Flexible GnRH antagonist protocol versus GnRH agonist long protocol in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome treated for IVF: a prospective randomised controlled trial (RCT). A prospective randomized study comparing coasting with GnRH antagonist administration in patients at risk for severe OHSS. GnRH antagonist versus long GnRH agonist protocol in poor responders undergoing IVF: a randomized controlled trial. Comparison of multiple dose GnRH antagonist and minidose long agonist protocols in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a randomized controlled trial. Comparing GnRH agonist long protocol and GnRH antagonist protocol in outcome the first cycle of ART. A randomised study of GnRH antagonist (cetrorelix) versus agonist (busereline) for controlled ovarian stimulation: effect on safety and efficacy. A modified gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol failed to increase clinical pregnancy rates in comparison with the long GnRH protocol. Use of a GnRH antagonist in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for assisted conception in women with polycystic ovary disease: a randomized, prospective, pilot study. A lower ongoing pregnancy rate can be expected when GnRH agonist is used for triggering final oocyte maturation instead of HCG in patients undergoing IVF with GnRH antagonists. Triggering with HCG or GnRH agonist in GnRH antagonist treated oocyte donation cycles: a randomised clinical trial. Comparison of GnRH antagonist with long GnRH agonist protocol after OCP pretreatment in PCOs patients. The use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist to induce oocyte maturation after cotreatment with GnRH antagonist in high-risk patients undergoing in vitro fertilization prevents the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a prospective randomized controlled study. Comparison of embryological and clinical outcome in GnRH antagonist vs. GnRH agonist protocols for in vitro fertilization in PCOS non-obese patients. A prospective randomized study. Initiation of GnRH antagonist on Day 1 of stimulation as compared to the long agonist protocol in PCOS patients. A randomized controlled trial: effect on hormonal levels and follicular development. Effect of antagonists vs agonists on in vitro fertilization outcome. GnRH antagonist in IVF poor-responder patients: results of a randomized trial. Comparison of mild stimulation and conventional stimulation in ART outcome. Comparison of GnRH agonists and antagonists in normoresponder IVF/ICSI in Turkish female patients. Single-dose GnRH agonist administration in the luteal phase of GnRH antagonist cycles: a prospective randomized study. Beneficial effect of luteal-phase GnRH agonist administration on embryo implantation after ICSI in both GnRH agonist- and antagonist-treated ovarian stimulation cycles. Comparison of GnRH antagonist protocol with or without oral contraceptive pill pretreatment and GnRH agonist low-dose long protocol in low responders undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Timing ovulation for intrauterine insemination with a GnRH antagonist. IVF/ICSI outcomes between cycles with luteal estradiol (E2) pre-treatment before GnRH antagonist protocol and standard long GnRH agonist protocol: a prospective and randomized study. GnRH antagonists and mild ovarian stimulation for intrauterine insemination: a randomized study comparing different gonadotrophin dosages. [Application of GnRH-antagonist to IVF-ET for patients with poor ovarian response]. Comparison of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist and GnRH agonist flare-up regimen in poor responders undergoing ovarian stimulation. GnRH agonist and antagonist protocols for stage I-II endometriosis and endometrioma in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. GnRH agonist (buserelin) or hCG for ovulation induction in GnRH antagonist IVF/ICSI cycles: a prospective randomized study. Follicular growth and oocyte maturation in GnRH agonist and antagonist protocols for in vitro fertilisation and embryo transfer. A comparative randomized trial to assess the impact of oral contraceptive pretreatment on follicular growth and hormone profiles in GnRH antagonist-treated patients. Effect of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist and antagonist on steroidogenesis of low responders undergoing in vitro fertilization. [Can the type of GnRH used during long in vitro fertilization protocols influence the pregnancy rate?]. GnRH agonist protocol administration in the luteal phase in ICSI-ET cycles stimulated with the long GnRH agonist protocol: a randomized, controlled double blind study. A randomized prospective trial comparing gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist/recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (rFSH) versus GnRH-agonist/rFSH in women pretreated with oral contraceptives before in vitro fertilization.
Women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) are at risk of developing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) during ovarian stimulation. Use of GnRH antagonist in the general subfertile population is associated with lower incidence of OHSS than agonists and similar probability of live birth but it is unclear if this is true for patients with PCOS. Our aim was to compare the flexible GnRH antagonist and GnRH agonist long protocols in patients with PCOS undergoing IVF (primary end-point: ongoing pregnancy rate per patient randomized).
                In this randomised controlled trial (RCT), 220 patients with PCOS were randomly allocated in two groups: long GnRH agonist down-regulation protocol (n = 110) and flexible GnRH antagonist protocol (n = 110).
                No differences were observed in ongoing pregnancy rates [50.9 versus 47.3%, difference 3.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI): -9.6 to +16.8%] in the agonist and antagonist protocols, respectively. Incidence of OHSS Grade II was lower in the antagonist compared with agonist group (40.0 versus 60.0%, difference -20.0%, 95% CI: -7.1 to -32.9%, P < 0.01). Duration of stimulation (10 versus 12 days, difference 2 days, 95% CI: +1 to +2, P < 0.001) and total gonadotrophin required (1575 versus 1850 IU, difference -275 IU, 95% CI: -25 to -400, P < 0.05) were also lower in the antagonist compared with agonist protocol.
