Efficacy, tolerability, and safety of teverelix DP in patients with advanced prostate cancer: A multicenter, open-label, phase 2 trial.

BACKGROUND: Teverelix drug product (DP) is a novel injectable gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist. METHODS: An adaptive phase 2, open-label, multicenter trial was conducted in patients with advanced prostate cancer to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a combined subcutaneous (SC) and intramuscular (IM) loading dose regimen of teverelix DP of 120 mg SC + 120 mg IM (Group 1; N = 9) or 180 mg SC + 180 mg IM (Group 2; N = 41) administered at a single visit, followed by 6-weekly SC maintenance doses of 120 mg (Group 1) or 180 mg (Group 2), up to Day 168. The primary endpoint was the proportion of patients achieving castration levels with serum testosterone <0.5 ng/mL at Day 28 with a target castration rate of 90%. Injection sites were inspected by the investigator at every visit and reactions (ISRs) were proactively recorded. RESULTS: The target castration rate was reached in Group 2 (97.5%) but not in Group 1 (62.5%). The castration rates were not maintained to Day 42 (Group 2: 82.5%; Group 1: 50.0%). Suppression of testosterone to castrate levels occurred rapidly (median time: 2 days for both groups). Suppression of testosterone, prostate-specific antigen, follicle-stimulating hormone, and luteinizing hormone was sustained throughout the treatment period, being more prominent with the higher dose. The adverse event (AE) profile was similar between groups. The most common AEs were injection-site induration (n = 40: 80.0%), injection-site erythema (n = 35: 70.0%), and hot flush (n = 21: 42.0%). Most ISRs were Grade 1. CONCLUSION: Overall, the teverelix DP doses were generally well-tolerated but did not adequately maintain castration levels.

Cardiovascular Risk in Prostate Cancer Patients Using Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone Agonists or a Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone Antagonist.

PURPOSE: Luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LHRH) agonists are believed to have higher cardiovascular risk relative to gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists. However, previous studies have not consistently demonstrated this. We used real-world clinical practice data to evaluate differences in major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) risk between LHRH agonists compared to a GnRH antagonist following androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) initiation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed a retrospective analysis of data in the Decision Resources Group (now Clarivate) Real World Evidence repository, which represents >300 million US patients from 1991 to 2020 across all US regions. Patients with prostate cancer who received at least 1 injection of ADT were included. The risks of MACE and all-cause mortality as independent endpoints were evaluated, Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed, and associations between MACE and all available confounding risk factors were evaluated by Cox regression analysis using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. RESULTS: A total of 45,059 men with prostate cancer treated with ADT were analyzed. Overall, the risks of MACE and all-cause mortality were slightly lower in the first year after ADT initiation compared to subsequent years. MACE risk was higher for the GnRH antagonist compared to LHRH agonists (HR=1.62; 95% CI 1.21-2.18, P = .001). The risk of all-cause mortality was also higher for the GnRH antagonist vs LHRH agonists (HR=1.87; 95% CI 1.39-2.51, P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The adjusted incidence of MACE was higher for men treated with the GnRH antagonist compared to the LHRH agonists. The demographic and risk factors with the greatest impact on MACE risk were higher age, baseline metastasis, oncology (vs urology) setting, personal MACE history, antagonist (vs agonist), tobacco history, White (vs Black) race, and lower BMI.

BEYOND: a randomized controlled trial comparing efficacy and safety of individualized follitropin delta dosing in a GnRH agonist versus antagonist protocol during the first ovarian stimulation cycle.

