GnRH agonists and antagonists in assisted reproduction: pregnancy rate

Effects of multicycle gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocols on oxidative stress of follicular fluid and ovarian granulosa cells

The effect of repeated multicycle gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocols on oxidative stress (OS) in follicular fluid (FF) and ovarian granulosa cells (GCs) remains unclear. This study investigated the effects of repeated multicycle GnRH-ant protocols on OS markers of FF and ovarian GCs. A total of 145 patients were enrolled and divided into four groups: 1 cycle group (n = 42), 2 cycles group (n = 37), 3 cycles group (n = 45), and 4-5 cycles group (n = 21). The FF and ovarian GCs of the patients were collected on the day of last oocyte retrieval and the levels of 8-hydroxy-2-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG), malondialdehyde (MDA), superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), and glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px) were tested by ELISA. The results showed that the serum estradiol levels on hCG injection day in the 3 and 4-5 cycles were significantly (P < 0.05) lower than in the 1 and 2 cycles. The number of retrieved oocytes (12.1 ± 3.3 in cycle 1, 11.7 ± 3.1 in cycle 2, 10.4 ± 2.4 in cycle 3, and 9.4 ± 2.4 in cycles 4-5), embryos with two pronuclei (7.6 ± 3.0 in cycle 1, 7.0 ± 2.5 in cycle 2, 6.2 ± 2.6 in cycle 3, and 5.5 ± 2.1 in cycles 4-5), and the rates of high-quality embryos (52.2% in cycle 1, 47.9% in cycle 2, 38.6% in cycle 3, and 36.5% in cycles 4-5), implantation (35.4% in cycle 1, 32.4% in cycle 2, 23.8% in cycle 3, and 22.9% in cycles 4-5) and clinical pregnancy (50.0% in cycle 1, 43.2% in cycle 2, 33.3% in cycle 3, and 23.8% in cycles 4-5) in cycles 3 and 4-5 were significantly (P < 0.05) lower than those in cycles 1 and 2. Compared with 1 and 2 cycles, the 8-OHdG and SOD were significantly increased in the 3-5 cycles, while the CAT and GSH-Px levels were significantly decreased. Together, this study reveals repeated COS with the use of GnRH-ant protocols results in OS and changes the follicle microenvironment of FF and GCs, possibly leading to poor IVF outcomes in patients with 3-5 cycles of COS.

Oxidative Stress Markers in GnRH Agonist and Antagonist Protocols in IVF

BACKGROUND

Our aim was to study the effect of GnRH agonist and antagonist protocols of ovarian stimulation on oxidative stress parameters in serum and the influence of oxidative stress parameters change on the outcome of IVF cycles.

METHODS

This prospective study included 82 patients who underwent IVF procedures. We determined SOD, MDA and SH groups in serum. Serum samples were obtained between the second and fourth day of the cycle and on the day of HCG administration during ovarian stimulation.

RESULTS

Patients were divided into two groups depending on the protocol of stimulation. The mean total and mature oocytes number and number of fertilized oocytes were higher in GnRH agonist group. There was no significant difference in biochemical pregnancy, miscarriage and live-birth rate in both groups. Mean serum SOD was significantly lower, while mean serum MDA and SH groups were significantly higher after ovarian stimulation. Delivery rate was higher in patients without OS while miscarriage rate was higher in patients with OS.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirmed that there is a difference in the concentration of oxidative stress parameters before and after ovarian stimulation. IVF outcome is better in patients without OS after ovarian stimulation. However, the protocol of ovarian stimulation is neither associated with a change in oxidative stress parameters nor with the outcome of ART procedures.

What should be the protocol selection after failure of in-vitro fertilization at normoresponder patients: Agonist or antagonist?

Objective:

Evaluation of the impact of agonist or antagonist protocol selection on pregnancy outcomes after failure of in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment cycles which were down regulated with Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone (GnRH) agonist.

Materials and Methods:

This was a retrospective study. Two hundred and sixty nine patients who were treated with GnRH agonist protocol between years 2002-2012 at an IVF unit and underwent a second attempt following one year period after failure of IVF enrolled in the study. Age, basal FSH levels, antral follicle counts, duration of induction, the number of yielded oocytes, the number of transferred embryos and the transfer days, clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates were evaluated for each treatment cycle.

Results:

Normoresponder patients were separated into two groups according to the agonist or antagonist protocol selection at the second attempt and the results of two consequent IVF cycles were compared. There were no statistically significant difference between the groups for the dosage of administered gonadotropin, duration of induction, the count of yielded oocytes, the day and the number of transferred embryos (p>0.05). Furthermore the fertilization rate, clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates were similar in two groups.

Conclusion:

The selection of antagonist treatment is effective as agonist protocols at normoresponder patients after failure of IVF.

Comparison of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist with GnRH antagonist in polycystic ovary syndrome patients undergoing in vitro fertilization cycle: Retrospective analysis from a tertiary center and review of literature

INTRODUCTION:

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is one of the most common infertility factor for which women are enrolled in in vitro fertilization (IVF) technique. In the recent years, gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist protocol has emerged as the protocol of choice for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in these patients.