                The current RCT suggests that the flexible GnRH antagonist protocol is associated with a similar ongoing pregnancy rate, lower incidence of OHSS grade II, lower gonadotrophin requirement and shorter duration of stimulation, compared with GnRH agonist. The GnRH antagonist might be the treatment choice for patients with PCOS undergoing IVF. The study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov. ID: NCT00417144. This work evaluated possible advantages of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist administration as an alternative to coasting in prevention of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in women undergoing IVF/ intracytoplasmic sperm injection. A prospective randomized study comparing coasting (group A) (n = 96) and GnRH antagonist administration (group B) (n = 94) in patients at risk of OHSS was performed. The primary outcome measure was high quality embryos. The secondary outcome measures were days of intervention, number of oocytes, pregnancy rate, number of cryopreserved embryos and incidence of severe OHSS. There were significantly more high quality embryos (2.87 +/- 1.2 versus 2.21 +/- 1.1; P < 0.0001), and more oocytes (16.5 +/- 7.6 versus 14.06 +/- 5.2; P = 0.02), in group B as compared with group A. There were more days of coasting as compared with days of antagonist administration (2.82 +/- 0.97 versus 1.74 +/- 0.91; P < 0.0001). In conclusion, GnRH antagonist was superior to coasting in producing significantly more high quality embryos and more oocytes as well as reducing the time until HCG administration. There was no significant difference in pregnancy rate between the two groups. No OHSS developed in either group. 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. To investigate the efficacy of gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH) in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization.
                Ninety-six patients with poor ovarian response in previous treatment cycles were prospectively randomized into two groups. Forty-four patients were stimulated with GnRH antagonist multidose protocol and 45 patients received a standard long agonist protocol. Ovarian response was evaluated by transvaginal ultrasound and hormonal parameters. Cycle characteristics and treatment outcomes were statistically compared between groups.
                There was significantly reduced duration of stimulation and consumption of gonadotrophins in the antagonist group when compared to the agonist group. The estradiol concentrations on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) injection, the number of oocytes retrieved, and the number of embryos transferred were similar for both groups. In the antagonist group, eight (18.1%) ongoing pregnancies were achieved and in the agonist group, ten (22.2%) clinical pregnancies were achieved but the difference was not statistically significant.
                The present study was not powered to detect clinically relevant differences between two protocols in outcomes such as pregnancy rate, with confidence. 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 assess safety and efficacy of cetrorelix utilisation in controlled ovarian stimulation (COS).
                Phase III, randomized, single center study of 131 patients undergoing COS and IVF with or without ICSI, in a University affiliated Hospital. Sixty-six patients were allocated to the protocol with antagonist and 65 to the agonist protocol arm. The Student's t-test, the Mann-Whitney test and the chi-square test were applied as required, using SPSS for Windows with a two-sided 5% significance level.
                The mean (+/-S.D.) duration of stimulation was 9.5+/-1.7 days in the antagonist group and 10.6+/-2.1 days in the agonist group (P=0.02). The mean (+/-S.D.) duration of suppression was 4.6+/-1.3 days in the antagonist group and 27.3+/-5.2 days in the agonist group (P<0.0001). No significant differences were noted in other outcome measures: amount of rFSH required, estradiol level on hCG day, number of follicles>or=15 mm and endometrial thickness on oocyte retrieval day, number of oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate and number of OHS cases. Clinical pregnancy rates per-attempt and per-transfer were 15.1% and 17.0% in the antagonist group and 16.9% and 20.0% in the agonist group (P=0.79 and 0.71, respectively).
                GnRH antagonists are an effective, safe and well tolerated alternative to agonists for COS. The purpose of this prospective randomized study was to compare stimulation characteristics and IVF outcomes of the standard long GnRH agonist protocol for ovarian stimulation with a modified GnRH antagonist protocol. Starting GnRH antagonist in a flexible protocol according to the size of the leading follicle, with simultaneous augmentation of 75 IU recombinant FSH, failed to increase clinical pregnancy rates. To compare the outcome of using gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists versus agonists in women with polycystic ovary disease (PCOD) who underwent controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) for assisted reproductive techniques (ART).
                A total of 129 patients with PCOD were randomly allocated to undergo COH with a GnRH antagonist (59 patients) and GnRH agonist (leuprolide acetate) (70 patients) to prevent a premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge. Assisted fertilization following oocyte retrieval and embryo transfer was performed.
                None of the cycles were cancelled due to a premature LH surge. There was no significant difference between the antagonist and agonist arms in the number of gonadotropin ampules consumed per cycle. However, in the antagonist arm a shorter duration of ovarian stimulation was recorded as compared to the agonist arm. Although similar numbers of oocytes was retrieved from both groups of patients, the quality of the oocytes, as measured by metaphase 2/total oocyte ratio, was lower in the antagonist arm as compared to the agonist arm. Pregnancy rates were 57.6% and 58.5% in the antagonist and agonist arms, respectively (p > 0.05). Implantation rates were not different (34.0% and 34.6%, respectively). The frequency of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome also did not differ between the treatment groups (5% and 7.1%, respectively).
