Ovarian response and embryo ploidy following oral micronized progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation versus GnRH antagonist protocol. A prospective study with repeated ovarian stimulation cycles.

STUDY QUESTION: Is there any difference in ovarian response and embryo ploidy following progesterone-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) using micronized progesterone or GnRH antagonist protocol? SUMMARY ANSWER: Pituitary downregulation with micronized progesterone as PPOS results in higher number of oocytes retrieved and a comparable number of euploid blastocysts to a GnRH antagonist protocol. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Although the GnRH antagonist is considered by most the gold standard protocol for controlling the LH surge during ovarian stimulation (OS) for IVF/ICSI, PPOS protocols are being increasingly used in freeze-all protocols. Still, despite the promising results of PPOS protocols, an early randomized trial reported potentially lower live births in recipients of oocytes resulting following downregulation with medroxyprogesterone acetate as compared with a GnRH antagonist protocol. The scope of the current prospective study was to investigate whether PPOS with micronized progesterone results in an equivalent yield of euploid blastocysts to a GnRH antagonist protocol. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: In this prospective study, performed between September 2019 to January 2022, 44 women underwent two consecutive OS protocols within a period of 6 months in a GnRH antagonist protocol or in a PPOS protocol with oral micronized progesterone. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Overall, 44 women underwent two OS cycles with an identical fixed dose of rFSH (225 or 300 IU) in both cycles. Downregulation in the first cycles was performed with the use of a flexible GnRH antagonist protocol (0.25 mg per day as soon as one follicle of 14 mm) and consecutively, after a washout period of 1 month, control of LH surge was performed with 200 mg of oral micronized progesterone from stimulation Day 1. After the completion of both cycles, all generated blastocysts underwent genetic analysis for aneuploidy screening (preimplantation genetic testing for aneuplody, PGT-A). MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Comparisons between protocols did not reveal differences between the duration of OS. The hormonal profile on the day of trigger revealed statistically significant differences between protocols in all the tested hormones except for FSH: with significantly higher serum E2 levels, more elevated LH levels and higher progesterone levels in PPOS cycles as compared with antagonist cycles, respectively. Compared with the GnRH antagonist protocol, the PPOS protocol resulted in a significantly higher number of oocytes (12.7 ± 8.09 versus 10.3 ± 5.84; difference between means [DBM] -2.4 [95% CI -4.1 to -0.73]), metaphase II (9.1 ± 6.12 versus 7.3 ± 4.15; DBM -1.8 [95% CI -3.1 to -0.43]), and 2 pronuclei (7.1 ± 4.99 versus 5.7 ± 3.35; DBM -1.5 [95% CI -2.6.1 to -0.32]), respectively. Nevertheless, no differences were observed regarding the mean number of blastocysts between the PPOS and GnRH antagonist protocols (2.9 ± 2.11 versus 2.8 ± 2.12; DBM -0.07 [95% CI -0.67 to 0.53]) and the mean number of biopsied blastocysts (2.9 ± 2.16 versus 2.9 ± 2.15; DBM -0.07 [95% CI -0.70 to 0.56]), respectively. Concerning the euploidy rates per biopsied embryo, a 29% [95% CI 21.8-38.1%] and a 35% [95% CI 26.6-43.9%] were noticed in the PPOS and antagonist groups, respectively. Finally, no difference was observed for the primary outcome, with a mean number of euploid embryos of 0.86 ± 0.90 versus 1.00 ± 1.12 for the comparison of PPOS versus GnRh antagonist. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: The study was powered to detect differences in the mean number of euploid embryos and not in terms of pregnancy outcomes. Additionally, per protocol, there was no randomization, the first cycle was always a GnRH antagonist cycle and the second a PPOS with 1 month of washout period in between. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: In case of a freeze-all protocol, clinicians may safely consider oral micronized progesterone to control the LH surge and patients could benefit from the advantages of a medication of oral administration, with a potentially higher number of oocytes retrieved at a lower cost, without any compromise in embryo ploidy rates. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This research was supported by an unrestricted grant from Theramex. N.P.P. has received Research grants from Merck Serono, Organon, Ferring Pharmaceutical, Roche, Theramex, IBSA, Gedeon Richter, and Besins Healthcare; honoraria for lectures from: Merck Serono, Organon, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Besins International, Roche Diagnostics, IBSA, Theramex, and Gedeon Richter; consulting fees from Merck Serono, Organon, Besins Healthcare, and IBSA. M.d.M.V., F.M., and I.R. declared no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The study was registered at Clinical Trials Gov. (NCT04108039).

