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).

A modified flexible GnRH antagonist protocol using antagonist early cessation and a gonadotropin step-down approach improves live birth rates in fresh cycles: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Can pregnancy outcomes following fresh elective single embryo transfer (eSET) in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocols increase using a gonadotropin (Gn) step-down approach with cessation of GnRH antagonist on the day of hCG administration (hCG day) in patients with normal ovarian response? SUMMARY ANSWER: The modified GnRH antagonist protocol using the Gn step-down approach and cessation of GnRH antagonist on the hCG day is effective in improving live birth rates (LBRs) per fresh eSET cycle. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Currently, there is no consensus on optimal GnRH antagonist regimens. Studies have shown that fresh GnRH antagonist cycles result in poorer pregnancy outcomes than the long GnRH agonist (GnRHa) protocol. Endometrial receptivity is a key factor that contributes to this phenomenon. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: An open label randomized controlled trial (RCT) was performed between November 2021 and August 2022. There were 546 patients allocated to either the modified GnRH antagonist or the conventional antagonist protocol at a 1:1 ratio. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Both IVF and ICSI cycles were included, and the sperm samples used were either fresh or frozen from the partner, or from frozen donor ejaculates. The primary outcome was the LBRs per fresh SET cycle. Secondary outcomes included rates of implantation, clinical and ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), as well as clinical outcomes of ovarian stimulation. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Baseline demographic features were not significantly different between the two ovarian stimulation groups. However, in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the LBRs in the modified antagonist group were significantly higher than in the conventional group (38.1% [104/273] vs. 27.5% [75/273], relative risk 1.39 [95% CI, 1.09-1.77], P = 0.008). Using a per-protocol (PP) analysis which included all the patients who received an embryo transfer, the LBRs in the modified antagonist group were also significantly higher than in the conventional group (48.6% [103/212] vs. 36.8% [74/201], relative risk 1.32 [95% CI, 1.05-1.66], P = 0.016). The modified antagonist group achieved significantly higher implantation rates, and clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates than the conventional group in both the ITT and PP analyses (P < 0.05). The two groups did not show significant differences between the number of oocytes retrieved or mature oocytes, two-pronuclear zygote (2PN) rates, the number of embryos obtained, blastocyst progression and good-quality embryo rates, early miscarriage rates, or OHSS incidence rates (P > 0.05). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: A limitation of our study was that the subjects were not blinded to the treatment allocation in the RCT trial. Only women under 40 years of age who had a good prognosis were included in the analysis. Therefore, use of the modified antagonist protocol in older patients with a low ovarian reserve remains to be investigated. In addition, the sample size for Day 5 elective SET was small, so larger trials will be required to strengthen these findings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The modified GnRH antagonist protocol using the Gn step-down approach and cessation of GnRH antagonist on hCG day improved the LBRs per fresh eSET cycle in normal responders. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This project was funded by grant 2022YFC2702503 from the National Key Research & Development Program of China and grant 2021140 from the Beijing Health Promotion Association. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The RCT was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry; Study Number: ChiCTR2100053453. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 21 November 2021. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLLMENT: 23 November 2021.

Exposure of antral follicles to medroxyprogesterone acetate during stimulation does not cause molecular perturbations in gonadotropin-responsiveness and steroidogenic function of granulosa cells in progestin-primed cycles.