OBJECTIVES:

The objective of the present study is to compare conventional long agonist protocol with fixed antagonist protocol in PCOS patients undergoing IVF cycle.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Retrospective analysis of 4 years data of a single center from northern India. Totally 81 patients who had long agonist protocol were compared with 36 patients with similar baseline characteristics who had antagonist protocol.

RESULT:

Total dose of gonadotropin required was significantly lower (P - 0.004) in the antagonist group. There was no significant difference in pregnancy rate or incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome between two groups. Cycle cancellation due to arrest of follicular growth was significantly higher in the antagonist group (P - 0.027).

CONCLUSION:

More randomized control trials and meta-analysis are required before replacing conventional long agonist protocol with antagonist protocol in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome.

In vitro fertilization stimulation protocol for normal responder patients

The aim of this prospective observational study is to determine the different outcomes of IVF/ICSI treatments after using antagonists or agonists of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in normal responder patients. Two hundred forty-seven patients undergoing IVF treatment at the Centre of Reproductive Medicine, Rome (CERMER), from January 2005 to December 2008, were included in the study. Patients were stimulated either with a standard long protocol with GnRH agonists (n = 156) or with GnRH antagonists (n = 91). The use of GnRH antagonists resulted in a significant reduction in the duration of the stimulation (Agonist Group 14.10 ± 2.25 vs Antagonist Group 11.34 ± 2.11; p < 0.001) and in the amount of gonadotrophin (IU of r-FSH) needed (Agonist Group 1878 ± 1109 vs Antagonist Group 1331 ± 1049; p = 0.0014). Moreover a lower number of cycles were cancelled with the antagonist protocol (4.39 vs 6.41%). The GnRH antagonist protocol, when compared to the GnRH agonist one, is associated with a similar clinical pregnancy rate, similar implantation rate, significantly lower gonadotrophin requirement and shorter duration of stimulation. For this reason, GnRH antagonists might be a good treatment even for normal responder patients undergoing IVF.

Balancing selected medication costs with total number of daily injections: a preference analysis of GnRH-agonist and antagonist protocols by IVF patients

BACKGROUND

During in vitro fertilization (IVF), fertility patients are expected to self-administer many injections as part of this treatment. While newer medications have been developed to substantially reduce the number of these injections, such agents are typically much more expensive. Considering these differences in both cost and number of injections, this study compared patient preferences between GnRH-agonist and GnRH-antagonist based protocols in IVF.

METHODS

Data were collected by voluntary, anonymous questionnaire at first consultation appointment. Patient opinion concerning total number of s.c. injections as a function of non-reimbursed patient cost associated with GnRH-agonist [A] and GnRH-antagonist [B] protocols in IVF was studied.

RESULTS

Completed questionnaires (n = 71) revealed a mean +/- SD patient age of 34 +/- 4.1 yrs. Most (83.1%) had no prior IVF experience; 2.8% reported another medical condition requiring self-administration of subcutaneous medication(s). When out-of-pocket cost for [A] and [B] were identical, preference for [B] was registered by 50.7% patients. The tendency to favor protocol [B] was weaker among patients with a health occupation. Estimated patient costs for [A] and [B] were $259.82 +/- 11.75 and $654.55 +/- 106.34, respectively (p < 0.005). Measured patient preference for [B] diminished as the cost difference increased.

CONCLUSIONS

This investigation found consistently higher non-reimbursed direct medication costs for GnRH-antagonist IVF vs. GnRH-agonist IVF protocols. A conditional preference to minimize downregulation (using GnRH-antagonist) was noted among some, but not all, IVF patient sub-groups. Compared to IVF patients with a health occupation, the preference for GnRH-antagonist was weaker than for other patients. While reducing total number of injections by using GnRH-antagonist is a desirable goal, it appears this advantage is not perceived equally by all IVF patients and its utility is likely discounted heavily by patients when nonreimbursed medication costs reach a critical level.

A comparative study on oxidative and antioxidative markers of serum and follicular fluid in GnRH agonist and antagonist cycles

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether concentrations of oxidative stress markers of follicular fluid and serum are different in GnRH agonist protocol from GnRH antagonist protocol.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

This was a cross-sectional study. Eighty-four women undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation with either GnRH agonist (n = 39) or GnRH antagonist protocols (n = 45) for IVF/ICSI treatment were assigned by a physician. Blood was obtained at the time of oocyte retrieval, and follicular fluid (FF) from the mature follicles of each ovary was centrifuged and frozen until analysis. Malondialdehyde (MDA), nitric oxide (NO), protein carbonyl (PC), hydroxyl proline (OH-P), sodium oxide dismutase (SOD), reduced glutathione (GSH), glutathione peroxidase (GSH-Px), adenosine deaminase (ADA) and xanthine oxidase (XO) were assessed in the serum and follicular fluid of each participants.

