Literature DB >> 25043892

GnRH agonist and GnRH antagonist protocols: comparison of outcomes among good-prognosis patients using national surveillance data.

Daniel Grow1, Jennifer F Kawwass2, Aniket D Kulkarni3, Tonji Durant3, Denise J Jamieson4, Maurizio Macaluso3.   

Abstract

Implantation and live birth rates resulting from IVF cycles using gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist and (GnRH) antagonist IVF protocols were compared among good-prognosis patients using the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Assisted Reproductive Technology Surveillance System 2009-2010 data (n = 203,302 fresh, autologous cycles). Bivariable and multivariable analyses were conducted between cycles to compare outcomes. Cycles were restricted as follows: age younger than 35 years, maximum FSH less than 10 mIU/mL, first assisted reproduction technology cycle and FSH dose less than 3601 IU. A subgroup analysis including only elective single embryo transfer was also carried out. Among good-prognosis patients, the GnRH-agonist protocol was associated with a lower risk of cancellation before retrieval (4.3 versus 5.2%; P < 0.05) or transfer (5.5 versus 6.8%; P < 0.05), and a higher live birth rate per transfer (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.13, confidence interval [CI] 1.03 to 1.25) than the GnRH-antagonist group. Among the elective single embryo transfer group, the GnRH-agonist protocol was associated with a higher implantation rate (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.36, CI 1.08 to 1.73) and a higher live birth rate (adjusted OR 1.33, CI 1.07 to 1.66) compared with the GnRH-antagonist protocol. The GnRH-antagonist group had lower rates of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Among good-prognosis patients, agonist protocols decreased cancellation risk and increased odds of implantation and live birth. Antagonist protocols may confer decreased risk of hyperstimulation.
Copyright © 2014 Reproductive Healthcare Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  agonist; antagonist; good prognosis; implantation rate; live birth rate

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25043892     DOI: 10.1016/j.rbmo.2014.05.007

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


  13 in total

Review 1.  Comparison of different stimulation protocols used in in vitro fertilization: a review.

Authors:  Deekshya Shrestha; Xiaolin La; Huai L Feng
Journal:  Ann Transl Med       Date:  2015-06

2.  The German Middleway as Precursor for Single Embryo Transfer. A Retrospective Data-analysis of the Düsseldorf University Hospital's Interdisciplinary Fertility Centre - UniKiD.

Authors:  T K Kliebisch; A P Bielfeld; J S Krüssel; D M Baston-Büst
Journal:  Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd       Date:  2016-06       Impact factor: 2.915

3.  Comparison of clinical outcomes between the depot gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist protocol and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in normal ovarian responders.

Authors:  Min Xia; Jie Zheng
Journal:  BMC Pregnancy Childbirth       Date:  2021-05-11       Impact factor: 3.007

4.  Comparison of GnRH agonist, GnRH antagonist, and GnRH antagonist mild protocol of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in good prognosis patients.

Authors:  Martin Stimpfel; Eda Vrtacnik-Bokal; Barbara Pozlep; Irma Virant-Klun
Journal:  Int J Endocrinol       Date:  2015-03-17       Impact factor: 3.257

5.  Reassessing the feasibility of the zygote score for predicting embryo viability in IVF/ICSI using the GnRH antagonist protocol compared to the long protocol.

Authors:  Pin-Yao Lin; Fu-Jen Huang; Fu-Tsai Kung; Yi-Chi Lin; Hsin-Ju Chiang; Yu-Ju Lin; Kuo-Chung Lan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2017-02-02       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  A comparative study on the results of agonist and antagonist protocols based on serum AMH levels in patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection.

Authors:  Fatemeh Nikmard; Behrouz Aflatoonian; Elham Hosseini; Abbas Aflatoonian; Mehrdad Bakhtiyari; Reza Aflatoonian
Journal:  Int J Reprod Biomed (Yazd)       Date:  2016-12

7.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of GnRH-agonist long-protocol and GnRH-antagonist protocol for in vitro fertilization.

Authors:  Miaomiao Jing; Chenxi Lin; Wenjun Zhu; Xiaoyu Tu; Qi Chen; Xiufang Wang; Youbing Zheng; Runju Zhang
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2020-05-26       Impact factor: 4.379

8.  Cumulative Live Birth Rates After the First ART Cycle Using Flexible GnRH Antagonist Protocol vs. Standard Long GnRH Agonist Protocol: A Retrospective Cohort Study in Women of Different Ages and Various Ovarian Reserve.

Authors:  Wanlin Zhang; Duo Xie; Hengde Zhang; Jianlei Huang; Xifeng Xiao; Binrong Wang; Yafei Tong; Ye Miao; Xiaohong Wang
Journal:  Front Endocrinol (Lausanne)       Date:  2020-05-08       Impact factor: 5.555

9.  Comparative effectiveness of recombinant human follicle-stimulating hormone alfa (r-hFSH-alfa) versus highly purified urinary human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG HP) in assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatments: a non-interventional study in Germany.

Authors:  Klaus F Bühler; Robert Fischer; Patrice Verpillat; Arthur Allignol; Sandra Guedes; Emmanuelle Boutmy; Wilma Bilger; Emilia Richter; Thomas D'Hooghe
Journal:  Reprod Biol Endocrinol       Date:  2021-06-16       Impact factor: 5.211

10.  Association between GnRH Receptor Polymorphisms and Luteinizing Hormone Levels for Low Ovarian Reserve Infertile Women.

Authors:  Shun-Long Weng; Shu-Ling Tzeng; Chun-I Lee; Chung-Hsien Liu; Chun-Chia Huang; Shun-Fa Yang; Maw-Sheng Lee; Tsung-Hsien Lee
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-06-30       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.