                The size of our study, on a specific subgroup of patients, does not allow a reliable conclusion regarding ART outcomefollowing the use of a GnRH antagonist versus agonist. Nevertheless, the protocol with the antagonist gave results that were as good as those of the protocol with the agonist in this PCOD patient population. Eliciting an endogenous LH surge by GnRH-agonist for the induction of final oocyte maturation may be more physiological compared with the administration of HCG. However, the efficacy of this intervention in patients treated for IVF with GnRH antagonists remains to be assessed.
                106 patients were randomized to receive either 10 000 IU urinary HCG or 0.2 mg Triptorelin for triggering final oocyte maturation. Ovarian stimulation for IVF was performed with a fixed dose of 200 IU recombinant FSH and GnRH antagonist was started on stimulation day 6. Luteal phase was supported with micronized vaginal progesterone and oral estradiol. The study was monitored continuously for safety and stopping rules were established.
                No significant differences were present in the number of cumulus-oocyte complexes retrieved, in the proportion of metaphase II oocytes, in fertilization rates or in the number and quality of the embryos transferred between the two groups. However, a significantly lower probability of ongoing pregnancy in the GnRH agonist arm prompted discontinuation of the trial, according to the stopping rules established (odds ratio 0.11; 95% confidence interval 0.02-0.52).
                Lower probability of ongoing pregnancy can be expected when GnRH agonist is used for triggering final oocyte maturation instead of HCG in patients undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF with GnRH antagonists. To compare donor and recipient outcome after inducing the final oocyte maturation with hCG or GnRH agonist in GnRH-antagonist treated oocyte donation (OD) cycles.
                Two-hundred fifty-seven oocyte donors were enrolled to participate in a clinical trial in a private fertility centre. After stimulation with 225 IU rFSH and Cetrorelix 0.25 mg/day, 212 oocyte donors were randomised with sealed envelopes for triggering with recombinant hCG (Ovitrelle 250 microgr, n = 106) or a GnRH agonist (triptorelin 0.2 mg, n = 106).
                The number of retrieved COCs (12 +/- 6.3 vs 11.4 +/- 6.4), mature oocytes (8 +/- 4.6 vs 7.5 +/- 4.1), the proportion of mature oocytes (67.2 +/- 20.4% vs 67.1 +/- 20.9%) and fertilisation rates (67.8 +/- 23.5% vs 71.1 +/- 22.1%) were comparable. Clinical, ongoing pregnancy and live birth rates were not statistically different in the corresponding recipient groups. Nine cases of mild and one case of severe OHSS occurred in hCG group, whereas no cases were detected in GnRH agonist group.
                The findings of our RCT suggest that donor and recipient outcome are comparable in OD cycles triggered with hCG or a GnRH agonist. Furthermore, the risk of OHSS seems to be reduced considerably, therefore the combination of a GnRH antagonist protocol with GnRH agonist triggering constitutes a safe treatment option for egg-donors. To evaluate the efficacy of GnRH antagonist in comparison with the GnRH agonist protocol in OCP pretreated polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOs) patients undergoing their first ART cycle.
                Prospective randomized controlled trial. University-based tertiary fertility center. Ninety-five PCOs patients under 35 years of age, with primary infertility were randomized to an ovarian stimulation protocol consisting of either. GnRh antagonist (study group) or GnRH agonist (control group) after pretreatment with OCP. Coasting or GnRH agonist Trigger was used when estradiol level > or =3,000 pgr/ml in the control and study group, respectively. Both groups received 800 mg vaginal progesterone and 4 mg oral estradiol valerate for luteal phase support.
                There was no statistically significant difference in the age, body mass index, basal FSH, duration of infertility, the number of oocytes retrieved, the number of embryos transferred, Serum E2 levels on day of trigger, fertilization rate, chemical and clinical pregnancy rates between the two groups. None of the patients in the study group developed ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) compared with 22.2% of patients in the control group. Total duration of treatment and the number of HMG ampoules used were lower in the study group.
                Antagonist protocol and GnRH agonist trigger for ovulation whenever necessary has a similar cycle outcome to the GnRH-agonist protocol in OCP pretreated PCOs patients, with significantly reduced risk of OHSS. To determine whether there are any differences in the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) and implantation rates in high-risk patients undergoing IVF using a protocol consisting of GnRH agonist trigger after cotreatment with GnRH antagonist or hCG trigger after dual pituitary suppression protocol.
                Prospective randomized controlled trial.
                University-based tertiary fertility center.
                Sixty-six patients under 40 years of age with polycystic ovarian syndrome, polycystic ovarian morphology, or previous high response undergoing IVF.
                Patients were randomized to an ovarian stimulation protocol consisting of either GnRH agonist trigger after cotreatment with GnRH antagonist (study group) or hCG trigger after dual pituitary suppression with a GnRH agonist (control group). Both groups received luteal phase and early pregnancy supplementation with IM progesterone (P), and patients in the study group also received E(2) patches and their doses were adjusted according to the serum levels.
                Incidence of OHSS and implantation rate.
                None of the patients in the study group developed any form of OHSS compared with 31% (10/32) of the patients in the control group. There were no significant differences in the implantation (22/61 [36.0%] vs. 20/64 [31.0%]), clinical pregnancy (17/30 [56.7%] vs. 15/29 [51.7%]), and ongoing pregnancy rates (16/30 [53.3%] vs. 14/29 [48.3%]) between the study and control groups, respectively.