RESULTS

The mean serum concentrations of GSH-Px, GSH and MDA were lower in the GnRH antagonist group compared to GnRH agonist group, but mean serum SOD was higher in the GnRH antagonist group. The mean follicular SOD, ADA and NO were higher in GnRH antagonist group than GnRH agonist group. The IVF/ICSI outcomes were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION(S)

GnRH antagonist protocol is associated with increased oxidative stress. The relation of GnRH analogues with oxidative stress and its implication in follicular growth needs to be addressed in further studies.

GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer (IVF/ET)

Several protocols are actually available for in Vitro Fertilization and Embryo Transfer. The review summarizes the main differences and the clinic characteristics of the protocols in use with GnRH agonists and GnRH antagonists by emphasizing the major outcomes and hormonal changes associated with each protocol. The majority of randomized clinical trials clearly shows that in "in Vitro" Fertilization and Embryo Transfer, the combination of exogenous Gonadotropin plus a Gonadotropin Releasing Hormone (GnRH) agonist, which is able to suppress pituitary FSH and LH secretion, is associated with increased pregnancy rate as compared with the use of gonadotropins without a GnRH agonist. Protocols with GnRH antagonists are effective in preventing a premature rise of LH and induce a shorter and more cost-effective ovarian stimulation compared to the long agonist protocol. However, a different synchronization of follicular recruitment and growth occurs with GnRH agonists than with GnRH antagonists. Future developments have to be focused on timing of the administration of GnRH antagonists, by giving a great attention to new strategies of stimulation in patients in which radio-chemotherapy cycles are needed.

Milder is better? Advantages and disadvantages of "mild" ovarian stimulation for human in vitro fertilization

In the last decades, several steps have been made aiming at rendering human IVF more successful on one side, more tolerable on the other side. The "mild" ovarian stimulation approach, in which a lower-than-average dose of exogenous gonadotropins is given and gonadotropin treatment is started from day 2 to 7 of the cycle, represents a significant step toward a more patient's friendly IVF. However, a clear view of its virtues and defects is still lacking, because only a few prospective randomized trials comparing "mild" vs. conventional stimulation exist, and they do not consider some important aspects, such as, e.g., thawing cycles. This review gives a complete panorama of the "mild" stimulation philosophy, showing its advantages vs. conventional ovarian stimulation, but also discussing its disadvantages. Both patients with a normal ovarian responsiveness to exogenous gonadotropins and women with a poor ovarian reserve are considered. Overall, we conclude that the level of evidence supporting the use of "mild" stimulation protocols is still rather poor, and further, properly powered prospective studies about "mild" treatment regimens are required.

Emerging gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists

INTRODUCTION

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist analogs (GnRHa) are peptides that mimic the action of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) and are used to suppress subsequent sex steroid production. Although the analogs are a rather defined group of drugs, there have been developments in the past decades and there is still ample room for improvement. New therapeutic strategies in the use of GnRHs are discussed.

AREAS COVERED

Major points of discussion include: i) the use of concomitant treatment of early breast cancer in premenopausal estrogen-positive and -negative patients, ii) the use of GnRHa for fertility preservation in young female patients with malignant diseases and iii) the use of GnRH analogs in assisted reproduction. The manuscript provides a better understanding of GnRH agonists as well as an explanation of their major indications, biochemical pathways and concluding therapeutic strategies. Recent results from international meetings and debates are described to explain current controversies.

EXPERT OPINION

This paper highlights the need for more complex GnRH analogs. In the next few years, there will be longer acting GnRHas that may improve adherence. New therapeutic targets in oncological concepts may go beyond fertility preservation and focus on the antiproliferative effects of GnRH analogs.

GnRH-antagonists in ovarian stimulation for IVF in patients with poor response to gonadotrophins, polycystic ovary syndrome, and risk of ovarian hyperstimulation: a meta-analysis

This article is a systematic review of the literature on utilization of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists (GnRH-ant) for ovarian stimulation for IVF in special patient groups. Summarized by meta-analysis are the data from randomized controlled trials (RCT) in which GnRH-agonist (GnRH-a) and GnRH-ant were compared (eight RCT for poor response, four RCT for PCOS). Also reviewed are the data from two RCT and 13 retrospective or observational trials in which patients at risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) were triggered with GnRH-agonist instead of HCG. For poor responders, no differences in clinical outcomes were found, except a significantly higher number of cumulus-oocyte complexes in GnRH-antagonist multiple dose protocol as compared to GnRH-agonist long protocol (P=0.05). For PCOS patients, no differences in outcomes were found, except a significantly shorter duration of stimulation, when GnRH-antagonist multiple dose protocol and GnRH-agonist long protocol are compared (P<0.01). However, sample sizes are still small and power to detect subtle differences is therefore limited. For OHSS risk patients triggered with GnRH-agonist, reports on the efficacy of this measure vary in the literature. GnRH-agonist triggering appears to be associated with a reduction in the incidence of mild and moderate OHSS. For prevention of severe OHSS, as yet, only very limited evidence is available.