Micronized natural progesterone (Seidigestan®) vs GnRH antagonists for preventing the LH surge during controlled ovarian stimulation (PRO_NAT study): study protocol of a randomized clinical trial.

Introduction: Progesterone-primed cycles effectively suppress the pituitary LH surge during ovarian stimulation in oocyte donors and in the infertile population. Particularly in oocyte donors, the use of synthetic progesterone (progestins) has been explored in prospective clinical trials, showing mixed results. This trial was designed to determine whether the use of micronized natural progesterone is as effective as the GnRH-antagonist protocol in terms of the number of mature oocytes (MII) retrieved in oocyte donation cycles as a primary outcome, and it also aims to explore the corresponding results in recipients as a secondary outcome. Methods: We propose a prospective, open-label, non-inferiority clinical trial to compare a novel approach for oocyte donors with a control group, which follows the standard ovarian stimulation protocol used in our institution. A total of 150 donors (75 in each group) will be recruited and randomized using a computer algorithm. After obtaining informed consent, participants will be randomly assigned to one of two ovarian stimulation protocols: either the standard GnRH antagonist or the oral micronized natural progesterone protocol. Both groups will receive recombinant gonadotropins tailored to their antral follicle count and prior donation experiences, if any. The primary outcome is the number of mature metaphase II (MII) oocytes. Secondary measures include treatment duration, pregnancy outcomes in recipients, as well as the economic cost per MII oocyte obtained in each treatment regimen. Analyses for the primary outcome will be conducted in both the intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations. Each donor can participate only once during the recruitment period. The estimated duration of the study is six months for the primary outcome and 15 months for the secondary outcomes. Discussion: The outcomes of this trial have the potential to inform evidence-based adjustments in the management of ovarian stimulation protocols for oocyte donors. Clinical trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier, NCT05954962.

Meta-analysis of trigger timing in normal responders undergoing GnRH antagonist ovarian hyperstimulation protocol.

IMPORTANCE: The first meta-analysis focused only on gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists, which helped determine the effect of delay trigger on pregnancy outcomes. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the impact of delay trigger compared with standard trigger in normal responders undergoing GnRH antagonist protocol in improving pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: Studies published before April 2023 in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP and CBM databases were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies conducted in normal responders reporting the efficacy of delay trigger using GnRH antagonist protocol were included. Data were combined to calculate mean differences (MD) for continuous variables and odd ratios (OR) for categorical variables with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q test. RESULTS: Endpoints, including clinical pregnancy rate (CPR), live birth rate (LBR), the number of oocyte retrievals and embryos, and fertilization rate, were analyzed. Six (6) clinical studies (4 RCTs and 2 cohort studies) with 1,360 subjects were included. The pooled results showed that the number of oocyte retrievals (MD: 1.20, 95% CI: 1.10, 1.30, p < 0.01), fertilization rate (MD: 0.64, 95% CI: 0.29, 0.99, p < 0.01) and days of stimulation (MD: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.54, 1.37; p < 0.01) in the delay trigger group was significantly higher than that in the standard trigger group. However, there was no significant difference in the number of embryos (MD: 0.19, 95% CI: -0.29, 0.67, p = 0.44), CPR (OR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.72, 1.75; p = 0.062), and LBR (OR: 1.23; 95% CI: 0.90, 1.66; p = 0.19) between the two trigger groups. CONCLUSION: Delaying trigger time in GnRH antagonist protocol increased the number of oocytes retrieved but not the number of embryos. Furthermore, delay trigger shot was not associated with a clinical benefit towards CPR and LBR in women who underwent fresh embryo transfer cycles. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number: CRD42023413217.