Effect of body mass index on progesterone level on trigger day in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cycles.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of body mass index (BMI) on progesterone (P) level on trigger day in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) cycles. METHODS: This study was a retrospective cohort study. From October 2017 to April 2022, 412 in-vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) patients who were treated with GnRH-ant protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) in the reproductive center of our hospital were selected as the research objects. Patients were divided into three groups according to BMI level: normal weight group (n = 230):18.5 kg/m2≤BMI < 24 kg/m2; overweight group (n = 122): 24 kg/m2≤BMI < 28 kg/m2; Obesity group (n = 60): BMI ≥ 28 kg/m2. Variables with p < .10 in univariate analysis (BMI, basal FSH, basal P, FSH days, Gn starting dose and E2 level on trigger day) and variables that may affect P level on trigger day (infertility factors, basal LH, total FSH, HMG days and total HMG) were included in the multivariate logistic regression model to analyze the effect of BMI on P level on trigger day of GnRH-ant protocol. RESULTS: After adjustment for confounding factors, compared with that in normal weight patients, the risk of serum P elevation on trigger day was significantly lower in overweight and obese patients (OR = 0.434 and 0.199, respectively, p < .05). CONCLUSION: The risk of P elevation on trigger day in GnRH-ant cycles decreased with the increase of BMI, and BMI could be used as one of the predictors of P level on trigger day in GnRH-ant cycles.

Comparison of the pregnancy outcomes of progestin-primed vs. antagonist ovarian stimulation in patients with poor ovarian response: a retrospective study.

OBJECTIVES: Progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) is an efficient controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) method. The study explored the pregnancy outcomes between PPOS and antagonist ovarian stimulation protocol (GnRH-ant) in infertile patients with poor ovarian response (POR). METHODS: This retrospective study included patients with POR who underwent COS at the Reproductive Medical Center of Shanxi Maternal and Child Health Hospital from January 2021 to April 2022. The cycles were grouped as the GnRH-ant group and the PPOS group. The primary outcome was the clinical pregnancy rate; the secondary outcomes included the biochemical pregnancy abortion rate and live birth rate. RESULTS: Frozen embryo transfer was used in all cycles in this study. The cycles were divided into the GnRH-ant (n = 236 cycles) and PPOS (n = 273 cycles) groups. Age, BMI, type of infertility, infertility duration, FSH, LH, PRL, E2, T, P, and the number of cycles in the hospital were similar between the two groups (all p > 0.05). No statistically significant differences were observed in the clinical pregnancy rate (primary outcome, 32.71% vs. 43.90%, p = 0.082), total Gn dose, total Gn days, ART mode (IVF or ICSI), AFC, MII follicles, 2PN embryos, fertility, cycle cancelation rate, biochemical pregnancy rate, abortion rate, or live birth rate between the two groups (all p > 0.05). The PPOS group exhibited a higher rate of high-quality embryos than the GnRH-ant group (50.12% vs. 42.90%, p = 0.045). CONCLUSIONS: The PPOS protocol was comparable to the GnRH-ant protocol regarding induction parameters and cycle cancelation, biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, and abortion rates but might be associated with a higher proportion of high-quality embryos.

The Effects of Long-Term Dienogest Therapy on In Vitro Fertilization Outcomes in Women with Endometriosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Assessing dienogest's efficacy in endometriosis patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF). DATA SOURCES: Systematic search in databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane CENTRAL, Google Scholar) until 1 October 2022. STUDY SELECTIONS: Randomized trials and observational studies comparing extended dienogest pre-treatment, no pre-treatment, or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist pre-treatment in endometriosis-linked IVF. OUTCOME MEASURES: live birth, clinical pregnancy rates, oocytes collected, miscarriage rate, gonadotropin consumption. DATA EXTRACTIONS AND SYNTHESES: Two authors independently assessed eligibility. Dichotomous variables were analyzed via a random-effect model and Mantel-Haenszel method to calculate weighted estimates and 95% confidence intervals (CI). I2 statistic gauged study heterogeneity; GRADE criteria evaluated evidence quality. CONCLUSIONS: Out of 191 publications, five studies with 723 participants were included. Uncertainty persists on whether prolonged dienogest affects live birth (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.29 to 6.84; 3 studies, n = 289; I2 86%) and clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.31 to 5.65; 3 studies, n = 289; I2 86%) compared to conventional IVF. Moreover, uncertainty remains regarding intervention impact on live birth (RR 1.46, 95% CI 0.63 to 3.37; 1 study, n = 34) and clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.32, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.23; 3 studies, n = 288; I2 0%) versus long-term GnRH agonist therapy before IVF. Given limited data and very low evidence quality, doubts arise about the benefits of long-term dienogest pre-treatment before conventional IVF in endometriosis patients.

Is there a preferred time interval between gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist trigger and oocyte retrieval in GnRH antagonist cycles? A retrospective cohort of planned fertility preservation cycles.