STUDY QUESTION: How does a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist versus a GnRH antagonist protocol affect ovarian response when using an individualized fixed daily dose of follitropin delta for ovarian stimulation? SUMMARY ANSWER: The BEYOND trial data demonstrate thatindividualized fixed-dose follitropin delta is effective when used in a GnRH agonist protocol, compared with a GnRH antagonist protocol, in women with anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) ≤35 pmol/l and no increased risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: The efficacy and safety of an individualized fixed daily dose of follitropin delta (based on body weight and AMH) have been established in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using a GnRH antagonist protocol. Preliminary study data indicate that individualized follitropin delta is also efficacious in a GnRH agonist protocol (RAINBOW trial, NCT03564509). There are no prospective comparative data using individualized follitropin delta for ovarian stimulation in a GnRH agonist versus a GnRH antagonist protocol. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: This is the first randomized, controlled, open-label, multi-centre trial exploring efficacy and safety of individualized follitropin delta dosing in a GnRH agonist versus a GnRH antagonist protocol in participants undergoing their first ovarian stimulation cycle for IVF/ICSI. A total of 437 participants were randomized centrally and stratified by centre and age. The primary endpoint was the number of oocytes retrieved. Secondary endpoints included ongoing pregnancy rates, adverse drug reactions (including OHSS), live births, and neonatal outcomes. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Participants (18-40 years; AMH ≤35 pmol/l) were enrolled at specialist reproductive health clinics in Austria, Denmark, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and Switzerland. The mean number of oocytes retrieved was compared between the GnRH agonist and antagonist protocols using a negative binomial regression model with age and AMH at screening as factors. Analyses were based on all randomized subjects, using a multiple imputation method for randomized subjects withdrawing before the start of stimulation. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Of the 437 randomized subjects, 221 were randomized to the GnRH agonist, and 216 were randomized to the GnRH antagonist protocol. The participants had a mean age of 32.3 ± 4.3 years and a mean serum AMH of 16.6 ± 7.8 pmol/l. A total of 202 and 204 participants started ovarian stimulation with follitropin delta in the GnRH agonist and antagonist groups, respectively. The mean number of oocytes retrieved was statistically significantly higher in the agonist group (11.1 ± 5.9) versus the antagonist group (9.6 ± 5.5), with an estimated mean difference of 1.31 oocytes (95% CI: 0.22; 2.40, P = 0.0185). The difference in number of oocytes retrieved was influenced by the patients' age and ovarian reserve, with a greater difference observed in patients aged <35 years and in patients with high ovarian reserve (AMH >15 pmol/l). Both the GnRH agonist and antagonist groups had a similar proportion of cycle cancellations (2.0% [4/202] versus 3.4% [7/204]) and fresh blastocyst transfer cancellations (13.4% [27/202] versus 14.7% [30/204]). The estimated ongoing pregnancy rate per started cycle was numerically higher in the GnRH agonist group (36.9% versus 29.1%; difference: 7.74% [95% CI: -1.49; 16.97, P = 0.1002]). The most commonly reported adverse events (≥1% in either group; headache, OHSS, nausea, pelvic pain, or discomfort and abdominal pain) were similar in both groups. The incidence of early moderate/severe OHSS was low (1.5% for the agonist group versus 2.5% for antagonist groups). Estimated live birth rates per started cycle were 35.8% and 28.7% in the GnRH agonist and antagonist groups, respectively (treatment difference 7.15%; 95% CI: -2.02; 16.31; P = 0.1265). The two treatment groups were comparable with respect to neonatal health data for singletons and twins and for incidence of congenital malformations (2.7% and 3.3% for the GnRH agonist versus antagonist groups, respectively). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: All participants had AMH ≤35 pmol/l and were ≤40 years old. Clinicians should remain cautious when using a GnRH agonist protocol in patients with AMH >35 pmol/l (i.e. those with an increased OHSS risk). The incidence of OHSS in the GnRH antagonist group may have been lower if a GnRH agonist trigger had been allowed. Outcomes of transfers with cryopreserved blastocysts were not followed up, therefore the cumulative live birth rates and neonatal outcomes after cryotransfer are unknown. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: In women with AMH ≤35 pmol/l, an individualized fixed daily dose of follitropin delta resulted in a significantly higher number of oocytes retrieved when used in a GnRH agonist protocol compared with a GnRH antagonist protocol, with no additional safety signals observed and no additional risk of OHSS. Live birth rates following ovarian stimulation with individualized follitropin delta were not statistically different between the GnRH protocols; however, the trial was not powered to assess this endpoint. There were no safety concerns with respect to neonatal health after ovarian stimulation with follitropin delta in either protocol. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): The trial was funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals. EE, EP, and MS have no competing interests. AP has received research support from Ferring, and Gedeon Richter, and honoraria or consultation fees from Preglem, Novo Nordisk, Ferring, Gedeon Richter, Cryos, Merck A/S. BC has received consulting fees from Ferring and Merck, and his department received fees from Ferring to cover the costs of patient enrolment. MBS has received support to attend meetings and/or travel from Ferring, and was a board member for FertiPROTEKT e.V. until 2023. JS has received honoraria or consultation fees from Ferring and Merck, and support for attending meetings and/or travel from Ferring, Merck, and GoodLife. TS has received support/travel expenses from Ferring for attending a congress meeting, and participated in an advisory board for Merck. YS has received grants/research support from Ferring and support to attend a professional society congress meeting from Merck. RL and PP are employees of Ferring Pharmaceuticals. PP is a BOD member of PharmaBiome and owns stocks of Takeda Pharmaceuticals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT03809429; EudraCT Number 2017-002783-40. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 7 April 2019. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT: 2 May 2019.

Linzagolix therapy versus a placebo in patients with endometriosis-associated pain: a prospective, randomized, double-blind, Phase 3 study (EDELWEISS 3).