Comparison of progesterone protocol versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in terms of preventing premature LH surge and assisted reproductive technology outcome in infertile women: a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Progesterone can be used instead of GnRH agonists and antagonists in order to avert a premature LH surge during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocol. Nonetheless, there is limited knowledge regarding its utilization. Thus, this study compared the effects of progesterone and GnRH antagonists (GnRH-ant) on premature LH surges and assisted reproductive technology (ART) results in infertile women undergoing ART. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this clinical trial, the progesterone protocol (study group) and GnRH-ant protocol (control group) were tested in 300 infertile individuals undergoing IVF/ICSI. The main outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved. The secondary outcomes included premature LH rise/surge, the quantity of follicles measuring ≥ 10 and 14 mm, oocyte maturity and fertilization rate, the number of viable embryos, high-quality embryo rate and pregnancy outcomes. RESULTS: The study group exhibited a statistically significant increase in the number of retrieved oocytes, follicles measuring 14 mm or greater, and viable embryos compared to the control group (P < 0.05). The study group also increased oocyte maturity, chemical pregnancy rate, and clinical pregnancy rate (P < 0.05). Both groups had similar mean serum LH, progesterone, and E2 levels on trigger day. The control group had more premature LH rise than the study group, although this difference was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, it can be stated that the progesterone protocol and the GnRH-ant protocol exhibit similar rates of sudden premature LH surge in infertile patients. However, it is important to note that the two regiments differ in their outcomes in ART. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was retrospectively registered in the Iranian website ( www.irct.ir ) for clinical trials registration ( http://www.irct.ir : IRCT-ID: IRCT20201029049183N, 2020-11-27).

Cumulative live birth rate of in vitro fertilization cycle via progestin-primed ovarian stimulation versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in infertile women with normal ovarian reserve: an open-label, randomized controlled trial.

This study aimed to evaluate the cumulative live birth rate (cLBR) of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol for in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycle in infertile women with normal ovarian reserve (NOR). Infertile women with NOR who underwent their first IVF cycle were enrolled in an open-label randomized controlled trial. Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive a freeze-all strategy with delayed embryo transfer (PPOS group, n = 174) and fresh embryo transfer first (GnRH-ant group, n = 174). The primary outcome was the cLBR per aspiration. The cLBR between the PPOS group and GnRH-ant group were comparable (55.75% vs. 52.87%, p = 0.591). A premature luteinizing hormone surge was not observed in the PPOS group, while there were six cases (3.45%) in the GnRH-ant group, but no premature ovulation in either of the groups. The pregnancy outcomes, including implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate and miscarriage rate, were all comparable. In addition, the number of retrieved oocytes, mature oocytes and viable embryos were similar (all p > 0.05) between the two groups.

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 protocol versus progestin-primed ovarian stimulation in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: The aim of this meta-analysis was comparing the efficacy of GnRH antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol and progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) in polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) women. METHODS: A search was conducted from PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane library, Web of Science, and Scopus databases to collect clinical papers regarding GnRH-ant protocol and PPOS protocol from inception to September 2023. Subsequently, the retrieved documents were screened, and the content of the documents that conformed to the requirements was extracted. Moreover, statistical meta-analyses were conducted using the RevMan 5.4 software. Furthermore, with the use of a star-based system and the Cochrane handbook, the methodological quality of the covered papers was evaluated on the Ottawa-Newcastle scale. RESULTS: A total of eight papers were covered in the meta-analysis, with 2156 PCOS women enrolled (i.e., 1085 patients in the GnRH-ant protocol group and 1071 patients in the PPOS group). As indicated by the meta-analysis results, the PPOS group was correlated with a lower risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (SMD = 9.24, [95% CI: (2.50, 34.21)], P = 0.0009), more gonadotropin (Gn) dose (SMD = - 0.34, [95% CI: (- 0.56, - 0.13)], P = 0.002) compared with GnRH-ant group. No statistical difference was identified on the oocytes condition and pregnancy outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: As revealed by the data of this study, the progesterone protocol is comparable with the GnRH-ant protocol in oocytes condition and clinical outcomes. The progestin-primed ovarian stimulation could serve as an alternative for polycystic ovarian syndrome women who have failed in GnRH antagonist protocol. The above-described conclusions should be verified by more high-quality papers due to the limitation of the number and quality of included papers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration: CRD42023411284.

Steroid profile in patients with breast cancer and in mice treated with mifepristone.

