadotropin treatment in their first cycles in the same center. Study group of 31 patients were given growth hormone co-treatment, daily subcutaneous injection of 4 mg from day 21 of preceding cycle along with GnRHa, until the day of hCG. Control group of 30 patients received the same treatment protocol except the growth hormone cotreatment. Primary end-point of the study was the number of oocytes fertilized whereas the pregnancy rate was the secondary end-point.
                Patients' demographic characteristics did not differ significantly between the two groups. 2PNs in growth hormone co-treatment group was significantly higher than the control group (4.4 +/- 1.8 vs 1.5 +/- 0.9, p < 0.001). Although more pregnancies and more clinical pregnancies with fetal heart beat were achieved in growth hormone group (12/31), compared to the control group (6/30), the difference did not reach to statistical significance.
                Poor responder women undergoing repeated assisted reproduction treatment and co-stimulated with GH achieve more oocytes, higher fertilization rate if growth hormone started in the luteal phase of previous cycle, as compared with women of the same status treated with GnRHa long protocol. The study was unable to show that clinical pregnancy rate was increased significantly. Recent evidence suggests that early cessation of gonadotrophin releasing hormone analogue (GnRHa) administration may offer some benefit to low responder patients undergoing IVF. A prospective, randomized controlled trial was designed to evaluate whether early cessation of GnRHa in an ovarian stimulation regimen is more beneficial than just increasing the doses of gonadotrophins. Seventy low responder patients (less than three mature follicles in a previous cycle) with normal basal follicle stimulating hormone concentrations and a previous cancelled IVF cycle were randomly allocated into two protocols: (i) non-stop protocol: long GnRHa suppression with high doses of gonadotrophins, and (ii) stop protocol, in which GnRHa administration is stopped with the onset of menses, while gonadotrophin doses remained similar to the non-stop protocol. A significantly higher number of mature oocytes were obtained in the study group (stop protocol) compared to the control group (non-stop protocol) (8.7 +/- 0.9 versus 6.2 +/- 0.7, P: = 0. 027). The stop protocol reduced the number of ampoules of gonadotrophins required (56.6 +/- 2.7 versus 68.0 +/- 3.5, P: = 0. 013). Both protocols resulted in a similar cancellation rate (2.7 versus 5.8%) (with no cycles cancelled due to ovulation), pregnancy rate (14.3 versus 18.7%), and implantation rate (12.1 versus 8.8%). The early cessation of GnRHa combined with high doses of gonadotrophins permitted the retrieval of a significantly higher number of oocytes. To compare the long and short protocols of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) administration for ovarian stimulation.
                University hospital.
                90 patients on their first attempt at in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF-ET).
                The results of two stimulation protocols were compared with respect to number of follicles greater than 17 mm, peak serum estradiol level, number of oocytes retrieved and fertilized, fertilization rate per oocyte, number of embryos transferred, and pregnancy rate per initiated cycle.
                The number of follicles greater than 17 mm and the peak estradiol level were significantly (P < .05) higher in the long protocol than those in the short protocol. The number of oocytes retrieved and fertilized, the number of embryos transferred, and the pregnancy rate per initiated cycle were also significantly (P < .001) higher in the long protocol than those in the short protocol. The fertilization rates per oocyte retrieved did not differ significantly between groups.
                The long protocol of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist administration for ovarian stimulation in IVF-ET may be the preferred method when GnRH-a is used. Safe, simple and cost-effective protocol is an important goal in ART cycles. The aim of this prospective study was whether administration of low-dose hCG in late follicular phase can be used clinically to replace gonadotropin administration in GnRH long protocol.
                122 patients who were candidates for ART enrolled the study and randomly divided into two groups. The control group (n = 62) received standard long protocol and gonadotropin administration continued until the day of hCG injection (10,000 IU) for final follicular maturation. The study group (n = 60) received GnRH long protocol and when at least ≥6 follicles with mean diameter ≥12 mm were observed in both ovaries, hMG was displaced by 200 IU per day of hCG until final follicular maturation.