                The use of a protocol consisting of GnRH agonist trigger after GnRH antagonist cotreatment combined with adequate luteal phase and early pregnancy E(2) and P supplementation reduces the risk of OHSS in high-risk patients undergoing IVF without affecting implantation rate. Embryological and clinical efficacy of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist and agonist stimulation protocols in non-obese women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) were compared.
                A prospective randomized study. Setting: Medical University Hospital. Patients: 70 infertile PCOS patients; 33 in GnRH antagonist and 37 in GnRH agonist group.
                Similar mature metaphase II oocyte rate (76% vs. 76%) was observed in both protocols. Optimal pronuclear morphology zygotes dominated in both groups (64% vs. 66%). Transferred embryo quality did not differ in both protocols. No significant differences between both protocols were found in delivery rate (p = 0.481), pregnancy rate (p = 0.810), multiple pregnancy rate (p = 0.501), miscarriage rate (p = 0.154), fertilization rate (p = 0.388) and implantation rate (p = 1.000). Duration of stimulation and total follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) dose were significantly lower in GnRH antagonist protocol (p = 0.0005).
                GnRH antagonist and agonist protocols in non-obese PCOS patients yield similar embryological and clinical outcomes. Shorter duration of treatment and lower FSH requirement in GnRH antagonist group may be financially beneficial and therefore attractive for patients. BACKGROUND The optimal time for GnRH antagonist initiation is still debatable. The purpose of the current randomized controlled trial is to provide endocrine and follicular data during ovarian stimulation for IVF in patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) treated either with a long GnRH agonist scheme or a fixed day-1 GnRH antagonist protocol. METHODS Randomized patients in both groups (antagonist: n = 26; long agonist: n = 52) received oral contraceptive pill treatment for three weeks and a starting dose of 150 IU of follitropin beta. The primary outcome was E(2) level on Day 5 of stimulation, while secondary outcomes were follicular development, LH during ovarian stimulation and progesterone levels. RESULTS Significantly more follicles on days 5, 7 and 8 of stimulation, significantly higher estradiol (E(2)) levels on days 1, 3, 5, 7 and 8 and significantly higher progesterone levels on days 1, 5 and 8 of stimulation were observed in the antagonist when compared with the agonist group. E(2) was approximately twice as high in the antagonist when compared with the agonist group on day 5 of stimulation (432 versus 204 pg ml(-1), P lt; 0.001). These differences were accompanied by significantly lower LH levels on days 3 and 5 and significantly higher LH levels on days 1, 7 and 8 of stimulation in the antagonist when compared with the agonist group. CONCLUSIONS In PCOS patients undergoing IVF, initiation of GnRH antagonist concomitantly with recombinant FSH is associated with an earlier follicular growth and a different hormonal environment during the follicular phase when compared with the long agonist protocol. To compare outcome following in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) using controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) regimens using either the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist leuprolide acetate vs the GnRH antagonist ganirelix.
                Women needing IVF for conception were randomly assigned to 300 IU of gonadotropins with ganirelix used in the follicular phase when a follicle with a 14 mm average diameter was attained vs a regimen using leuprolide acetate from the mid-luteal phase of the previous cycle.
                There were no differences found in clinical, ongoing, delivered pregnancy rates or implantation rates between groups.
                The use of GnRH antagonists do not seem to reduce IVF outcome compared to using GnRH agonists in COH regimens. The aim of this prospective study was to evaluate the efficacy of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH) in comparison with the standard long protocol in poor-responder patients. Sixty patients with poor ovarian response in previous treatment cycles were randomized into two groups: group A (n = 30) was stimulated with a standard long protocol, and group B (n = 30) received GnRH antagonist. Vaginal ultrasound was performed to evaluate ovarian response. There was a significantly reduced duration of ovarian stimulation (9.8 +/- 0.8 versus 14.6 +/- 1.2, P = 0.001) in group B in comparison with group A, and a reduced number of ampoules was used in group B (49.3 +/- 4.3 versus 72.6 +/- 6.8, P = 0.0001). In group B, the number of oocytes retrieved was significantly higher than in group A (5.6 +/- 1.6 versus 4.3 +/- 2.2, P = 0.02) and there was an increased number of follicles with a diameter >15 mm at human chorionic gonadotrophin administration in group B (P = 0.0001). Fewer cycles were cancelled with the use of an antagonist protocol. Five pregnancies (17% for embryo transfer) were obtained with GnRH antagonist protocol and two (7% for embryo transfer) with GnRH agonist protocol. 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 evaluate the results of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) and gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRHant) use in two demographically matched groups of normoresponder in-vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (IVF/ICSI) patients in a prospective study.
                We randomised 93 patients undergoing IVF/ICSI between May 2005 and August 2006. Patients with IVF indications were included except for those with polycystic ovary syndrome or azoospermia, women older than 38 years and those with follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) > or =10 IU/ml. Patients were stimulated with standard 225 IU recombinant FSH. In Group I (n=45) a daily dose of GnRHant cetrorelix acetate 0.25 mg was administered when follicles reached a diameter of > or =14 mm. Group II (n=48) patients were desensitised with the GnRHa, leuprolide acetate, in a long protocol. Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) was administered when at least three follicles of 18 mm in diameter were observed. Oocyte retrieval was scheduled 36 hours following hCG administration and embryos were transferred on day 3 after oocyte retrieval.