STUDY QUESTION: Does medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) exposure in progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) cycles cause molecular perturbations in the steroidogenic function and gonadotropin responsiveness of the granulosa cells? SUMMARY ANSWER: PPOS cycles are identical to traditional GnRH antagonist cycles not only for clinical IVF characteristics but also for gonadotropin receptor expression, response to gonadotropins, and steroidogenic function at the molecular level. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: PPOS is increasingly used as an alternative to GnRH antagonists due to the inhibitory effect of progesterone on LH release by reducing GnRH pulsatility at the hypothalamic level. Although a growing body of evidence from clinical studies did not indicate significant differences between PPOS and antagonist protocols for IVF cycle characteristics and obstetrical outcomes, it is still unknown whether exposure of the antral follicle cohort to progesterone or its synthetic derivatives during ovarian stimulation causes any subtle molecular aberrations in terms of steroidogenesis and gonadotropin responsiveness. To address this issue, detailed comparative molecular analyses were conducted in the luteinized mural granulosa cells (GCs) obtained from normal responding IVF patients undergoing PPOS and antagonist cycles. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: A clinical translational research study was conducted with IVF patients. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: This study included 55 normal responding IVF patients who underwent ovarian stimulation with either PPOS using MPA (5 mg twice daily) or GnRH antagonist cetrorelix acetate. Recombinant forms of FSH and hCG were used for ovarian stimulation and ovulation triggering, respectively. Luteinized mural GCs obtained during the oocyte retrieval procedure were used for the experiments. Cell culture, quantitative real-time PCR, immunoblotting, confocal time-lapse live cell imaging, and hormone assays were used. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Demographic and IVF cycle characteristics of the patients undergoing ovarian stimulation with PPOS and GnRH antagonist were similar, including ovarian response, mature oocyte yield, and fertilization rates. Molecular analyses revealed that the expression of the enzymes involved in sex-steroid synthesis (StAR, SCC, 3ß-HSD, 17ß-HSD, aromatase) and the uptake/storage/utilization of cholesterol (LDL receptor, Hormone-sensitive lipase, hydroxy-methyl glutaryl Co-enzyme-A reductase, and Sterol O-acyltransferase1) in the GCs of the PPOS cycles were comparable to those of the antagonist cycles. The expression of the receptors for gonadotropins, estrogen, and progesterone hormones was also similar. Basal and hCG-induced increases in 3ß-HSD expression and progesterone production and basal and FSH-induced increases in aromatase expression and E2 output of the GCs from PPOS patients did not exhibit any meaningful differences when compared with GCs from antagonist cycles. Furthermore, basal and hCG-induced up-regulation in the LDL receptor expression and cholesterol uptake did not differ between the groups. Confocal imaging also revealed similar patterns of expression for the steroidogenic enzymes and their co-localization with mitochondria. Lastly, the expression of the other important genes regulating cumulus expansion, ovulation, and luteal function [Relaxin, ADAMTS-1, and epidermal growth factor (EGF)-like growth factor amphiregulin] in the GCs of the PPOS and antagonist cycles were similar. LARGE SCALE DATA: N/A. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Caution should be exercised when interpreting our data which was derived from normally responding patients whose ovulation was triggered with hCG. It is unclear whether the molecular parameters assessed vary according to infertility etiologies, magnitude of ovarian response, mode of trigger, and any other underlying ovarian pathologies or systemic diseases. MPA was the progestin used for PPOS and whether these findings can be generalized to other progestins is unknown. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: This study provides reassuring molecular evidence that exposure of antral follicle cohorts to MPA during the follicular growth phase does not have any detrimental effects on steroidogenic, ovulatory, and luteal functions when compared with GnRH antagonist cycles. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This study was funded by the School of Medicine, the Graduate School of Health Sciences of Koc University and Koç University Research Center for Translational Medicine (KUTTAM), and equally funded by the Republic of Turkey Ministry of Development Research Infrastructure Support Program. All authors declare no conflict of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: N/A.

Effect of LH level on HCG trigger day on clinical outcomes in patients with diminished ovarian reserve undergoing GnRH-antagonist protocol.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does luteinizing hormone (LH) levels on human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) trigger day (LHHCG) affect the clinical outcomes of patients with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) undergoing gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol? METHODS: Retrospective analysis fresh embryo transfer cycles of DOR patients who underwent GnRH-ant protocol from August 2019 to June 2023. The participants were divided into different groups according to LHHCG level and age. The clinical data and outcomes were compared between groups. RESULTS: In patients with DOR, the HCG positive rate (59.3% versus 39.8%, P = 0.005), embryo implantation rate (34.5% versus 19.7%, P = 0.002), clinical pregnancy rate (49.2% versus 28.4%, P = 0.003), live birth rate (41.5% versus 22.7%, P = 0.005) in LHHCG < 2.58 IU/L group were significantly higher than LHHCG ≥ 2.58 IU/L group. There was no significant correlation between LHHCG level and clinical pregnancy in POSEIDON group 3. In POSEIDON group 4, the HCG positive rate (52.8% versus 27.0%, P = 0.015), embryo implantation rate (29.2% versus 13.3%, P = 0.023), clinical pregnancy rate (45.3% versus 18.9%, P = 0.010) in LHHCG < 3.14 IU/L group were significantly higher than LHHCG ≥ 3.14 IU/L group. Logistic regression analysis indicated that LHHCG level was an independent influencing factor for clinical pregnancy in POSEIDON group 4 patients (OR = 3.831, 95% CI: 1.379-10.643, P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: LHHCG level is an independent factor affecting pregnancy outcome of fresh embryo transfer in DOR patients undergoing GnRH-ant protocol, especially for advanced-aged women. LHHCG had a high predictive value for POSEIDON group 4 patients, and LHHCG ≥ 3.14 IU/L predicts poor pregnancy outcomes.