                There were no significant differences in age, basal FSH, infertility duration and infertility etiology between two groups. There were no statistically significant differences between two groups regarding chemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, and abortion per cycle (50, 40, 40, and 20 % in study group vs. 45.2, 35.5, 35.5, and 21.4 % in control group, respectively). Mean dose of used gonadotropins was significantly higher in control group than that in the study group (2,524 ± 893 IU in control group and 1,439 ± 433 IU in study group) (p = 0.000).
                According to our data, we recommend the use of low-dose hCG in GnRH long protocol because of lower doses of used gonadotropins. This prospective study evaluated the efficacy of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol in comparison with the GnRH agonist protocol in the first cycle of assisted reproductive technique (ART).
                We randomized 235 patients undergoing ART for the first time. The first group was stimulated with a standard long protocol and the second group stimulated with GnRH antagonis.
                There was no statistically significant difference in the age, infertility cause, basal FSH, BMI, the number of oocytes retrieved, number of M2 oocytes, embryo obtained and endometrial thickness between the two groups. But Serum estradiol, consumption of gonadotropins and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome were significantly lower in the antagonist protocol. Cancellation rate of embryo transfer due to poor-quality embryo in the antagonist protocol was higher, but it was not significant. There was no significant difference in the clinical pregnancy and ongoing pregnancy between the two groups.
                GnRH-antagonist is an effective, safe, and well-tolerated alternative to agonist in the first cycle of ART. To provide a treatment for particular condition that is the most effective treatment with the least risk and cost for the patient we compared the efficacy of using clomiphene 100 mg + delayed low dose gonadotropin + flexible GnRH antagonist administration for ovarian stimulation protocol and GnRH agonist + gonadotropin for stimulation protocol in IVF outcome.
                Clinical outcome of 243 women with regularly menstruation who were candidate for IVF. They had undergone stimulation with GnRH agonist and gonadotropin (group A) or clomiphene citrate, gonadotropin and GnRH antagonist (group B). Main outcome was ongoing pregnancy.
                There were no significant difference in mean age, cause of infertility, basal FSH, BMI, duration of infertility, endometrial thickness on the day HCG administration in two groups. The number of recovered oocytes, obtained embryos, transferred embryos, peak of estradiol on the day HCG administration and OHSS were significantly higher in group A. Significantly more patients in control group had embryos for cryopreservation. There were no significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate and ongoing pregnancy rate between two groups.
                Clomiphene + delayed low dose gonadotropin + flexible GnRH - antagonist stimulation is an acceptable alternative protocol for IVF in patients with regularly menstruation. To determine the efficacy and innocuousness of long-acting versus short-acting GnRH analogues (GnRH-a) in long protocol for in IVF-ET.
                Prospective randomized study.
                The IVF unit at an academic hospital.
                One hundred couples admitted for their first IVF-ET attempt.
                Serum concentrations of LH, E2, and P during the all cycles and duration of pituitary desensitization were assessed, as well as fertilization rate, embryo quality, and implantation and pregnancy rates.
                Significantly more days (10.8 +/- 1.8 versus 9.2 +/- 1.7 days) of stimulation and more ampules of hMG (47 +/- 22 versus 33 +/- 16) were necessary to obtain similar numbers of embryos of quality with the long-acting GnRH-a. Implantation and delivery rates were significantly lower with the long-acting GnRH-a (32.8% versus 21.1%; 48.9% versus 29.1%, respectively).
                As the long-acting GnRH-a might interfere with the luteal phase and embryo development, short-acting GnRH-a should be preferred for ovarian hyperstimulation in IVF-ET.
The pregnancy rate was found to be higher when GnRHa was used in a long protocol as compared to a short or ultrashort protocol. There was no evidence of a difference in live birth rate, but this outcome was only reported by three studies. There was no evidence of a difference in the outcomes amongst various long protocols; nor that stopping or reducing GnRHa at the start of stimulation was associated with a reduced pregnancy rate. For all comparison, except a long versus short protocol, there was a lack of power.