                The two groups were homogenous for age, infertility duration, basal FSH and serum oestradiol (E2) (P=0.537, P=0.911, P=0.103 and P=0.733, respectively). In Group II (the GnRHa group) more antral follicles (P<0.001), a longer induction duration (P=0.017) and higher peak E2 levels (P<0.001) were observed. No differences were observed in the number of oocytes retrieved (P=0.749), embryos achieved and transferred (P=0.677), or fertilisation rates (P=0.839) between the two groups. There was no statistically significant difference between groups in clinical pregnancy rates, cycle cancellation and ovarian hyperstimulation (P=0.437, P=0.109 and P=0.415, respectively).
                GnRHant and GnRHa provide comparable results in normoresponder patients, while GnRHant allows a greater flexibility in their treatment. This study was designed to evaluate the effect of luteal-phase administration of single-dose gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist on pregnancy, implantation and live birth rates in patients who received GnRH antagonist for pituitary suppression. The study population consisted of 164 patients who underwent intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) after ovulation induction by gonadotrophins and GnRH antagonist for the prevention of a premature LH surge. For luteal-phase support, all the cases received intravaginal 600 mg micronized progesterone. In this prospective study, patients were randomly assigned to two groups. In one group, patients received an additional single dose of GnRH agonist (0.5 mg leuprolide acetate) subcutaneously on day 6 after ICSI, whereas the patients in the other group did not. Although the number of embryos transferred and the grade of the embryos were similar in the two groups, the patients in the luteal-phase agonist group had significantly higher rates of implantation and clinical pregnancy rates ( P < 0.05). When the two groups were compared, there were also statistically significant differences in multiple pregnancy and live birth rates ( P < 0.05). Administration of single-dose GnRH agonist as a luteal-phase support in ovarian stimulation-GnRH antagonist cycles in addition to standard luteal support seems to be effective in all cycle outcome parameters. GnRH agonist was recently suggested as a novel luteal-phase support that may act at different levels, including the pituitary gonadotrophs, the endometrium and the embryo itself. This prospective randomized study evaluates the effect of GnRH agonist administered in the luteal phase on ICSI outcomes in both GnRH agonist- and GnRH antagonist-treated ovarian stimulation protocols.
                Six hundred women about to undergo ovarian stimulation for ICSI (300 using a long GnRH agonist protocol and 300 using a GnRH antagonist protocol) were enrolled in this study. Patients treated with each of these two protocols were randomly assigned to receive a single injection of GnRH agonist or placebo 6 days after ICSI. Implantation and live birth rates were the primary outcomes.
                Administration of 0.1 mg of GnRH agonist triptorelin on day 6 after ICSI led to a significant improvement of implantation and live birth rates after ICSI as compared with placebo. In GnRH antagonist-treated ovarian stimulation cycles, luteal-phase GnRH agonist also increased ongoing pregnancy rate. Moreover, luteal-phase GnRH agonist administration increased luteal-phase serum HCG, estradiol and progesterone concentrations in both ovarian stimulation regimens.
                Luteal-phase GnRH agonist administration enhances ICSI clinical outcomes after GnRH agonist- and GnRH antagonist-treated ovarian stimulation cycles, possibly by a combination of effects on the embryo and the corpus luteum. This prospective randomized study was performed to compare the efficacy of GnRH antagonist multiple-dose protocol (MDP) with or without oral contraceptive pill (OCP) pretreatment and GnRH agonist low-dose long protocol (LP) in 82 patients undergoing IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). GnRH antagonist MDP with OCP pretreatment was at least as effective as GnRH agonist low-dose LP in low responders, and can benefit the low responders by reducing the amount of FSH and the number of days of stimulation required for follicular maturation. We aimed to assess the efficacy of a GnRH antagonist in intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles to increase number of mature ovulatory follicles and pregnancy rates.
                Prospective randomized study. Women (18-38 years old) with primary/secondary infertility were included. Eighty-two patients were randomly assigned to controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) consisting of rFSH + GnRH antagonist or rFSH alone.
                A non-significant increase in the total amount of rFSH was seen in the GnRH antagonist group (707+/-240 IU) with respect to the control group (657+/-194 IU). The number of mature follicles (> or =16 mm) was significantly higher in the GnRH antagonist group than in the control group (2.4+/-1.4 versus 1.7+/-1.2, P<0.05). Pregnancy rates were significantly increased in the group of patients receiving the GnRH antagonist (38%) compared to the control group (14%). The only non-single pregnancy (triplets) occurred in the antagonist group.
                In this preliminary study, adding the GnRH antagonist to the COS protocol for IUI cycles significantly increased pregnancy rates. Nevertheless, these results may not be associated directly with the antagonist itself but with the fact that more mature ovulatory follicles are present by the day of the hCG. Finally, the risk for multiple gestations needs to be carefully evaluated. To study if luteal E(2) pre-treatment before GnRH antagonist protocol improves IVF/ICSI outcomes compared with standard long GnRH agonist protocol.
                A prospective, randomized and controlled study.
                ART center of a state public hospital
                Two hundred twenty infertile women underwent IVF/ICSI treatments.
                Participants received oral Estradiol Valerate 4 mg/day preceding the IVF cycle from day 21 until day 2 of next cycle before GnRH antagonist protocol (E(2) pre-treatment group n=109) or received standard long GnRH agonist protocol as control group (n=111).