BACKGROUND: The ideal time frame between gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist (GnRHa) trigger administration and oocyte retrieval in GnRH antagonist cycles has not been well studied. Our goal was to evaluate the effect of this time interval on oocyte yield and oocyte maturation rate in GnRH antagonist cycles designated for non-medical ("planned") oocyte cryopreservation. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study including patients who underwent elective fertility preservation, using the GnRH antagonist protocol and exclusively triggered by GnRH-agonist. We focused on the effect of the trigger-to-retrieval time interval on oocyte yield and maturation rate, while also incorporating age, body mass index (BMI), anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels, basal Follicle-Stimulating Hormone (FSH) levels, as well as the type and dosage of gonadotropin FSH medication. RESULTS: 438 cycles were included. Trigger-to-retrieval time interval ranged from 32.03 to 39.92 h. The mean oocyte yield showed no statistically significant difference when comparing retrievals < 36 h (n = 240, 11.86 ± 8.6) to those triggered at ≥ 36 h (n = 198, 12.24 ± 7.73) (P = 0.6). Upon dividing the cohort into four-time quartiles, no significant differences in the number of retrieved oocytes were observed (P = 0.54). Multivariate regression analysis failed to reveal any significant associations between the interval and the aforementioned variables. CONCLUSIONS: The GnRHa trigger to oocyte retrieval interval range in our cohort did not significantly affect oocyte yield and maturation rate.

Prolactin signaling modulates stress-induced behavioral responses in a preclinical mouse model of migraine.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine if prolactin signaling modulates stress-induced behavioral responses in a preclinical migraine model. BACKGROUND: Migraine is one of the most complex and prevalent disorders. The involvement of sex-selective hormones in migraine pathology is highly likely as migraine is more common in women and its frequency correlates with reproductive stages. Prolactin has been shown to be a worsening factor for migraine. Normally prolactin levels are low; however levels can surge during stress. Dopamine receptor agonists, which suppress pituitary prolactin release, are an effective migraine treatment in a subset of patients. Previously, we showed that administration of prolactin onto the dura mater induces female-specific behavioral responses, suggesting that prolactin may play a sex-specific role in migraine. METHODS: The effects of prolactin signaling were assessed using a preclinical migraine model we published recently in which behavioral sensitization is induced by repeated stress. Plasma prolactin levels were assessed in naïve and stressed CD-1 mice (n = 3-5/group) and transgenic mice with conditional deletion of the Prlr in Nav1.8-positive sensory neurons (Prlr conditional knock-out [CKO]; n = 3/group). To assess the contribution of prolactin release during stress, naïve or stressed male and female CD-1 mice were treated with the prolactin release inhibitor bromocriptine (2 mg/kg; n = 7-12/group) or vehicle for 5 days (8-12/group) and tested for facial hypersensitivity following stress. Additionally, the contribution of ovarian hormones in regulating the prolactin-induced responses was assessed in ovariectomized female CD-1 mice (n = 6-10/group). Furthermore, the contribution of Prlr activation on Nav1.8-positive sensory neurons was assessed. Naïve or stressed male and female Prlr CKO mice and their control littermates were tested for facial hypersensitivity (n = 8-9/group). Immunohistochemistry was used to confirm loss of Prlr in Nav1.8-positive neurons in Prlr CKO mice. The total sample size is n = 245; the full analysis sample size is n = 221. RESULTS: Stress significantly increased prolactin levels in vehicle-treated female mice (39.70 ± 2.77; p < 0.0001). Bromocriptine significantly reduced serum prolactin levels in stressed female mice compared to vehicle-treated mice (-44.85 ± 3.1; p < 0.0001). Additionally, no difference was detected between female stressed mice that received bromocriptine compared to naïve mice treated with bromocriptine (-0.70 ± 2.9; p = 0.995). Stress also significantly increased serum prolactin levels in male mice, although to a much smaller extent than in females (0.61 ± 0.08; p < 0.001). Bromocriptine significantly reduced serum prolactin levels in stressed males compared to those treated with vehicle (-0.49 ± 0.08; p = 0.002). Furthermore, bromocriptine attenuated stress-induced behavioral responses in female mice compared to those treated with vehicle (maximum effect observed on day 4 post stress [0.21 ± 0.08; p = 0.03]). Bromocriptine did not attenuate stress-induced behavior in males at any timepoint compared to those treated with vehicle. Moreover, loss of ovarian hormones did not affect the ability of bromocriptine to attenuate stress responses compared to vehicle-treated ovariectomy mice that were stressed (maximum effect observed on day 4 post stress [0.29 ± 0.078; p = 0.013]). Similar to CD-1 mice, stress increased serum prolactin levels in both Prlr CKO female mice (27.74 ± 9.96; p = 0.047) and control littermates (28.68 ± 9.9; p = 0.041) compared to their naïve counterparts. There was no significant increase in serum prolactin levels detected in male Prlr CKO mice or control littermates. Finally, conditional deletion of Prlr from Nav1.8-positive sensory neurons led to a female-specific attenuation of stress-induced behavioral responses (maximum effect observed on day 7 post stress [0.32 ± 0.08; p = 0.007]) compared to control littermates. CONCLUSION: These data demonstrate that prolactin plays a female-specific role in stress-induced behavioral responses in this preclinical migraine model through activation of Prlr on sensory neurons. They also support a role for prolactin in migraine mechanisms in females and suggest that modulation of prolactin signaling may be an effective therapeutic strategy in some cases.