Why do oestrogens matter: systematic review and meta-analysis assessing GnRH antagonists, considering add-back therapy, for endometriosis-associated pain.

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists have been demonstrated to reduce endometriosis-associated pain. Because of the hypo-oestrogenic state they induce, however, higher dosages of GnRH antagonists are not recommended for used long term. This unwanted effect may be eliminated by so-called add-back therapy (ABT). This review was conducted to assess the safety and efficacy of GnRH antagonists, with or without add-back hormonal replacement therapy. Out of the 345 studies selected through the initial search, seven randomized controlled trials were included, comparing different oral GnRH antagonists at varying dosages, from a minimum of 50 mg to a maximum of 200 mg once or twice daily. Women treated with the lowest dose of GnRH antagonists had significantly greater mean pain score reductions from baseline throughout treatment compared with those treated with placebo (odds ratio [OR] -13.12, 95% CI -17.35 to -8.89 and OR -3.08, 95% CI -4.39 to -1.76 for dysmenorrhoea and non-menstrual pelvic pain, respectively). Compatible with the dose-response effect, a positive correlation was found between response rates and adverse event rates. While GnRH antagonists offer an advantage in terms of pain reduction for endometriosis, the more recent literature suggests using GnRH antagonists with ABT, which, while mitigating the hypo-oestrogenic effects of GnRH antagonists, maintain their efficacy, while allowing their long-term use.

Progestin primed ovarian stimulation using dydrogesterone from day 7 of the cycle onwards in oocyte donation cycles: a longitudinal study.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does a progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol with dydrogesterone from cycle day 7 yield similar outcomes compared with a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol in the same oocyte donors? DESIGN: This retrospective longitudinal study included 128 cycles from 64 oocyte donors. All oocyte donors had the same type of gonadotrophin and daily dose in both stimulation cycles. The primary outcome was the number of cumulus-oocyte complexes (COC) retrieved. RESULTS: The number of COC retrieved (mean ± SD 19.7 ± 10.8 versus 19.2 ± 8.3; P = 0.5) and the number of metaphase II oocytes (15.5 ± 8.4 versus 16.2 ± 7.0; P = 0.19) were similar for the PPOS and GnRH antagonist protocols, respectively. The duration of stimulation (10.5 ± 1.5 days versus 10.8 ± 1.5 days; P = 0.14) and consumption of gonadotrophins (2271.9 ± 429.7 IU versus 2321.5 ± 403.4 IU; P = 0.2) were also comparable, without any cases of premature ovulation. Nevertheless, there was a significant difference in the total cost of medication per cycle: €898.3 ± 169.9 for the PPOS protocol versus €1196.4 ± 207.5 (P < 0.001) for the GnRH antagonist protocol. CONCLUSION: The number of oocytes retrieved and number of metaphase II oocytes were comparable in both stimulation protocols, with the advantage of significant cost reduction in favour of the PPOS protocol compared with the GnRH antagonist protocol. No cases of premature ovulation were observed, even when progestin was started later in the stimulation.

Association between the systemic immune-inflammation index and GnRH antagonist protocol IVF outcomes: a cohort study.

RESEARCH QUESTION: What is the relationship between the systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) and IVF outcomes in women undergoing a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol? DESIGN: This retrospective cohort study analysed clinical data and blood samples collected before oocyte retrieval from participants undergoing IVF with the GnRH antagonist protocol. Logistic regression and generalized additive models were used to examine the association between SII quartiles and continuous SII values and IVF outcomes. RESULTS: Higher SII values correlated negatively with biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, live birth and implantation rates, and positively with early pregnancy loss, independent of age, body mass index, anti-Müllerian hormone and stimulation parameters. The most significant adverse outcomes were observed in the highest SII quartile. A non-linear relationship was identified between log-transformed SII and IVF outcomes, with an inflection point at an SII of approximately 6.72, indicating a threshold effect. CONCLUSIONS: Elevated SII is associated with poorer IVF outcomes in women after the GnRH antagonist protocol, suggesting its potential as a predictive marker in IVF treatments. Further research is needed to confirm these findings and explore the underlying mechanisms.