                Number of oocytes collected, MII oocytes, fertilization, implantation, live birth and early pregnancy rate, and hormone profiles.
                E(2) pre-treatment exerted a significant suppressive effect on FSH but not LH secretion compared with basal FSH and LH levels. In E(2) pre-treatment group serum LH level was significantly higher during COH and serum P was also significantly higher on the day of HCG injection compared with control group. Five patients from E(2) pre-treatment group had elevated LH at all time (>or= 10 IU/L) and also a concomitantly high P (>1 ng/mL). Two of the five women achieved pregnancy but had early pregnancy loss. Overall, IVF/ICSI outcomes such as implantation, clinical pregnancy and live birth rates were similar between E(2) pre-treatment and control groups.
                Luteal E(2) pre-treatment before GnRH antagonist protocol significantly increases serum LH level and incidence rate of premature LH but no significant effect is observed on implantation, clinical pregnancy, live birth and early pregnancy loss rates compared with long GnRH agonist protocol. However, more studies in large numbers of cycles are needed to confirm that increased serum LH level by E(2) pre-treatment during COH has no negative effect on the IVF/ICSI outcomes. The precise role of GnRH antagonists in the armamentarium of drugs for stimulation of ovulation associated with intrauterine insemination remains to be clarified. In this study, we have compared two different protocols employing GnRH antagonists in order to determine the lower effective dose of gonadotrophins to use.
                Sixty-six couples with unexplained infertility or moderate male subfertility were recruited. Starting on day 3 of the cycle, 32 patients were randomized to receive 50 IU of recombinant FSH per day, whereas 34 were treated with 50 IU of recombinant FSH on alternate days. Women received the GnRH antagonist Ganirelix at a dose of 0.25 mg per day starting on the day in which a leading follicle > or =14 mm in mean diameter was visualized, until HCG administration. Insemination was performed 34 h after HCG injection.
                The regimen with daily recombinant FSH was associated with a lower rate of mono-ovulation (53.3% versus 78.8%, P=0.06) but also with a higher clinical pregnancy rate per initiated cycle (34.4% versus 5.9%, P=0.005).
                A protocol of recombinant FSH 50 IU daily and GnRH antagonist may represent an effective and safe regimen for ovulation induction associated with intrauterine insemination. To compare the outcomes achieved by GnRH-antagonist and GnRH-agonist in IVF-ET for patients with poor ovarian responses, and to find out a better protocol for ovulation stimulation.
                (1) Patients with poor ovarian responses were assigned to an experimental (n = 63) and a control group (n = 58), treated respectively with GnRH-Ant and oral contraceptive plus micro-dose GnRH-a (OC + GnRH-a), and comparisons were made of the medication doses, laboratory results and pregnancy outcomes between the two groups. (2) Twenty of the patients were treated first with GnRH-Ant and then with OC + GnRH-a, and the same comparisons were made between the two protocols.
                Between the experimental and the control groups, there were no significant differences in the dose of Gn and number of retrieved oocytes and transplanted embryos (P > 0.05), nor in the pregnancy rate of transplantation cycles (37.29% vs 35.29%). The cycle cancellation rate was lower in the experimental than in the control group (6.35% vs 12.07%), with no statistical difference (P > 0.05). The cycle duration was significantly different between the two groups ([9.65 +/- 1.60] d vs [19.05 +/- 3.94] d) (P < 0.05). As for the comparison of GnRH-Ant with GnRH-a, no significant differences were observed in the dose of Gn and the numbers of retrieved oocytes and transplanted embryos (P > 0.05). GnRH-Ant achieved a higher pregnancy rate of transplantation cycles but a significantly lower cancellation rate than GnRH-a (38.09% vs 17.64% and 0% vs 15%) (P > 0.05 and P < 0.01), respectively. The cycle duration of the former was statistically shorter than that of the latter ([9.91 +/- 2.49] d vs [27.74 +/- 25.39] d) (P < 0.05).
                Compared with micro-dose GnRH-a, GnRH-Ant can shorten the cycle duration and reduce the cancellation rate in IVF-ET for patients with poor response. And for those who have failed to respond to GnRH-a, GnRH-Ant may be tried in another attempt at IVF-ET. To compare the efficacy of flare-up and GnRH-antagonist treatment in poor-responder patients.
                Randomized prospective study.
                Assisted reproduction center.
                Fifty-five poor-responder patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).
                Thirty patients received GnRH agonist on the 1st day of menstruation, followed by exogenous gonadotropins from the 2nd day. Twenty-five patients received exogenous gonadotropins starting on the second day of menstruation, followed by GnRH antagonist when the leading follicle reached 14 mm in diameter.
                The total dose of FSH administered during the ovarian stimulation, as well as the number of mature oocytes retrieved, embryo quality, fertilization, implantation, and pregnancy rates were evaluated.
                The number of ampules and units of FSH administered were significantly less in the flare-up than in the antagonistic group. The numbers of mature oocytes retrieved and of top-quality embryos transferred were significantly greater in the flare-up than in the GnRH-antagonist group. The fertilization rate (84% vs. 63%) was significantly higher in the flare-up than in the GnRH-antagonist group. The implantation and pregnancy rate were similar in the two groups.
