Literature DB >> 15588464

Comparative efficacy and safety of cetrorelix with or without mid-cycle recombinant LH and leuprolide acetate for inhibition of premature LH surges in assisted reproduction.

Mark V Sauer1, Melvin H Thornton, William Schoolcraft, Gary N Frishman.   

Abstract

An open label, randomized, multi-centre study was performed to compare cetrorelix and leuprolide acetate for prevention of premature LH surge and to assess whether patients treated with cetrorelix benefit from addition of recombinant human (r-h)LH. Normo-ovulatory women (n = 74) undergoing ovarian stimulation prior to intracytoplasmic sperm injection were treated with leuprolide acetate (n = 25) before ovarian stimulation with recombinant human FSH (r-hFSH) or with cetrorelix 3 mg on stimulation day 7 (with (n = 25) or without (n = 24) r-hLH 150 IU on days 7-10). The main outcome measures were the number of metaphase II (MII) oocytes retrieved; secondary efficacy end-points; adverse events (AE) and other safety measures. There were no significant differences between groups for MII oocytes retrieved, duration of stimulation, total r-hFSH dose and pregnancy rates. The group treated with cetrorelix alone had a significantly lower concentration of oestradiol per follicle compared with the other groups. The majority of AE were mild to moderate in severity. Cetrorelix and leuprolide acetate appear to have comparable efficacy and safety, although cetrorelix has the advantage of typically requiring only one injection.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15588464     DOI: 10.1016/s1472-6483(10)61631-8

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Reprod Biomed Online        ISSN: 1472-6483            Impact factor:   3.828


  13 in total

Review 1.  Lutropin alfa.

Authors:  Sohita Dhillon; Gillian M Keating
Journal:  Drugs       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 9.546

2.  Predictive value of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for aneuploidy screening in repeated IVF-ET cycles among women with recurrent implantation failure.

Authors:  K Pagidas; Y Ying; D Keefe
Journal:  J Assist Reprod Genet       Date:  2008-02-12       Impact factor: 3.412

3.  Comparison of FSH and hMG on ovarian stimulation outcome with a GnRH antagonist protocol in younger and advanced reproductive age women.

Authors:  Chisa Tabata; Toshihiro Fujiwara; Miki Sugawa; Momo Noma; Hiroki Onoue; Maki Kusumi; Noriko Watanabe; Takako Kurosawa; Osamu Tsutsumi
Journal:  Reprod Med Biol       Date:  2014-07-11

4.  Individualized Treatment from Theory to Practice: The Private Case of Adding LH during GnRH Antagonist-based Stimulation Protocol.

Authors:  Shahar Kol
Journal:  Clin Med Insights Reprod Health       Date:  2014-10-14

5.  Recombinant luteinizing hormone supplementation in women undergoing in vitro fertilization/ intracytoplasmic sperm injection with gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist protocol: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Yujing Xiong; Zhiqin Bu; Wei Dai; Meixiang Zhang; Xiao Bao; Yingpu Sun
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2014-11-24       Impact factor: 5.211

6.  Recombinant human luteinizing hormone co-treatment in ovarian stimulation for assisted reproductive technology in women of advanced reproductive age: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Authors:  Alessandro Conforti; Sandro C Esteves; Peter Humaidan; Salvatore Longobardi; Thomas D'Hooghe; Raoul Orvieto; Alberto Vaiarelli; Danilo Cimadomo; Laura Rienzi; Filippo Maria Ubaldi; Fulvio Zullo; Carlo Alviggi
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2021-06-21       Impact factor: 5.211

Review 7.  Optimal usage of the GnRH antagonists: a review of the literature.

Authors:  Alan B Copperman; Claudio Benadiva
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2013-03-15       Impact factor: 5.211

Review 8.  Recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone (r-hFSH) plus recombinant luteinizing hormone versus r-hFSH alone for ovarian stimulation during assisted reproductive technology: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Philippe Lehert; Efstratios M Kolibianakis; Christos A Venetis; Joan Schertz; Helen Saunders; Pablo Arriagada; Samuel Copt; Basil Tarlatzis
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2014-02-20       Impact factor: 5.211

9.  Comparisons of GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol in supposed normal ovarian responders undergoing IVF: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Jin-song Xiao; Cun-mei Su; Xian-tao Zeng
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-12       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Comparisons of GnRH antagonist protocol versus GnRH agonist long protocol in patients with normal ovarian reserve: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ruolin Wang; Shouren Lin; Yong Wang; Weiping Qian; Liang Zhou
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-04-24       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.