Effect of GnRH agonist alone or combined with different low-dose hCG on cumulative live birth rate for high responders in GnRH antagonist cycles: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: There is insufficient evidence regarding the impact of dual trigger on oocyte maturity and reproductive outcomes in high responders. Thus, we aimed to explore the effect of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) trigger alone or combined with different low-dose human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) regimens on rates of oocyte maturation and cumulative live birth in high responders who underwent a freeze-all strategy in GnRH antagonist cycles. METHODS: A total of 1343 cycles were divided into three groups according to different trigger protocols: group A received GnRHa 0.2 mg (n = 577), group B received GnRHa 0.2 mg and hCG 1000 IU (n = 403), and group C received GnRHa 0.2 mg and hCG 2000 IU (n = 363). RESULTS: There were no significant differences in age, body mass index, and rates of oocyte maturation, fertilization, available embryo, and top-quality embryo among the groups. However, the incidence of moderate to severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) was significantly different among the three groups (0% in group A, 1.49% in group B, and 1.38% in group C). For the first frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycle, there were no significant differences in the number of transferred embryos and rates of implantation, clinical pregnancy, live birth, and early miscarriage among the three groups. Additionally, the cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate and cumulative live birth rate were not significantly different among the three groups. Similarly, there were no significant differences in gestational age, birth weight, birth height, and the proportion of low birth weight among subgroups stratified by singleton or twin. CONCLUSIONS: GnRHa trigger combined with low-dose hCG (1000 IU or 2000 IU) did not improve oocyte maturity and embryo quality and was still associated with an increased risk of moderate to severe OHSS. Therefore, for high responders treated with the freeze-all strategy, the single GnRHa trigger is recommended for final oocyte maturation, which can prevent the occurrence of moderate to severe OHSS and obtain satisfactory pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in subsequent FET cycles.

Pharmacological characterization of linzagolix, a novel, orally active, non-peptide antagonist of gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptors.

Control of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) signalling is an effective strategy for the treatment of sex hormone-dependent diseases. GnRH analogues have been widely used for treating these diseases; however, initial stimulation or complete suppression of GnRH signalling by GnRH analogues results in the occurrence of several distinct adverse effects. Accordingly, we aimed to discover small molecule GnRH antagonists with superior pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles. Linzagolix is a potent, orally available, and selective GnRH antagonist. Here, we reported the pharmacological characterization of linzagolix in vitro and in vivo. Linzagolix selectively binds to the GnRH receptor and inhibits GnRH-stimulated signalling, in a manner comparable to cetrorelix, a peptide GnRH antagonist. Because the inhibitory effect of the gonad axis is useful for the treatment of gynaecological conditions such as endometriosis and uterine fibroids, we investigated the effect of orally administrated linzagolix on the gonadal axis in ovariectomized and intact cynomolgus monkeys. In ovariectomized monkeys, linzagolix immediately suppressed the serum luteinizing hormone concentration at doses over 1 mg/kg, indicating dose-dependent inhibition that correlated with serum linzagolix concentrations. In intact female monkeys, repeated linzagolix administration suppressed hormone surges and ceased or prolonged menstrual cycles. Furthermore, all animals presenting arrested menstrual cycles following linzagolix treatment showed recovery of hormone secretion and regular menstrual cycles after administration periods ended. Our results demonstrated that linzagolix has potential as a novel agent for reproductive-age women suffering from sex hormone-dependent diseases.