                The flare-up protocol appears to be more effective than the GnRH-antagonist protocol in terms of mature oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate, and top-quality embryos transferred in poor-responder patients. To investigate the outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles after controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) with GnRH antagonist or GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) in mild-to-moderate endometriosis and endometrioma.
                Prospective randomize trial.
                A private IVF center.
                A total of 246 ICSI cycles in 246 patients were divided into three groups: women with mild-to-moderate endometriosis (n = 98); women who had ovarian surgery for endometrioma (n = 81); women with endometrioma and no history of previous surgery (n = 67).
                Patients in each group were randomized to COH with either triptrolein or cetrorelix.
                Clinical parameters, characteristics of COH, and ICSI results were analyzed.
                Outcomes of COH with both GnRH antagonist and GnRH-a were similar in patients with mild-to-moderate endometriosis. Implantation rates were 15.9% vs. 22.6% and clinical pregnancy rates were 27.5% vs. 39% with GnRH antagonist and GnRH-a protocols, respectively, in patients who had ovarian surgery for endometrioma. Implantation rates were 12.5% vs. 14.8% and clinical pregnancy rates were 20.5% vs. 24.2% with GnRH antagonist and GnRH-a protocols, respectively, in patients with endometrioma and no history of ovarian surgery.
                Considering the implantation and clinical pregnancy rates, COH with both GnRH antagonist and GnRH-a protocols may be equally effective in patients with mild-to-moderate endometriosis and endometrioma who did and did not undergo ovarian surgery. We aimed to determine the efficacy of ovarian hyperstimulation protocols employing a GnRH antagonist to prevent a premature LH rise allowing final oocyte maturation and ovulation to be induced by a single bolus of either a GnRH agonist or hCG.
                A total of 122 normogonadotrophic patients following a flexible antagonist protocol was stimulated with recombinant human FSH and prospectively randomized (sealed envelopes) to ovulation induction with a single bolus of either 0.5 mg buserelin s.c. (n = 55) or 10,000 IU of hCG (n = 67). A maximum of two embryos was transferred. Luteal support consisted of micronized progesterone vaginally, 90 mg a day, and estradiol, 4 mg a day per os.
                Ovulation was induced with GnRH agonist in 55 patients and hCG in 67 patients. Significantly more metaphase II (MII) oocytes were retrieved in the GnRH agonist group (P < 0.02). Significantly higher levels of LH and FSH (P < 0.001) and significantly lower levels of progesterone and estradiol (P < 0.001) were seen in the GnRH agonist group during the luteal phase. The implantation rate, 33/97 versus 3/89 (P < 0.001), clinical pregnancy rate, 36 versus 6% (P = 0.002), and rate of early pregnancy loss, 4% versus 79% (P = 0.005), were significantly in favour of hCG.
                Ovulation induction with a GnRH agonist resulted in significantly more MII oocytes. However, a significantly lower implantation rate and clinical pregnancy rate in addition to a significantly higher rate of early pregnancy loss was seen in the GnRH agonist group, most probably due to a luteal phase deficiency. The aim of this study was to evaluate the response to treatment in a group of patients undergoing IVF and randomised to receive GnRH-antagonist or the GnRH-agonist. The endpoints were the pattern of follicular growth, the maturity of the oocytes collected, the embryo quality and the pregnancy outcome.
                A total of 136 patients undergoing IVF were included. Sixty-seven patients were allocated to the GnRH antagonist and 69 patients to the GnRH agonist. GnRH antagonist was administered when the leading follicle reached a diameter of 12-14 mm. GnRH agonist was administered in a long luteal protocol.
                The mean numbers of oocytes retrieved and mature oocytes were significantly higher in the agonist than in the antagonist group (p < 0.02 and p < 0.01, respectively). Embryo quality, implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rates, ongoing pregnancy rate and miscarriage rate were similar in both groups.
                Better follicular growth and oocyte maturation are achieved with GnRH agonist treatment. However, both regimens seem to have similar efficacy in terms of implantation and pregnancy rates. Further studies clarifying the effect of the GnRH antagonist on ovarian function are needed, as well as a clear definition of the best period of the follicular phase for the GnRH antagonist administration. This randomized controlled trial was designed to assess the impact of oral contraceptive (OC) scheduling with a GnRH antagonist (ganirelix) regimen on the ovarian response of women undergoing recombinant FSH (rFSH) stimulation for IVF, compared with a non-scheduled ganirelix regimen and a long GnRH agonist (nafarelin) protocol.
                A total of 110 women was treated with an OC and ganirelix, 111 with ganirelix alone and 111 with nafarelin. The OC (containing 30 microg ethinylestradiol/150 microg desogestrel) was taken for 14-28 days and stopped 2 days prior to the start of rFSH treatment. Primary efficiency parameters were the number of cumulus-oocyte complexes (per attempt) and the number of grade 1 or 2 embryos (per attempt).
                In terms of follicular growth and hormone profiles, the OC-scheduled antagonist regimen mimicked the agonist regimen rather than the (non-scheduled) GnRH antagonist regimen. In the OC-scheduled GnRH antagonist group and the nafarelin group (versus the non-scheduled antagonist group), pituitary suppression was more profound at the start of stimulation (P < or = 0.001), there was a slower start of follicular growth (P < or = 0.001), longer stimulation was required (11.7 and 10.3 days respectively versus 9.4; P < or = 0.001), and more rFSH was used (2667 and 2222 IU versus 1966 IU; P < or = 0.001). In the three groups, the number of oocytes was similar (13.1, 12.9 and 11.5 respectively; not significant) as well as the number of good quality embryos (5.1, 5.7 and 5.0 respectively; not significant).