Comparison of aneuploidy for patients of different ages treated with progestin-primed ovarian stimulation or GnRH antagonist protocols.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Does euploidy status differ among patients of different ages treated with progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) or gonadotrophin releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-a) protocols? DESIGN: Patients undergoing PGT-A (n = 418; 440 cycles) were enrolled and grouped according to female age (<35 years and ≥35 years). Protocols were as follows: PPOS: <35 years (n = 131; 137 cycles); ≥35 years (n = 72; 80 cycles); GnRH-a: <35 years (n = 149; 152 cycles); ≥35 years (n = 66; 71 cycles). RESULTS: For cycles treated with PPOS in the older group, rates of euploid blastocyst per metaphase Ⅱ oocyte (15.48% versus 10.47%) and per biopsied blastocyst (54.94% versus 40.88%) were significantly higher than those treated with GnRH-a (P < 0.05). The mosaic rate per biopsied blastocyst was significantly lower for cycles treated with PPOS than cycles treated with GnRH-a (8.64% versus 23.36%) (P < 0.001). In the younger group, no significant difference was found between treatments (P > 0.05). In older and younger groups, the drug to inhibit LH surge was cheaper for cycles treated with PPOS compared with GnRH-a (P < 0.001). Generalized estimation equations based on binomial distribution female age and euploidy rate was significantly negatively correlated for all participants (ß -0.109, 95% CI -0.183 to -0.035, P = 0.004), and between GnRH-a protocol (reference: PPOS) and the euploidy rate in the older group (ß -0.126, 95% CI -0.248 to -0.004, P = 0.042). Multiple logistic regression indicated that ovarian stimulation protocol was not associated with ongoing pregnancy rate (OR 0.652, 95% CI 0.358 to 1.177; P = 0.14). CONCLUSIONS: PPOS is suitable for patients undergoing PGT-A, particularly older patients for the higher euploid blastocyst rate attained by PPOS protocol.

Early versus late follicular phase ovarian stimulation: a randomized controlled trial.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Is late follicular phase stimulation as efficient as early follicular phase stimulation in a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol in oocyte donors in terms of the number of oocytes. DESIGN: In this open label, phase 3, non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial using a two-arm design with a 1:1 allocation ratio, 84 oocyte donors were allocated to the early follicular start group (control group, n = 41) or the late follicular start group (study group, n = 43). In the control group, women followed a fixed GnRH antagonist protocol with recombinant FSH (r-FSH) 225 IU. In the study group, r-FSH 225 IU was initiated in the late follicular phase. The primary outcome was the number of oocytes. The secondary outcomes were the number of mature oocytes, consumption of gonadotrophins and GnRH antagonist, and cost of medication. RESULTS: The number of oocytes did not differ between the control group and the study group (intent-to-treat analysis 15.5 ± 11.0 versus 14.0 ± 10.7, P = 0.52; per-protocol analysis 18.2 ± 9.7 versus 18.8 ± 7.8, P = 0.62). In addition, the number of mature oocytes did not differ between the groups (14.1 ± 8.1 versus 12.7 ± 8.5, P = 0.48). The duration of stimulation was shorter in the control group (10.0 ± 1.4 versus 10.9 ± 1.5 days, P = 0.01). The total amount of r-FSH used was lower in the control group (2240.7 ± 313.9 IU versus 2453.9 ± 330.1 IU, P = 0.008). A GnRH antagonist was used for approximately 6 days in the control group, while a GnRH antagonist was only prescribed for one woman in the study group (6.0 ± 1.4 days versus 0.13±0.7 days, P < 0.001). There was a significant difference in the cost of medication per cycle between the groups (1147.9 ± 182.8€ in control group versus 979.9 ± 129.0€ in study group, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Late follicular phase stimulation is as efficient as early follicular phase stimulation in terms of the number of oocytes.