Oral Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Antagonists in the Treatment of Uterine Myomas: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of Efficacy Parameters and Adverse Effects.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review is to gather and synthesize evidence regarding the use of oral gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist for the treatment of bleeding associated with uterine myomas. DATA SOURCES: Web of Science, and MEDLINE databases were searched electronically on March 5, 2021, using combinations of the relevant Medical Subject Headings terms and keywords. The search was restricted to the English language and to human studies. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Only randomized controlled trials involving patients with heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine myomas treated with different doses of oral nonpeptide GnRH antagonists with or without add-back therapy were included. Studies comparing oral nonpeptide GnRH antagonists with treatments other than placebo were also excluded. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: A total of 5 randomized trials including 2463 women were included in the analyses. Included studies were found to be at low risk of bias. When treatments were compared against placebo, the top 3 treatments for bleeding suppression were elagolix 600 mg, 400 mg, and 200 mg without add-back. Elagolix 600 mg without add-back therapy had a significantly higher risk of amenorrhea than lower doses of elagolix with and without add-back and relugolix as well. Uterine volume changes were more pronounced in therapies without add-back. All treatments were associated with significantly improved quality of life scores, both for myoma symptom-related and overall health-related scores. With the exception of relugolix with high-dose add-back, all treatments significantly increased low-density lipoprotein (LDL) levels. Again, all treatment modalities except for elagolix 200 mg without add-back significantly increased LDL-to-HDL ratio. The increase was highest for treatment without add-back therapy. CONCLUSION: Oral GnRH antagonists seem to be effective for myoma-associated bleeding and for improving quality of life. The safety profile is acceptable for short-term use, but lipid metabolism is affected.

Evaluation of GnRH antagonist pretreatment before ovarian stimulation in a GnRH antagonist protocol in normal ovulatory women undergoing IVF/ICSI: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Synchronization of follicles is key to improving ovulation stimulation with the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol. GnRH antagonist administration in the early follicular phase can quickly decrease gonadotrophin (Gn) levels and achieve downregulation before stimulation, which may improves synchronization. A previous small randomized controlled study (RCT) showed that pretreatment with a GnRH antagonist for 3 days before stimulation may increase oocyte retrieval but cannot increase the pregnancy rate. This study investigated whether the GnRH antagonist pretreatment protocol in ovulatory women can increase the synchronization of follicles and pregnancy outcomes compared with the conventional GnRH antagonist protocol. METHODS: This RCT included 136 normal ovulatory women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Both groups were treated with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (r-FSH) and a flexible GnRH antagonist protocol. The women were randomized into two equal groups with or without GnRH antagonist administration from day 2 of the menstrual cycle for 3 days before stimulation. Our primary outcome was the number of retrieved oocytes. Secondary outcomes included the pregnancy rate and live birth rate. RESULTS: Both groups had similar baseline characteristics. The number of retrieved oocytes in the study group was comparable to that in the control group (9.5 [8.0-13.0] vs. 11.0 [7.0-14.8], P = 0.469). There was no significant difference in the follicle size. The fertilization rate, number of good-quality embryos, implantation rate, pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, live birth rate per embryonic transfer cycle, and miscarriage rate were similar between the two groups. CONCLUSION: This large RCT analysed GnRH antagonist pretreatment with the GnRH antagonist protocol applied to normal ovulatory women undergoing IVF/ICSI. The number of retrieved oocytes and pregnancy outcomes did not significantly vary. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR1800019730 . Registered 26 November 2018.

Is oxytocin receptor antagonist administration around embryo transfer associated with IVF treatment success? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

A systematic literature review and meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate whether the administration of an oxytocin receptor antagonist (OTR-a) around embryo transfer is associated with live birth and pregnancy achievement in IVF treatment. Multiple databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCT) comparing the outcome of IVF treatment with administration of an OTR-a before, during or after embryo transfer versus administration of placebo/nil. The literature search identified 11 eligible RCT. The active compound was intravenous atosiban (n = 7), subcutaneous barusiban (n = 1) and oral nolasiban (n = 3). Clinical pregnancy rate was significantly higher in women receiving an OTR-a around embryo transfer (relative risk [RR] 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.51, P = 0.0002, I2 = 61%, n = 11 studies, n = 3611); however, live birth rate was not statistically significantly affected (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98-1.20, P = 0.11, I2 = 25%, n = 5 studies, n = 2765). A sensitivity analysis on low risk of bias studies likewise indicates a higher clinical pregnancy chance (RR 1.11, 95% CI 1.01-1.22, P = 0.03, I2 = 5%, n = 5 RCT, n = 2765). OTR-a administration in IVF treatment has the potential to increase IVF efficacy, although the treatment effects observed so far are small and have not been sufficiently corroborated.

How far is too far? Does time interval between GnRH antagonist and GnRH agonist trigger in GnRH antagonist cycles matter?