STUDY QUESTION: Does linzagolix administered orally once daily for up to 3 months at a dose of 75 mg alone or 200 mg in combination with add-back therapy (ABT) (1.0 mg estradiol; 0.5 mg norethindrone acetate, also known as norethisterone acetate [NETA]) demonstrate better efficacy than placebo in the management of endometriosis-related dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain? SUMMARY ANSWER: Combining 200 mg linzagolix with ABT was found to significantly reduce dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain at 3 months of therapy, while a daily dose of 75 mg linzagolix yielded a significant decrease only in dysmenorrhea at 3 months. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY?: A previously published Phase 2, dose-finding study reported that at a dose of 200 mg daily, linzagolix promotes full suppression of estradiol secretion to serum levels below 20 pg/ml and noted that the addition of ABT may be needed to manage hypoestrogenic side effects. At lower doses (75 mg and 100 mg/day), linzagolix maintains estradiol values within the target range of 20-60 pg/ml, which could be ideal to alleviate symptoms linked to endometriosis. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: EDELWEISS 3 was a multicenter, prospective, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, double-dummy Phase 3 study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of linzagolix for the treatment of moderate-to-severe endometriosis-associated pain. Treatment was administered orally once daily for up to 6 months. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: In the EDELWEISS 3 trial, 486 subjects with moderate-to-severe endometriosis-associated pain were randomized at a 1:1:1 ratio to one of the three study groups: placebo, 75 mg linzagolix alone or 200 mg linzagolix in association with ABT. Pain was measured daily on a verbal rating scale and recorded in an electronic diary. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: At 3 months, the daily 200 mg linzagolix dose with ABT met the primary efficacy objective, showing clinically meaningful and statistically significant reductions in dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain, with stable or decreased use of analgesics. The proportion of responders for dysmenorrhea in the 200 mg linzagolix with ABT group was 72.9% compared with 23.5% in the placebo group (P < 0.001), while the rates of responders for non-menstrual pelvic pain were 47.3% and 30.9% (P = 0.007), respectively. The 75 mg linzagolix daily dose demonstrated a clinically meaningful and statistically significant reduction in dysmenorrhea versus placebo at 3 months. The proportion of responders for dysmenorrhea in the 75 mg linzagolix group was 44.0% compared with 23.5% in the placebo group (P < 0.001). Although the 75 mg dose showed a trend toward reduction in non-menstrual pelvic pain at 3 months relative to the placebo, it was not statistically significant (P = 0.279). Significant improvements in dyschezia and overall pelvic pain were observed in both linzagolix groups when compared to placebo. Small improvements in dyspareunia scores were observed in both linzagolix groups but they were not significant. In both groups, hypoestrogenic effects were mild, with low rates of hot flushes and bone density loss of <1%. A daily dose of 200 mg linzagolix with ABT or 75 mg linzagolix alone was found to significantly reduce dysmenorrhea and non-menstrual pelvic pain also at 6 months of therapy. LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: Efficacy was compared between linzagolix groups and placebo; however, it would be useful to have results from comparative studies with estro-progestogens or progestogens. It will be important to ascertain whether gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists have significant benefits over traditional first-line medications. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: Linzagolix administered orally once daily at a dose of 200 mg in combination with add-back therapy (ABT) demonstrated better efficacy and safety than placebo in the management of moderate-to-severe endometriosis-associated pain. The quality of life was improved and the risks of bone loss and vasomotor symptoms were minimized due to the ABT. The 75 mg dose alone could be suitable for chronic treatment of endometriosis-associated pain without the need for concomitant hormonal ABT, but further research is needed to confirm this. If confirmed, it would offer a viable option for women who do not want to wish to have ABT or for whom it is contraindicated. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): Funding for the EDELWEISS 3 study was provided by ObsEva (Geneva, Switzerland). Analysis of data and manuscript writing were partially supported by ObsEva (Geneva, Switzerland), Theramex (London, UK) and Kissei (Japan) and grant 5/4/150/5 was awarded to M.-M.D. by FNRS. J.D. was a member of the scientific advisory board of ObsEva until August 2022, a member of the scientific advisory board of PregLem, and received personal fees from Gedeon Richter, ObsEva and Theramex. J.D. received consulting fees, speakers' fees, and travel support from Gedeon Richter, Obseva and Theramex, which was paid to their institution. C.B. has received fees from Theramex, Gedeon Richter, and Myovant, and travel support from Gedeon Richter-all funds went to the University of Oxford. He was a member of the data monitoring board supervising the current study, and served at an advisory board for endometriosis studies of Myovant. H.T. has received grants from Abbvie and was past president of ASRM. F.C.H. has received fees from Gedeon Richter and Theramex. O.D. received fees for lectures from Gedeon Richter and ObsEva and research grants for clinical studies from Preglem and ObsEva independent from the current study. A.H. has received grants from NIHR, UKRI, CSO, Wellbeing of Women, and Roche Diagnostics; he has received fees from Theramex. A.H.'s institution has received honoraria for consultancy from Roche Diagnostics, Gesynta, and Joii. M.P. has nothing to declare. F.P. has received fees from Theramex. S.P.R. has been a member of the scientific advisory board of Gedeon Richter and received fees from Gedeon Richter. A.P. and M.B. are employees of Theramex. E.B. was an employee of ObsEva, sponsor chair of the data monitoring board supervising the current study, and has been working as a consultant for Theramex since December 2022; she owns stock options in ObsEva. M.-M.D. has received fees and travel support from Gedeon Richter and Theramex. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT03992846. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 20 June 2019. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLLMENT: 13 June 2019.

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.

Relugolix combination therapy in Black/African American women with symptomatic uterine fibroids: LIBERTY Long-Term Extension study.