Regression and growth rates in androgen deprivation therapy for advanced castration-sensitive prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: No study has compared cancer regression (d) and growth (g) rates in patients with advanced castration-sensitive prostate cancer (CSPC) treated with androgen deprivation therapy. The comparison of d and g rates provides insight into the differential impact of ADT regimens on tumor dynamics, potentially guiding more personalized treatment strategies. Therefore, we aimed to estimate these rates and evaluate their impact on survival outcomes. METHODS: Sequential prostate-specific antigen (PSA) data was obtained from the KYUCOG-1401 trial including patients with advanced CSPC randomized to gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist (group A) and GnRH agonist plus bicalutamide (group B). d and g rates were estimated by applying mathematical models and were compared in subgroups. PSA-progression-free survival (PSA-PFS), radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), and overall survival (OS) were compared by lower and higher than the median of these rates. RESULTS: Patients with higher PSA and higher extent of disease score at enrollment presented higher d rates (0.03965 vs. 0.03546, p = 0.0006) and (0.03947 vs. 0.03587, p = 0.0113) for groups A and B, respectively. The median d rate was lower for group A than group B (0.03306 vs. 0.039965, respectively [p = 0.0002]). The median g rate was higher for group A than group B (0.00016 vs. 0.00002, respectively [p = 0.0014]). The g rate, but not the d rate discriminated PSA-PFS, rPFS, and OS. CONCLUSION: Our results suggest that GnRH agonist plus bicalutamide reduced PSA level faster and suppressed PSA rising longer than GnRH antagonist. Moreover, measuring the g rate can predict PSA-PFS, rPFS, and OS in patients with advanced CPSC treated with androgen deprivation therapy. These findings suggest that incorporating g rate measurements into clinical practice could improve prognostic accuracy and guide treatment decisions in advanced CSPC.

Clinical parameters that predict a premature LH rise in patients undergoing ovarian stimulation for IVF.

Background: Normal reproductive function requires adequate regulation of follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) and luteinizing hormone (LH) secretion. During ovarian stimulation for in-vitro fertilization (IVF), some patients will demonstrate an early rise in LH despite being treated with a gonadotropin releasing-hormone (GnRH) antagonist, sometimes necessitating cycle cancellation. Previous studies have demonstrated a possible link between a premature LH rise with ovarian response to gonadotropins. We sought to determine what clinical parameters can predict this premature LH rise and their relative contribution. Methods: A retrospective study of 382 patients who underwent IVF treatment at Rambam Medical Center. The patients were stratified into age groups. A model predicting premature LH rise based on clinical and demographic parameters was developed using both multiple linear regression and a machine-learning-based algorithm. Results: LH rise was defined as the difference between pre-trigger and basal LH levels. The clinical parameters that significantly predicted an LH rise were patient age, BMI, LH levels at stimulation outset, LH levels on day of antagonist administration, and total number of stimulation days. Importantly, when analyzing the data of specific age groups, the model's prediction was strongest in young patients (age 25-30 years, R2 = 0.88, p < .001) and weakest in older patients (age > 41 years, R2 = 0.23, p = .003). Conclusions: Using both multiple linear regression and a machine-learning-based algorithm of patient data from IVF cycles, we were able to predict patients at risk for premature LH rise and/or LH surge. Utilizing this model may help prevent IVF cycle cancellation and better timing of ovulation triggering.

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.

Lower serum LH level was related to poor embryo quality and adverse pregnancy outcomes in fixed GnRH antagonist protocol with estradiol pretreatment.

OBJECTIVE: To disclose the relationships between serum LH and reproductive outcomes in Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol pretreated with luteal estradiol. METHODS: 371 patients, pretreated with estradiol, followed the GnRH antagonist protocol. They were divided into four groups based on the quartiles of serum LH levels on the day of gonadotropin (Gn) initiation(LHGI) and trigger (LHtrigger). Data on various pregnancy outcomes were collected. RESULTS: As serum LHGI increased, anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level, antral follicle count (AFC), LHtrigger, estradiol (E2) and P on the trigger day, E2/oocytes, and oocyte numbers increased and peaked in Q4, while Gn dose decreased. Good-quality embryo and blast formation rates increased and peaked in Q3. LHGI <3.93 mIU/ml impaired ongoing pregnancy rate and LBR. After adjusting for AMH and AFC, the impacts were not significant. As LHtrigger increased, E2/oocytes and good-quality embryo rate increased and peaked in T4 and implantation rate increased and peaked in T3. LHtrigger <1.49 mIU/ml independently influenced clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) after adjusting for AMH and AFC. LHGI was positively related to AMH, AFC, LHtrigger, blast formation rate and negatively related to BMI, age and Gn dose. LHtrigger was positively related to E2/oocytes and good quality embryo rate. CONCLUSIONS: Lower serum LH represents as a potential indicator for embryo quality and reproductive outcomes in GnRH antagonist fixed protocol pretreated with estradiol. Early identification of excessive suppression of LH levels will benefit individuals with normal ovarian reserve more.