RESEARCH QUESTION: What is a suitable time interval between the last GnRH antagonist exposure and GnRH agonist (GnRHa) triggering for final follicular maturation? DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study including 413 patients undergoing GnRH antagonist cycles in which GnRHa trigger was used, either solely or as a dual trigger. The primary outcome measure was the follicle/mature oocyte ratio. Cycles were analysed according to the time interval between the last GnRH antagonist exposure and the GnRHa triggering: Group 1 included patients with a 12-14 h interval; Group 2: 7-10 h interval; Group 3: 5-6 h interval and Group 4: 2-4 h interval. LH concentration was measured 11-13 h post-GnRHa injection. RESULTS: Median LH value was 65 IU/l. There was a weak but significant correlation between basal LH and the LH surge (R2 = 0.137, P < 0.001). Although square root LH values differed significantly between study groups (P < 0.001; higher in Groups 2 and 3), the follicle/mature oocyte ratio was not different across the four antagonist-agonist interval groups and no correlation was detected between the post-trigger LH concentration and the follicle/oocyte ratio (R2 = 0.011). In a model integrating age, day 3 FSH concentration, maximal oestradiol and body mass index along with the study groups, none of these factors was significantly related to the follicle/mature oocyte outcome ratio. Insufficient surge (LH < 15 IU/l) occurred in 14 (3.4%) cases. Rates of insufficient LH surge did not differ significantly between the groups (2.4%, 3.2%, 3.4% and 7.1% in Groups 1 to 4, respectively; P = 0.5). CONCLUSIONS: LH concentrations post-GnRHa trigger differ in regard to antagonist-agonist intervals, but the follicle/mature oocyte ratio achieved was not affected.

Risk factors for non-response and discontinuation of Dienogest in endometriosis patients: A cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Progestins are commonly prescribed first-line drugs for endometriosis. High rates of non-response and intolerance to these drugs have been previously reported. However, no study to date has investigated the characteristics and comorbidities of patients taking progestins in relation to treatment outcomes, so identifying which patients will respond to or tolerate the treatment is currently impossible. The purpose of this study, therefore, was to identify risk factors for non-response and discontinuation of Dienogest (DNG) in women with endometriosis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study including women currently taking, or newly prescribed, DNG for endometriosis-associated pain presenting in the Endometriosis Clinic of the University Hospital of Bern between January 2017 and May 2018. Women with initiation of treatment directly after surgery for endometriosis were excluded. For all participants the symptoms and comorbidities were documented. Effectiveness, tolerability and discontinuation of DNG were the primary end points. Univariate and multivariate binary logistic regression models were carried out to identify risk factors for non-response, intolerance and discontinuation of DNG. RESULTS: A sufficient or excellent treatment response was reported by 85/125 (68%) participants. Genital bleeding during the DNG treatment was negatively (OR 0.185, 95% CI 0.056-0.610, P = .006) and rASRM endometriosis stages III and IV were positively (OR 3.876, 95% CI 1.202-12.498, P = .023) correlated with the DNG response. When accounting for exclusively pretreatment factors, primary dysmenorrhea (OR 0.236, 95% CI 0.090-0.615, P = .003) and suspicion of adenomyosis (OR 0.347, 95% CI 0.135-0.894, P = .028) were inversely correlated with DNG response, and the latter was also correlated with treatment discontinuation (OR 3.189, 95% CI 1.247-8.153, P = .015). CONCLUSIONS: Genital bleeding during the DNG treatment and low rASRM stages are independent risk factors for DNG non-response. Before treatment initiation, primary dysmenorrhea and suspicion of adenomyosis correlate with DNG non-response. The results could assist the clinician first to provide detailed information to women before treatment initiation, second to identify and possibly modify in-therapy factors correlated to treatment effectiveness and lastly to switch treatment on time if needed.

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

BACKGROUND: The gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol has some advantages, such as a simple method, short medication duration, and low incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, but whether the GnRH antagonist protocol is suitable for normal ovarian responders has been controversial. We compared the clinical outcomes of fresh and frozen-thawed transfer cycles between the depot GnRH agonist protocol and GnRH antagonist protocol in normal ovarian responders. METHODS: Data of normal ovarian responders who underwent in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer (ICSI-ET) between January 2017 and December 2018 in our hospital were retrospectively analysed. In this study, there were 1119 fresh transfer cycles, including 502 GnRH antagonist cycles (GnRH antagonist group) and 617 depot GnRH agonist cycles (depot GnRH agonist group), as well as 468 frozen-thawed transfer cycles, includng 191 GnRH antagonist cycles (GnRH antagonist group) and 277 depot GnRH agonist cycles (depot GnRH agonist group). The clinical outcomes were compared between the GnRH antagonist group and the depot GnRH agonist group. RESULTS: With the fresh transfer cycles, there were no statistically significant differences in the anti-Mullerian hormone level, number of transferred embryos or high-quality embryo rate between the two groups. The total dosage of gonadotropin (Gn), duration of Gn stimulation, number of oocytes retrieved, clinical pregnancy rate and incidences of moderate and severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) were significantly lower but the abortion rate was significantly higher in the GnRH antagonist group than in the depot GnRH agonist group (all P < 0.05). With the frozen-thawed transfer cycles, there were no statistically significant differences in the number of transferred embryos, clinical pregnancy rate or abortion rate between the two groups (all P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: With the fresh transfer cycles, the GnRH antagonist protocol had a lower clinical pregnancy rate and lower incidences of moderate and severe OHSS than the depot GnRH agonist protocol, but with the frozen-thawed transfer cycles, both protocols had similar clinical pregnancy rates. These results remain to be further confirmed through large-sample, prospective, randomized and controlled studies.