BACKGROUND: In the LIBERTY Long-Term Extension study, once-daily relugolix combination therapy (40 mg relugolix, estradiol 1 mg, norethindrone acetate 0.5 mg) substantially improved uterine fibroid-associated heavy menstrual bleeding throughout the 52-week treatment period in the overall study population. OBJECTIVE: Black or African American women typically experience a greater extent of disease and symptom burden of uterine fibroids vs other racial groups and have traditionally been underrepresented in clinical trials. This secondary analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of relugolix combination therapy in the subgroup population of Black or African American women with uterine fibroids in the LIBERTY Long-Term Extension study. STUDY DESIGN: Black or African American premenopausal women (aged 18-50 years) with uterine fibroids and heavy menstrual bleeding who completed the 24-week randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind LIBERTY 1 (identifier: NCT03049735) or LIBERTY 2 (identifier: NCT03103087) trials were eligible to enroll in the 28-week LIBERTY Long-Term Extension study (identifier: NCT03412890), in which all women received once-daily, open-label relugolix combination therapy. The primary endpoint of this subanalysis was the proportion of Black or African American treatment responders: women who achieved a menstrual blood loss volume of <80 mL and at least a 50% reduction in menstrual blood loss volume from the pivotal study baseline to the last 35 days of treatment by pivotal study randomized treatment group. The secondary outcomes included rates of amenorrhea and changes in symptom burden and quality of life. RESULTS: Overall, 241 of 477 women (50.5%) enrolled in the LIBERTY Long-Term Extension study self-identified as Black or African American. In Black or African American women receiving continuous relugolix combination therapy for up to 52 weeks, 58 of 70 women (82.9%; 95% confidence interval, 72.0%-90.8%) met the treatment responder criteria for reduction in heavy menstrual bleeding (primary endpoint). A substantial reduction in menstrual blood loss volume from the pivotal study baseline to week 52 was demonstrated (least squares mean percentage change: 85.0%); 64.3% of women achieved amenorrhea; 59.1% of women with anemia at the pivotal study baseline achieved a substantial improvement (>2 g/dL) in hemoglobin levels; and decreased symptom severity and distress because of uterine fibroid-associated symptoms and improvements in health-related quality of life through 52 weeks were demonstrated. The most frequently reported adverse events during the cumulative 52-week treatment period were hot flush (12.9%), headache (5.7%), and hypertension (5.7%). Bone mineral density was preserved through 52 weeks. CONCLUSION: Once-daily relugolix combination therapy improved uterine fibroid-associated heavy menstrual bleeding in most Black or African American women who participated in the LIBERTY Long-Term Extension study. The safety and efficacy profile of relugolix combination therapy in Black or African American women was consistent with previously published results from the overall study population through 52 weeks. Findings from this subanalysis will assist shared decision-making by helping providers and Black or African American women understand the efficacy and safety of relugolix combination therapy as a pharmacologic option for the management of uterine fibroid-associated symptoms.

Considerations on implementation of the newest treatment for symptomatic uterine fibroids: Oral GnRH antagonists.

Novel gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist treatments have recently been developed in combination with hormonal add-back therapy, as an oral treatment option for women suffering from uterine fibroids. Registration trials assessing the GnRH antagonist combination preparations with relugolix, elagolix and linzagolix have assessed treatment efficacy for fibroid-related heavy menstrual blood loss in comparison to placebo. Marketing authorization has been granted by several agencies including those in Europe, the United Kingdom and the United States. While the registration trials report a robust effect on the reduction of heavy menstrual blood loss and improvement in quality of life scores, reticence is advised before widespread prescription. In this review, we demonstrate limitations in the trial data, namely a lack of generalizability due to the restricted study population, the lack of transparency in the distribution of disease-level characteristics limiting the predictability of treatment success in the real-world diverse population, and the absence of any comparison to current alternative treatment methods. Importantly, no clinically meaningful volume reductions were found with GnRH antagonist combination preparations, and long-term safety data, particularly concerning modest but stable bone mineral density decline, need further addressing. Symptoms related to uterine fibroids adversely affect many women's quality of life and effective medical treatments are lacking. However, despite the urgent need for conservative treatments, it is vitally important that novel drugs, like combination oral GnRH antagonists, undergo sufficiently rigorous evaluation of safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in a representative population and are compared with alternative treatment methods before introduction into mainstream clinical practice.

LH supplementation in IVF: human nature, politics, and elephants in the room.

Luteinizing hormone (LH) is present throughout the natural follicular phase. However, the debate is still not settled on whether LH is needed during ovarian stimulation in IVF. This commentary looks at the evolution of this debate, mentioning three elephants in the room that were ignored by the Pharma industry, professional organizations, and clinicians alike: 1. The different endocrinology between the long agonist and the antagonist protocols. 2. The fixed dose of the two most widely commercially available antagonist preparations, namely cetrorelix and ganirelix. 3. The fact that most research in this area uses population-based criteria, ignoring endocrine parameters. Individual genetics of the LH receptor gene may also serve to individualize LH needs during stimulation; however, the jury is still out regarding this approach. CONCLUSIONS: Individual endocrine and genetics parameters may shed meaningful light on the question of LH supplemental during ovarian stimulation.

The effects of flexible short protocol with gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist on preventing premature ovulation in poor responders.