Progesterone receptors (PRs) are biomarkers used as prognostic and predictive factors in breast cancer, but they are still not used as therapeutic targets. We have proposed that the ratio between PR isoforms A and B (PRA and PRB) predicts antiprogestin responsiveness. The MIPRA trial confirmed the benefit of 200 mg mifepristone, administered to patients with tumors with a high PRA/PRB ratio, but dose-ranging has not been conducted. The aim of this study was to establish the plasma mifepristone levels of patients from the MIPRA trial, along with the resultant steroid profiles, and compare these with those observed in mifepristone-treated mice using therapeutic schemes able to induce the regression of experimental mammary carcinomas with high PRA/PRB ratios: 6 mg pellets implanted subcutaneously, or daily doses of 12 mg/kg body weight. The plasma levels of mifepristone and other 19 plasma steroids were measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectometry. In mifepristone-treated mice, plasma levels were lower than those registered in mifepristone-treated patients (i.e. day 7 after treatment initiation, pellet-treated mice: 8.4 ± 3.9 ng/mL; mifepristone-treated patients: 300.3 ± 31.7 ng/mL (mean ± s.d.; P < 0.001)). The increase in corticoid related steroids observed in patients was not observed in mifepristone-treated mice. The increase in progesterone levels was the most significant side effect detected in mifepristone-treated mice after 14 or 21 days of treatment, probably due to an ovarian compensatory effect not observed in postmenopausal patients. We conclude that in future clinical trials using mifepristone, the possibility of lowering the standard daily dose of 200 mg should be considered.

Live birth rate of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist versus luteal phase gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist protocol in IVF/ICSI: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In vitro fertilization (IVF) and embryo transfer and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) have allowed millions of infertile couples to achieve pregnancy. As an essential part of IVF/ICSI enabling the retrieval of a high number of oocytes in one cycle, controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) treatment mainly composes of the standard long gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) protocol and the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol. However, the effectiveness of GnRH-ant protocol is still debated because of inconsistent conclusions and insufficient subgroup analyses. This systematic review and meta-analysis included a total of 52 studies, encompassing 5193 participants in the GnRH-ant group and 4757 in the GnRH-a group. The findings of this study revealed that the GnRH-ant protocol is comparable with the long GnRH-a protocol when considering live birth as the primary outcome, and it is a favourable protocol with evidence reducing the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in women undergoing IVF/ICSI, especially in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Further research is needed to compare the subsequent cumulative live birth rate between the two protocols among the general and poor ovarian response patients since those patients have a lower clinical pregnancy rate, fewer oocytes retrieved or fewer high-grade embryos in the GnRH-ant protocol.

Efficacies of different ovarian hyperstimulation protocols in elderly patients with poor ovarian response.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to explore which controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) protocol is most suitable for elderly patients with poor ovarian response (POR) undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART). PATIENTS AND METHODS: This retrospective cohort study evaluated clinical data from 2,660 patients from January 2017 and October 2020. The patients were divided into three groups: modified Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist protocol (1,225 patients), GnRH antagonist protocol (1,038 patients), and Mild stimulation protocol (397 patients). Clinical variables and pregnancy outcomes were compared among the three groups. RESULTS: The GnRH agonist protocol was associated with a higher number of oocyte number (3.99±2.82 vs. 3.02±1.34 vs. 2.51±1.14, p<0.001), a higher number of transferable embryos (1.39±1.32 vs. 1.24±1.24 vs. 1.18±1.11, p = 0.035), higher cumulative live birth rate [26.53% (323/1,225) vs. 22.44% (233/1,038) vs. 21.66% (86/397), p = 0.043], lower OHSS rate [5.14% (63/1,225) vs. 3.08% (32/1,038) vs. 2.02% (8/397), p = 0.005] than GnRH antagonist protocol and Mild stimulation protocol, the Mild stimulation protocol was associated with higher miscarriage rates [30.4% (24/71) vs. 25.0% (33/192) vs. 29.6% (35/168), p = 0.014] than the other two groups. CONCLUSIONS: The three protocols can be used in elderly patients with POR; however, if patients require more frozen-thawed embryo transfers to achieve better cumulative live birth rates, the modified GnRH agonist protocol may be the better choice. It should be emphasized that the mild stimulation had a slightly higher miscarriage rate than the other two groups.

A review of phase II and III drugs for the treatment and management of endometriosis.