Effects of half-dose and full-dose GnRH antagonists on IVF-ET outcomes: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: Gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist(GnRH-ant) has been shown to have a negative effect on endometrial receptivity. Therefore, the use of lower doses of GnRH-ant during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) may improve endometrial receptivity and clinical pregnancy rate. However, the GnRH-ant dose is relatively flexible and there is no fixed requirement for guidance. In this retrospective study, we determined the effects of half-dose and full-dose GnRH-ant on IVF-ET outcomes. METHODS: Of the 316 cycles in the 314 patients analyzed in this study, 149 received GnRH-ant half-dose (Group1), while 167 received GnRH-ant full-dose (Group2). The groups were further classified based on age and BMI. Age subgroups, were divided as age ≤ 35(subgroup A) and age > 35(subgroup B): 180 cycles in subgroup A (107 cycles in subgroup A1,73 cycles in subgroup A2), 136 cycles in subgroup B (42 cycles in subgroup B1,94 cycles in subgroupB2). The subgroups based on BMI were divided as BMI < 25 (subgroup C)and BMI ≥ 25 (subgroup D):208 cycles in subgroup C (94 cycles in subgroup C1,114 cycles in subgroup C2), 108 cycles in subgroup D (55 cycles in subgroup D1,53 cycles in subgroup D2). RESULTS: The number of fertilized oocytes, superior-quality embryos, clinical pregnancy rate, and live birth rate differed significantly between the two groups. However, the number of retrieved oocytes and available embryos were significantly higher in Group 1 than Group 2 (8.17 ± 4.10 vs. 7.07 ± 4.05, 2.96 ± 2.03 vs. 2.52 ± 1.62, respectively,p<0.05). Differences between the age subgroups were not statistically significant. However, in the subgroups based on BMI, the fertilized oocytes, available embryos, the number of superior-quality embryos, and the live birth rate differed significantly between the four subgroups. The number of retrieved oocytes was higher in subgroup C1 than in subgroup C2 (8.24 ± 4.04 vs. 6.83 ± 3.92,p < 0.05), In addition, the clinical pregnancy rate was slightly higher in subgroup D1 than in subgroup D2(45.45 vs. 24.53%, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The results showed that half-dose GnRH-ant was as effective as full-dose GnRH-ant for most patients. Moreover, half-dose GnRH-ant may be more suitable in patients with BMI greater than or equal to 25. The findings of this study need to be validated in a large sample RCT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered.

Outcomes of ovarian stimulation in the follicular and luteal phases of the menstrual cycle in cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of controlled ovarian stimulation in different phases of the menstrual cycle in cancer patients seeking for the preservation of reproductive material before gonadotoxic therapy. METHODS: A total of 140 patients with oncological diseases underwent ovarian stimulation in the standard protocol with GnRH antagonists in the follicular phase of the cycle (n = 68) and in the random-start protocol in the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle without prescribing GnRH antagonists (n = 72). RESULTS: All patients included in the study were comparable in age and AMH level. There were no differences in the mean number of oocytes retrieved in the follicular phase group, and luteal phase group. Similarly, no significant differences were observed in the number of M II oocytes. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the study demonstrate the equal effectiveness of stimulation protocols in different phases of the menstrual cycle, which allows us to develop a personalized approach to the implementation of reproductive function both in cancer patients and in the routine practice of ART.

Effects of RU486 treatment after single prolonged stress depend on the post-stress interval.

The Single Prolonged Stress protocol is considered a model for PTSD, as it induces long lasting changes in rat behaviour and endocrine regulation. Previous work demonstrated that some of these changes can be prevented by treatment with the glucocorticoid receptor antagonist RU486, administered a week after the stressor. The current study evaluated the effects of an earlier intervention with RU486, as evaluated 1 week after SPS-exposure. Most RU486 effects occurred independent of prior stress, except for the reversal of a stress-induced increase in locomotor behaviour. The accompanying changes in gene expression depended on gene, brain region, and time. DNA methylation of the robustly down-regulated Fkbp5 gene was dissociated of changes in mRNA expression. The findings reinforce the long term effects of GR antagonist treatment, but also emphasize the need to evaluate changes over time to allow the identification of robust correlates between gene expression and behavioural/endocrine outcome of stressful experiences.