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.

GnRH antagonist impairs the process of embryo implantation by inhibiting motility of endometrial stromal cells through reducing c-kit expression.

BACKGROUND: It has been recognized that the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol has a detrimental effect on clinical outcomes compared to the GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) protocol during in vitro fertilization-fresh embryo transfer (IVF-ET) cycles. However, the related mechanisms were unclear. METHODS: A total of 18,561 patients, who underwent fresh IVF-ET cycles in the Center for Assisted Reproduction of Jiangxi Maternal and Child Health Hospital from January 2014 to September 2021, were retrospectively analyzed. The propensity score matching (PSM) technique was used to control for confounding factors between the GnRH-ant and GnRH-a groups. Human endometrial stromal cells (hESCs) were collected for primary culture and treated with relevant receptor antagonists and activators. RT-PCR, Western Blot, immunofluorescence staining, cell migration and adhesion assays, and animal experiments were employed to elucidate the molecular mechanism by which GnRH antagonist affects the migration and adhesion ability of hESCs. RESULTS: There was no statistical difference between the two groups in terms of baseline characteristics after matching basal status by propensity score matching. The result showed that the endometrial thickness (10.4 ± 2.35 vs. 11.03 ± 2.61 mm, p < .001) on trigger day was significantly lower in the GnRH-ant group. Compared with the GnRH-a protocol, the implantation rate (39.71% vs. 50.36%, p < .001), biochemical pregnancy rate (64.26% vs. 72.7%, p < .001), clinical pregnancy rate (56.39% vs. 65.24%, p < .001), live birth rate (45.25% vs. 56.1%, p < .001) in the GnRH-ant group were significantly decreased. Contrarily, the rate of early miscarriage in the GnRH-ant group (13.95% vs. 9.04%, p < .001) was higher than in the GnRH-a group. Furthermore, after treating with GnRH-ant, hESCs showed a reduced expression of HOXA10 and MMP-9 proteins, and a weakened migration ability. Subsequently, by establishing the co-culture system of hESCs and JAR trophoblast spheroids, we found that GnRH-ant inhibited the adhesion and invasion ability of trophoblast cells. Moreover, we also found a decreased expression and phosphorylation of c-kit receptor in decidualized hESCs after treating with GnRH-ant. Similar results as observed above were also confirmed when inhibiting the activation of c-kit receptor by imatinib. CONCLUSIONS: GnRH-ant could reduce the motility of hESCs by inhibiting the expression and activation of the C-kit receptor, which impaired the process of embryo implantation.

Predictive model of IVF outcomes for polycystic ovarian morphology and polycystic ovary syndrome in GnRH antagonist protocol using AMH-MoM and ovarian sensitivity index.

AIM: To evaluate the relationship between AMH and ovarian response to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in women with PCOM and PCOS. METHODS: A retrospective study was conducted on 559 patients who underwent the IVF-ET cycle between January 2018 and December 2022 at Gangnam Cha Hospital. Patients were divided into 3 groups matched for age and BMI: the PCOS group (n = 54), based on the new 2023 PCOS guideline; the PCOM group (n = 53); and the control group (n = 452) with normal ovaries. Serum AMH levels were converted to multiples of the median (MoM) for each corresponding age. The ovarian sensitivity index (OSI) was calculated as the number of retrieved oocytes divided by the total dose of recombinant FSH administered (per 1000 IU). RESULTS: There were significant differences in AMH-MoM value among women with PCOS [2.7 ± 1.3 (95% CI 2.3-3.0)], those with PCOM [2.0 ± 1.0 (95% CI 1.7-2.3)], and controls [0.8 ± 0.7 (95% CI 0.8-0.9)] (p < 0.001). The abortion rates in the normoovulatory, PCOM, and PCOS groups were 18.2%, 21.1%, and 25.0%, respectively. OSI and live birth rate were positively correlated with the AMH-MoM value in normoovulatory women (r = 0.389, p < 0.05, r = 0.122, p < 0.05), while no such correlation was observed in women with PCOM and PCOS. CONCLUSIONS: Ovarian response and live birth rate are possibly correlated with the AMH-MoM value in normoovulatory women, but not in women with PCOM and PCOS.