PURPOSE: The proportion of patients with poor ovarian response (POR) is increasing, but effective treatment remains a challenge. To control the hidden peaks of luteinizing hormone (LH) and premature ovulation for poor responders, this study investigated the efficacy of flexible short protocol (FSP) with gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) on trigger day. METHODS: The 662 cycles of POR patients were retrospectively analyzed. The cohort was divided into control and intervention groups. The intervention group (group A) with 169 cycles received a GnRH-ant given on trigger day. The control (group B) with 493 cycles received only FSP. The clinical outcomes of the two groups were compared. RESULTS: Compared with group B, with gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) on trigger day in group A the incidences of spontaneous premature ovulation decreased significantly (2.37% vs. 8.72%, P < 0.05). The number of fresh embryo-transfer cycles was 45 in group A and 117 in group B. There were no significant differences in clinical outcomes, including implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, live birth rate and the cumulative live birth rate (12.0% vs. 9.34%; 22.22% vs. 21.93%; 17.78% vs. 14.91%; 20.51% vs. 20%, respectively; P > 0.05) between the two group. CONCLUSION: FSP with GnRH-ant addition on trigger day had no effect on clinical outcomes, but could effectively inhibit the hidden peaks of luteinizing hormone (LH) and spontaneous premature ovulation in POR. Therefore, it is an advantageous option for POR women.

GnRH antagonist monotherapy versus a GnRH agonist plus bicalutamide for advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer; KYUCOG-1401.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness and safety of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist monotherapy to combined androgen blockade (CAB) with a GnRH agonist and bicalutamide in patients with advanced hormone-sensitive prostate cancer (HSPC). METHODS: The study was conducted as KYUCOG-1401 trial (UMIN000014243) and enrolled 200 patients who were randomly assigned to either group A (GnRH antagonist monotherapy followed by the addition of bicalutamide) or group B (CAB by a GnRH agonist and bicalutamide). The primary endpoint was PSA progression-free survival. The secondary endpoints were the time to CAB treatment failure, radiographic progression-free survival, overall survival, changes in serum parameters, including PSA, hormones, and bone and lipid metabolic markers, and adverse events. RESULTS: PSA progression-free survival was significantly longer in group B (hazard ratio [HR], 95% confidence interval [CI]; 1.40, 1.01-1.95, p = 0.041). The time to CAB treatment failure was slightly longer in group A (HR, 95% CI; 0.80, 0.59-1.08, p = 0.146). No significant differences were observed in radiographic progression-free survival or overall survival. The percentage of patients with serum testosterone that did not reach the castration level was higher at 60 weeks (p = 0.046) in group A. No significant differences were noted in the serum levels of bone metabolic or lipid markers between the two groups. An injection site reaction was more frequent in group A. CONCLUSIONS: The present results support the potential of CAB using a GnRH agonist and bicalutamide as a more effective treatment for advanced HSPC than GnRH antagonist monotherapy.

Non-inferiority of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus GnRH antagonist protocol: A propensity score-weighted analysis.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol versus the gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol in ovarian stimulation. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, we included 804 patients who were treated between January 1st, 2022, and July 1st, 2023. Outcomes of ovarian stimulation were compared between the PPOS (n = 206) and GnRH-ant (n = 598). The primary outcome was the number of good cleavage embryos. RESULTS: Baseline characteristics were comparable in both groups. In both unadjusted and adjusted analysis, the mean number of good cleavage embryos in PPOS (6.33) was non-inferior to GnRH-ant (6.44; unadjusted ratio of two means 1.02, 95%CI 0.92, 1.13). The trigger-day estradiol level in patients with PPOS was higher than in patients with GnRH-ant (4,420 vs 3,830 pg/ml, respectively) despite similar total follicle stimulating hormone dose and fewer days of ovarian stimulation. The number of oocytes, MII oocytes, cleavage and blastocyst embryos were comparable between the two protocols. After the first transfer of embryos, the clinical pregnancy rate and implantation rate were higher in the PPOS group, while the pregnancy rate and ongoing pregnancy were not significantly different. None of the PPOS patients had an unexpected LH surge, and serum LH levels decreased slightly during ovarian stimulation. CONCLUSIONS: The PPOS protocol with dydrogesterone provided similar embryo outcomes to the GnRH-ant protocol, with notable distinctions in clinical pregnancy and implantation rate. The serum LH concentration during ovarian stimulation using PPOS was well-controlled.

Evaluation of the Impact of Letrozole in Combination with the GnRH Antagonist Ovarian Stimulation Protocol in Patients Expected to Have a Poor Ovarian Response (POSEIDON Groups 3 and 4).