                OC treatment prior to the rFSH/ganirelix regimen can be successfully applied to schedule patients, although more days of stimulation and more rFSH are required than with a non-scheduled GnRH antagonist regimen. The aim of the study was to investigate the cause of the lower estradiol (E(2)) concentration in women treated with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist compared with those treated with agonist protocol in in vitro fertilization (IVF). Thirty patients who were known low responders were prospectively randomized into two equal groups for IVF treatment. Group 1 used GnRH agonist (flare-up) protocol and group 2 used antagonist protocol. The results showed that serum luteinizing hormone (LH) levels were significantly higher in the agonist group during the folliculogenesis stage. Despite this higher LH, serum E(2) levels were significantly higher in the agonist group on cycle day 2 only, not on day 5 or day 9. The significantly higher E(2) level in the agonist group reappeared on the day of administration of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG). The rate of folliculogenesis in the antagonist group was faster than in the agonist group; therefore their E(2) production should have been higher on hCG day. Furthermore, the rate of decline in E(2) after hCG administration was significantly higher in the antagonist group. These findings, along with the fact that both groups received exogenous LH (human menopausal gonadotropin) that should optimize steroidogenesis and make the difference in E(2) insignificant, enable us to conclude that GnRH antagonists have a suppressive effect on the production of E(2). 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. GnRH agonist administration in the luteal phase was reported to beneficially affect the clinical outcome of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) and embryo transfer (ET) cycles. This double blind, randomized, placebo controlled trial evaluates whether a single dose GnRH agonist administered 6 days after ICSI increases ongoing pregnancy rates following ET in cycles stimulated with the long GnRH agonist protocol.
                Five hundred and seventy women undergoing ET following controlled ovarian stimulation with a long GnRH agonist protocol were included. In addition to routine luteal phase support with progesterone, women were randomized to receive a single 0.1 mg dose of triptorelin or placebo 6 days after ICSI. Randomization was done on the day of ET according to a computer generated randomization table. Ongoing pregnancy rate beyond 20th week of gestation was the primary outcome measure. The trial was powered to detect a 12% absolute increase from an assumed 38% ongoing pregnancy rate in the placebo group, with an alpha error level of 0.05 and a beta error level of 0.2.
                There were 89 (31.2%) ongoing pregnancies in the GnRH agonist group, and 84 (29.5%) in the control group (absolute difference +1.7%, 95% confidence interval -5.8% to +9.2%). Implantation, clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy rates were likewise similar in the GnRH agonist and placebo groups.
                Single 0.1 mg triptorelin administration 6 days after ICSI following ovarian stimulation with the long GnRH agonist protocol does not seem to result in an increase >or=12% in ongoing pregnancy rates. To compare the effects of oral contraceptive (OC) pill pretreatment in recombinant FSH/GnRH-antagonist versus recombinant FSH/GnRH-agonist stimulation in in vitro fertilization (IVF) patients, and to evaluate optimization of retrieval day.
                Prospective, randomized, multicenter study.
                Private practice and university centers.
                Eighty patients undergoing IVF who met the appropriate inclusion criteria.
                Four study centers recruited 80 patients. The OC regimen began on cycle days 2 to 4 and was discontinued on a Sunday after 14 to 28 days. The recombinant FSH regimen was begun on the following Friday. The GnRH-agonist group was treated with a long protocol; the GnRH-antagonist was initiated when the lead follicle reached 12 to 14 mm. When two follicles had reached 16 to 18 mm, hCG was administered.
                The primary outcome measures were the number of cumulus-oocyte complexes, day of the week for oocyte retrieval, and total dose and days of stimulation of recombinant FSH. Secondary efficacy variables included pregnancy and implantation rate; serum E(2) levels on stimulation day 1; serum E(2), P, and LH levels on the day of hCG administration; follicle size on day 6 and day of hCG administration; the total days of GnRH-analogue treatment; total days on OC; total days from end of OC to oocyte retrieval; and the cycle cancellation rate.
                Patient outcomes were similar for the days of stimulation, total dose of gonadotropin used, two-pronuclei embryos, pregnancy (44.4% GnRH-antagonist vs. 45.0% GnRH-agonist, P=.86) and implantation rates (22.2% GnRH-antagonist vs. 26.4% GnRH-agonist, P=.71). Oral contraceptive cycle scheduling resulted in 78% and 90% of retrievals performed Monday through Friday for GnRH-antagonist and GnRH-agonist. A one day delay in OC discontinuation and recombinant FSH start would result in over 90% of oocyte retrievals occurring Monday through Friday in both groups.
                The OC pretreatment in recombinant FSH/GnRH-antagonist protocols provides a patient-friendly regimen and can be optimized for weekday retrievals. No difference was seen in number of 2PN embryos, cryopreserved embryos, embryos transferred, implantation and pregnancy rates between the two stimulation protocols.
The use of antagonist compared with long GnRH agonist protocols was associated with a large reduction in OHSS and there was no evidence of a difference in live-birth rates.