A Novel Stimulation Protocol for Poor-Responder Patients: Combining the Stop GnRH-ag Protocol with Letrozole Priming and Multiple-Dose GnRH-ant: A Proof of Concept.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to examine whether the combined Stop GnRH-agonist (GnRH-ag), letrozole priming, and multiple-dose GnRH-antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol may improve in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycle in poor ovarian responders (PORs). DESIGN: This was a historical cohort, proof of concept study under tertiary setting at University affiliated Medical Center. PATIENTS: Five PORs fulfilling the POSEIDON Group 4 criteria were included. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of oocytes retrieved, number of top-quality embryos (TQEs), and controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) variables were the main outcome measures. RESULTS: The combined Stop GnRH-ag, letrozole priming, and multiple-dose GnRH-ant COH protocol revealed significantly higher number of follicles >13 mm on the day of hCG administration and higher number of oocytes retrieved, with non-significantly more TQEs and a reasonable clinical pregnancy rate. CONCLUSIONS: The combined Stop GnRH-ag, letrozole priming, and multiple-dose GnRH-ant COH protocol is a valuable tool in the armamentarium for treating POSEIDON Group 4 patients. Further large prospective studies are needed to elucidate its role in POR and to identify the specific characteristics of women (before initiating ovarian stimulation) that will aid both fertility specialists' counseling and their patients in adjusting the appropriate COH protocol.

Efficacy of the delayed start antagonist protocol for controlled ovarian stimulation in Bologna poor ovarian responders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Patients with a poor ovarian response (POR) represent the most difficult group of population to deal with in the clinical fertility practice. Bologna criteria are the first uniform definition of POR. Choosing a suitable controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocol which could give adequate oocytes to maximize the chance of obtaining at least one euploid blastocyst is crucial in the management for such patients. The delayed start antagonist protocol is a novel COS protocol designed for POR patients, however, its real efficacy is controversial compared to conventional protocols. The present study aims to summarize all available studies on this topic and perform a meta-analysis to explore the real treatment effect of this novel protocol in terms of reproductive outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: PubMed, EMBASE, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Library from database establishment to June 2019 were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which compared delayed start antagonist protocol (Del) to conventional controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocols (Con) in terms of reproductive outcomes, were included. The RevMan 5.3 was used to perform statistical analysis. The primary outcomes were the cycle cancellation rate, the clinical pregnancy rate and the miscarriage rate. RESULTS: 5 RCTs yielding 514 patients were eligible, of which 5, 5, 4 studies were included in analyzing the cycle cancellation rate, the clinical pregnancy rate, and the miscarriage rate respectively. Synthesized data of meta-analysis showed: delayed start antagonist protocol introduced a lower risk of cycle cancellation [risk ratio (RR) = 0.63, 95% confidence interval (CI) (0.45, 0.90), P = 0.01; 5 RCTs, 514 women (Del:Con = 256:258); I2 = 0%; with rates of 16.02% (Del) vs. 26.36% (Con)], an increased chance to get clinical pregnancy [RR = 2.30, 95% CI (1.38, 3.82), P = 0.001; 5 RCTs, 514 women (Del:Con = 256:258); I2 = 0%; with rates of 16.80% (Del) vs. 7.36% (Con)], and a comparable miscarriage rate [RR = 0.55, 95% CI (0.24, 1.23), P = 0.15; 4 RCTs, 58 women (Del:Con = 41:17) I2 = 17%; with rates of 19.51% (Del) vs. 35.29% (Con)] compared to conventional COS protocols. CONCLUSIONS: Delayed start antagonist protocol was a potentially valuable alternation for poor ovarian responders. However, future RCTs with large sample size and more scientific design are needed to verify its validity and draw a sound conclusion.

GnRH Antagonists with or without Add-Back Therapy: A New Alternative in the Management of Endometriosis?

To evaluate the effectiveness of a new class of medical drugs, namely oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists, in the management of premenopausal women with endometriosis-associated pelvic pain. We reviewed the most relevant papers (n = 27) on the efficacy of new medical alternatives (oral GnRH antagonists) as therapy for endometriosis. We first briefly summarized the concept of progesterone resistance and established that oral contraceptives and progestogens work well in two-thirds of women suffering from endometriosis. Since clinical evidence shows that estrogens play a critical role in the pathogenesis of the disease, lowering their levels with oral GnRH antagonists may well prove effective, especially in women who fail to respond to progestogens. There is a need for reliable long-term oral treatment capable of managing endometriosis symptoms, taking into consideration both the main symptoms and phenotype of the disease. Published studies reviewed and discussed here confirm the efficacy of GnRH antagonists. There is a place for GnRH antagonists in the management of symptomatic endometriosis. Novel algorithms that take into account the different phenotypes are proposed.