Background and Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of adjuvant letrozole administration during ovarian stimulation using the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol on treatment outcomes in women categorized into POSEIDON groups 3 and 4. Materials and Methods: This retrospective cohort study analyzed data from patients classified into POSEIDON groups 3 and 4 who underwent fresh embryo transfer subsequent to intracytoplasmic sperm injection following a GnRH antagonist stimulation protocol between January 2017 and December 2021. Patients were divided into two groups: the GnRH-LZ group, who received letrozole at a dosage of 5 mg/day for five consecutive days, and the GnRH-ant group, who did not receive adjuvant letrozole. The primary outcome measure of the study was a comparative analysis of live birth rates between the two groups. Results: A total of 449 patients were deemed suitable for final analysis and were allocated into two groups: 281 patients in the GnRH-ant group and 168 patients in the GnRH-LZ group. Live birth rates were found to be comparable in both groups (11% vs. 9%, p = 0.497). Letrozole administration significantly reduced the total amount of gonadotropins required (2606.2 ± 1284.5 vs. 3097.8 ± 1073.3, p < 0.001), the duration of ovarian stimulation (11.2 ± 3.9 vs. 10.2 ± 3, p = 0.005), and the serum peak estradiol concentration (901.4 ± 599.6 vs. 463.8 ± 312.3, p < 0.001). Conclusions: Adjuvant letrozole administration did not demonstrate a significant impact on live birth rates among women categorized into POSEIDON groups 3 and 4. However, this approach may offer potential cost reductions by diminishing the necessity for exogenous gonadotropins and shortening the duration of ovarian stimulation.

Progestin Primed Ovarian Stimulation (PPOS) protocol yields lower euploidy rate in older patients undergoing IVF.

BACKGROUND: To explore if exogenous progestin required for progestin primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol compromises the euploidy rate of patients who underwent preimplantation genetic testing cycles when compared to those who received the conventional gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analyzed 128 preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) cycles performed from January 2018 to December 2021 in a single university hospital-affiliated fertility center. Infertile women aged 27 to 45 years old requiring PGT-A underwent either PPOS protocol or GnRH-antagonist protocol with in-vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) for fertilization. Frozen embryo transfers were performed following each PGT-A cycle. Data regarding the two groups were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). RESULTS: Patients who underwent PPOS treatment had significantly reduced blastocyst formation rate and euploidy rate compared to those who received the GnRH antagonist protocol. Subgroup-analysis was performed by stratifying patients' age into elder and young subgroups (elder: ≥ 38-year-old, young: < 38-year-old). In the elder sub-population, the blastocyst formation rate of the PPOS group was significantly lower than that of the GnRH-antagonist group (45.8 ± 6.1% vs. 59.9 ± 3.8%, p = 0.036). Moreover, the euploidy rate of the PPOS group was only about 20% of that of  the GnRH-antagonist group (5.4% and 26.7%, p = 0.006). In contrast, no significant differences in blastocyst formation rate (63.5 ± 5.7% vs. 67.1 ± 3.2%, p = 0.45) or euploidy rate (30.1% vs. 38.5%, p = 0.221) were observed in the young sub-population. Secondary outcomes, which included implantation rate, biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, live birth rate, and miscarriage rate, were comparable between the two treatment groups, regardless of age. CONCLUSION: When compared to the conventional GnRH-antagonist approach, PPOS protocol could potentially reduce the euploidy rate in aging IVF patients. However, due to the retrospective nature of this study, the results are to be interpreted with caution. Before the PPOS protocol is widely implemented, further studies exploring its efficacy in larger populations are needed to define the optimal patient selection suitable for this method. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Human Investigation and Ethical Committee of Chang Gung Medical Foundation (202200194B0).

Medroxyprogesterone acetate: an alternative to GnRH-antagonist in oocyte vitrification for social fertility preservation and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy.

RESEARCH QUESTION: Can medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA) be used as a pituitary suppressor instead of a gonadotrophin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist during ovarian stimulation in elective fertility preservation and preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A) cycles? DESIGN: A multicentre, retrospective, observational, cohort study conducted in 11 IVIRMA centres affiliated to private universities. Of a total of 1652 cycles of social fertility preservation, 267 patients were stimulated using a progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol (PPOS), and 1385 patients received a GnRH antagonist. In the PGT-A cycles, 5661 treatments were analysed: 635 patients received MPA and 5026 patients received GnRH antagonist. A further 66 fertility preservation and 1299 PGT-A cycles were cancelled. All cycles took place between June 2019 and December 2021. RESULTS: In the social fertility preservation cycles, the number of mature oocytes vitrified in MPA was similar to the number of those treated with an antagonist, a trend that was seen regardless of age (≤35 or >35 years). In the PGT-A cycles, no differences were found in number of metaphase II, two pronuclei, number of biopsied embryos (4.4 ± 3.1 versus 4.5 ± 3.1), rate of euploidy (57.9% versus 56.4%) or ongoing pregnancy rate (50.4% versus 47.1%, P = 0.119) between the group receiving MPA versus a GnRH antagonist, whereas the clinical miscarriage rate was higher in the antagonist group (10.4% versus 14.8%, P = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of PPOS yields similar results to GnRH antagonists in oocytes retrieved, rate of euploid embryos and clinical outcome. Hence, PPOS can be recommended for ovarian stimulation in social fertility preservation and PGT-A cycles, as it allows greater patient comfort.

Androgen Deprivation Therapy and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease in Patients With Prostate Cancer Based on Existence of Cardiovascular Risk.