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.

The comparision among euploidy of preimplantation blastocysts in different controlled ovary stimulation (COH) protocols.

PURPOSE: To compare differences in euploidy rates for blastocysts in preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) cycles after gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) long and short protocols, GnRH-antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol, progestin-primed ovarian stimulation and mild stimulation protocols, and other ovary stimulation protocols. METHODS: This was a retrospective cohort study from the Assisted Reproductive Medicine Department of Shanghai First Maternity and Infant Hospital. A total of 1657 PGT-A cycles with intracytoplasmic sperm injection after different controlled ovary hyperstimulation protocols were analyzed, and a total of 3154 embryos were biopsied. Differences in euploidy rate per embryo biopsied, embryo euploidy rate per oocyte retrieved and cycle cancellation rate were compared. RESULTS: For the PGT-A cycles, the euploidy rate per embryo biopsied was lower in the GnRH-ant protocol than in the GnRH-a long protocol (53.26 vs. 58.68%, respectively). Multiple linear regression showed that the GnRH-ant protocol was associated with a lower euploidy rate per embryo biopsied (ß = -0.079, p = 0.011). The euploidy rate per embryo biopsied was not affected by total gonadotropin dosage, duration of stimulation and number of oocytes retrieved. The embryo euploidy rate per oocyte retrieved was similar in all protocols and was negatively correlated with the total number of oocytes retrieved (ß = -0.003, p = 0.003). CONCLUSION: Compared with the GnRH-a long protocol, the GnRH-ant protocol was associated with a lower euploidy rate per embryo biopsied. The total gonadotropin dosage, duration of stimulation and number of oocytes retrieved did not appear to significantly influence euploidy rates.

Severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome following sole gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist trigger: a case series and literature review.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to report three cases of early severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in patients undergoing a GnRH antagonist protocol triggered with GnRH agonist (GnRH-a), leading to hospitalization and the need for peritoneal drainage. Additionally, a review of the existing literature on this topic is provided. DESIGN: This is a retrospective case series and a literature review. SETTING: This study was conducted at obstetrics and gynecology department of tertiary academic referral hospitals, Israel. PARTICIPANTS: This study included three patients presented with severe OHSS symptoms, including abdominal distension, ascites, and hemoconcentration. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The main focus of the treatment was to address the symptoms and prevent any further complications. The outcome was the complete recovery of the patients. RESULTS: The presented cases detail instances of severe OHSS following oocyte retrieval, utilizing GnRH-a for triggering. Case 1 involved a 33-year-old patient with a history of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), Case 2 featured a 22-year-old patient with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), and Case 3 included a 41-year-old patient with a history of depressive disorder. All patients receiving supportive care, including infusions and medications, exhibited gradual improvement during hospitalization, with complete resolution observed during the 20-day post-hospitalization check-up. CONCLUSIONS: These three cases highlight the occurrence of severe early OHSS following a GnRH antagonist protocol triggered with GnRH-a in the absence of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration for trigger or luteal-phase support. Clinicians must be aware that a GnRH-a trigger followed by a freeze-all approach does not guarantee the complete elimination of OHSS in all patients.

Inflammatory Changes after Medical Suppression of Suspected Endometriosis for Implantation Failure: Preliminary Results.

Unexplained euploid embryo transfer failure (UEETF) is a frustrating and unanswered conundrum accounting for 30 to 50% of failures in in vitro fertilization using preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A). Endometriosis is thought by many to account for most of such losses and menstrual suppression or surgery prior to the next transfer has been reported to be beneficial. In this study, we performed endometrial biopsy in a subset of women with UEETF, testing for the oncogene BCL6 and the histone deacetylase SIRT1. We compared 205 PGT-A cycles outcomes and provide those results following treatment with GnRH agonist versus controls (no treatment). Based on these and previous promising results, we next performed a pilot randomized controlled trial comparing the orally active GnRH antagonist, elagolix, to oral contraceptive pill (OCP) suppression for 2 months before the next euploid embryo transfer, and monitored inflammation and miRNA expression in blood, before and after treatment. These studies support a role for endometriosis in UEETF and suggest that medical suppression of suspected disease with GnRH antagonist prior to the next transfer could improve success rates and address underlying inflammatory and epigenetic changes associated with UEETF.