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) associated with androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in patients with prostate cancer. We sought to evaluate the association between gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists versus GnRH antagonist and the risk of CVD in patients with prostate cancer with or without prior CVD. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Using administrative databases from Quebec, Canada, we identified first-time GnRH agonists and antagonist (degarelix) users between January 2012 and June 2016. Follow-up ended at the earliest of the following: first CVD event (myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, ischemic heart disease [IHD], arrhythmia, and heart failure [HF]); switch of GnRH group; death; or December 31, 2016. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) based on the propensity score was used to control for potential confounding. IPTW-Cox proportional hazards model accounting for competing risks was used to evaluate the association of interest. RESULTS: Among 10,785 patients identified, 10,201 and 584 were on GnRH agonists and antagonist, respectively. Median age was 75 years (interquartile range, 69-81 years) for both groups. A total of 4,152 (40.7%) men in the GnRH agonists group and 281 (48.1%) men in the GnRH antagonist group had CVD in the 3-year period prior to ADT initiation. Risk of HF was decreased in the antagonist group compared with the GnRH agonist group among patients with prior CVD (hazard ratio [HR], 0.46; 95% CI, 0.26-0.79). Risk of IHD was decreased in the antagonist group in patients without prior CVD (HR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.11-0.65). Use of antagonist was associated with an increased risk of arrhythmia among patients with no prior CVD (HR, 2.34; 95% CI, 1.63-3.36). CONCLUSIONS: Compared with GnRH agonists, the GnRH antagonist was found to be associated with a decreased risk of HF, specifically among patients with prior CVD. Among those with no prior CVD, the GnRH antagonist was associated with a decreased risk of IHD but an increased risk of arrhythmia.

Effect modification by developmental stage of embryos on the association between late follicular phase progesterone elevation and live birth in fresh transfers.

BACKGROUND: Late follicular phase progesterone elevation (LFPE) during ovarian stimulation is associated with reduced live birth rates (LBRs) after cleavage-stage embryo transfer. However, due to better synchronization with a stimulated endometrium, prior studies shown that LFPE had no effect on transferring embryos at blastocyst stage. The study aim to exam whether the developmental stage of embryos and serum progesterone levels on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration jointly affect the odds of live birth in fresh fresh IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles.  METHODS: The single-center retrospective cohort study included a total of 4,471 fresh embryo transfer cycles with 2,342 at cleavage stage versus 2,129 at blastocyst stage. Patients underwent IVF/ICSI with ovarian stimulation in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol. The serum progesterone level was examined both as a continuous variable and as a categorical variable by quartiles. Analysis was performed using the generalized estimating equations framework and multivariate regression models. RESULTS: LBRs were inversely associated with progesterone as a continuous variable on the day of hCG in both the cleavage-stage (crude OR 0.87, 95%CI 0.73-1.03; adjusted OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.65-0.98) and the blastocyst-stage (crude OR 0.66, 95%CI 0.56-0,78; adjusted OR 0.61, 95%CI 0.50-0.73) groups. The interaction testing was highly significant (P = 0.018) indicating an effect modifying role of stage of embryos transferred on the association of pregesterone values with the LBRs in fresh cycles. A similar pattern for a greater reduction in ORs for live birth in cycles with blastocysts transfer was also observed when progesterone was analyzed by interquartile ranges. The findings remained unchanged in subgroup analysis stratified by types of ovarian response. CONCLUSIONS: In fresh cycles, detrimental effect of late follicular phase progesterone elevation on live birth was more prominent in blastocyst-stage group compared with that in clevaged-stage group.

Introduce an optimal method of ovarian stimulation in the polycystic ovarian syndrome affected: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Currently, optimal method of ovarian stimulation (OS) to in-vitro fertilization (IVF) in the patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is unknown. The present research aims to study the efficiency of minimal-OS method in treatment of infertile patients with PCOS and also the effect of gonadotropin type (recombinant FSH (r-FSH) vs. urinary Human menopausal gonadotropin (u-HMG)) on treatment cycles with GnRH-antagonist. METHODS: In this randomized controlled trial, a total of 120 eligible patients were randomly allocated into four groups of OS to IVF: minimal-OS with r-FSH, minimal-OS with u-HMG, mild-OS with r-FSH and mild-OS with u-HMG. IVF outcomes of groups were analyzed statically. RESULTS: The statistical analysis showed that there were significant differences among groups regarding stimulation duration (p < 0.0001), number of retrieved oocytes (p < 0.0001), number of obtained embryos (p < 0.0001). There were no statistically significant differences in fertilization rate (p = 0.289) and implantation rate (p = 0.757) among our participants. There were also significant differences among these four groups in terms of clinical pregnancy rate (/ET and /cycles) (p < 0.0001, p = 0.021, respectively) and live birth rate/cycles (p < 0.0001). Also cases of freeze all embryos due to prevention of ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome (OHSS) (p = 0.004). CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of present results the minimal-OS with u-HMG may be one of optimal methods of control OS in the patients with PCOS in respect to serum levels of estradiol on the day of triggering final oocyte maturation, total dose of prescribed gonadotropin, the optimal number of oocytes and embryos obtained, rate of clinical pregnancy and the incidence of OHSS risk. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT, NCT03876145. Registered 15/03/2019. Retrospectively registered, http://www. CLINICALTRIAL: gov/ NCT03876145.

Comparative evaluation of metformin & sitaformin in classic PCOS patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection: A randomized controlled pilot study.

Background & objectives: Studies have shown that insulin resistance and hyperinsulinaemia play a major role in the pathogenesis of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). Therefore, the use of insulin sensitizing drugs in the treatment of PCOS has attracted the attention of medicine and researchers. The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of sitaformin (sitagliptin/metformin) and metformin on the quality of oocyte and embryo in classic PCOS patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Methods: Sixty patients of PCOS (25-35 yr) were randomly allocated into three groups (n=20, each group): a metformin-treated group (administered metformin 500 mg twice daily), a sitaformin-treated group (administered sitaformin 50/500 mg twice daily) and a placebo group. Participants in all the groups received the drug two months prior to the start of the ovulation cycle and treatment continued until the day of the oocyte aspiration. Results: Serum insulin and total testosterone levels decreaseed significantly after treatment in both the treatment groups as compared to the placebo (P<0.05). A significant decrease in the number of immature oocytes [MI + germinal vesicle (GV) stage] was observed in metformin and sitaformin groups as compared to the placebo. In addition, sitaformin group when compared to the metformin group showed a significant decrease in the number of immature oocytes (P<0.05). The number of mature and normal MII oocytes increased significantly in both the treatment groups compared to the placebo group (P<0.05). The number of mature and normal oocytes increased in sitaformin group in comparison to the metformin group, but the difference was not significant. There was a significant increase in the number of grade I embryos, fertilization and cleavage rates in the sitaformin group compared to the other groups (P<0.05). Interpretation & conclusions: This is the first study to compare the impact of sitaformin with metformin on oocyte and embryo quality in women with PCOS undergoing a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist cycle. In conclusion, sitaformin can be more effective in decreasing immature oocytes and increasing the quality of embryos than the use of metformin.

Rapid reduction of adenomyosis coexisting with leiomyoma volume during treatment with Relugolix.

OBJECTIVE: This study elucidated the efficacy of Relugolix (REL) on the reduction of uterine volume and clinical symptoms for the treatment of adenomyosis. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients who received REL (40 mg for about 20 weeks) and who underwent a hysterectomy for adenomyosis or fibroids. We divided patients into two groups: adenomyosis coexisting with fibroids (Group A) and fibroids only (Group B); the groups were determined by a postoperative pathological examination. The primary end points were the percent reduction in uterine volume, adenomyotic lesion, and the largest fibroid volume at week 16. The secondary end points were the rate of amenorrhea, pelvic pain, and anemia at week 12. RESULTS: A total of 56 patients participated in the current study: 20 in Group A and 36 in Group B. Regarding the largest fibroid volume, there was no significant difference between the two groups. Uterine volume after REL treatment was significantly decreased in Group A (43%), as compared to Group B (27%) (p = .00972), In Group A, adenomyotic lesion was decreased by 61%. Irrespective of the group, adenomyosis showed a significant reduction compared to uterine fibroids (p < .001). There was no statistically significant difference in the mitigation of symptoms (amenorrhea, pelvic pain, and anemia) between the two groups. CONCLUSIONS: REL is more effective in reducing adenomyotic lesion than uterine fibroids and in relieving symptoms (amenorrhea, pelvic pain, and anemia). It can be expected that REL will also be used as a preoperative treatment for adenomyosis.

Correlation between the number of oocytes and the increase of polyspermy rate in IVF cycles.

Aims: To investigate the association between the number of oocytes and the polyspermy rate following in vitro fertilization (IVF) treatment. Materials and methods: 376 IVF cycles with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol in the reproductive center of our hospital were retrospectively included in the analysis, which were divided into five groups according to the number of oocytes retrieved. Group A (78 cases):1-5 oocytes, group B (118 cases): 6-10 oocytes, group C (94 cases): 11-15 oocytes, group D (55 cases): 16-20 oocytes, group E (31 cases): ≥21 oocytes. According to polyspermy rate, 376 IVF cycles were then divided into two groups. Normal level polyspermy group (170 cases): polyspermy rate<6%, and high level polyspermy group (206 cases): polyspermy rate ≥ 6%. The variables with p < .10 in univariate analysis were incorporated into the multiple logistic regression model to control the confounding, and the effect of the number of oocytes on the increase of polyspermy rate was analyzed. Results: Multiple logistic regression analysis showed that after adjustment for confounding factor, the increase risk of polyspermy rate in group B, C, D and E was 1.763, 3.804, 2.021 and 3.208 times of that in group A respectively (OR = 1.763, p = .085; OR = 3.804, p = .001; OR = 2.021, p = .158; OR = 3.208, p = .068, respectively). Conclusion: This result demonstrated that when the oocyte number is 15 or less, the more the oocyte number, the greater the increase risk of polyspermy rate. While, there appears to be little increase risk of polyspermy rate when the oocyte number is more than 15.