INTRODUCTION: Endometriosis is an estrogen-dependent disease that gives rise to pelvic pain and infertility. Although estroprogestins and progestins currently stand as the first-line treatments for this condition, demonstrating efficacy in two-thirds of patients, a significant portion of individuals experience only partial relief or symptom recurrence following the cessation of these therapies. The coexistence of superficial, deep endometriosis, and ovarian endometriomas, as three distinct phenotypes with unique pathogenetic and molecular characteristics, may elucidate the current heterogeneous biological response to available therapy. AREAS COVERED: The objective of this review is to furnish the reader with a comprehensive summary pertaining to phase II-III hormonal treatments for endometriosis. EXPERT OPINION: Ongoing research endeavors are directed toward the development of novel hormonal options for this benign yet debilitating disease. Among them, oral GnRH antagonists emerge as a noteworthy option, furnishing rapid therapeutic onset without an initial flare-up; these drugs facilitate partial or complete estrogen suppression, and promote prompt ovarian function recovery upon discontinuation, effectively surmounting the limitations associated with previously employed GnRH agonists. Limited evidence supports the use of selective estrogen and progesterone receptor modulators. Consequently, further extensive clinical research is imperative to garner a more profound understanding of innovative targets for novel hormonal options.

Analysis of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocols in women over 35 years old with poor ovarian response: a real-world study.

The objective of this study was to investigate the optimal controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) protocol for patients aged 35 and above with poor ovarian response (POR), utilizing real-world data. This retrospective cohort study examined clinical information from a total of 4256 patients between January 2017 and November 2022. The patients were categorized into three groups: modified GnRH agonist protocol (2116 patients), GnRH antagonist protocol (1628 patients), and Mild stimulation protocol (512 patients). Comparative analysis was conducted on clinical variables and pregnancy outcomes across the three groups. The GnRH agonist protocol was associated with a higher number of oocyte number (4.02 ± 2.25 vs. 3.15 ± 1.52 vs. 2.40 ± 1.26, p < 0.001), higher number of transferable embryos (1.73 ± 1.02 vs. 1.35 ± 1.22 vs. 1.10 ± 0.86, p = 0.016), higher cumulative live birth rate 28.50(603/2116) vs. 24.94(406/1628) vs. 20.51(105/512), p < 0.001) than GnRH antagonist protocol and Mild stimulation protocol, the Mild stimulation protocol was associated with a higher miscarriage rates 16.27(62/381) vs. 16.61(48/289) vs. 32.22(29/90), p = 0.001) than the other two groups. Therefore, it can be concluded that all three protocols can be used in patients over 35 years old with poor ovarian response. However, if patients require more frozen-thawed embryo transfers to achieve better cumulative live birth rates, the modified GnRH agonist protocol may be the preferable option.

Cocktail treatment by GnRH-antagonist, letrozole, and mifepristone for the prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a prospective randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: This study is aimed to determine the efficacy of a cocktail style treatment by combining GnRH-antagonist, letrozole, and mifepristone on the prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in high-risk women. METHODS: This prospective, randomized controlled clinical trial was performed between January 2018 and December 2018. A total of 170 women who identified as high risk of OHSS during the ovarian hyperstimulation and underwent cryopreservation of whole embryos. On the day of oocyte retrieval, the combination group received 0.25 mg Cetrorelix for 3 d, 5 mg letrozole for 5 d, and 50 mg mifepristone for 3 d, the mifepristone group received 50 mg mifepristone for 3 d. A total of 156 cases were included in final analysis. All the frozen embryo transfer (FET) cycles were followed up until December 2021. RESULTS: The combination group showed significantly decreased incidence of moderate and severe OHSS than mifepristone group (20.5% vs. 42.3%), with remarkably reduced serum estradiol level on hCG + 3 and + 5 d, decreased ovarian diameter, and shortened luteal phase. Oocyte retrieval number, levels of estradiol on hCG + 0 and VEGF, and ovarian diameter on hCG + 5 were associated with the severity of the symptoms. There was no significant difference in cumulative live birth rates (LBRs) between the combination and mifepristone group (74.4% vs. 76.9%). CONCLUSIONS: The combination treatment effectively reduces the incidence of moderate/severe OHSS in high-risk women.

Update on the management of endometriosis-associated pain in France.

The French National College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (CNGOF) published guidelines for managing endometriosis-associated pain in 2018. Given the development of new pharmacological therapies and a review that was published in 2021, most national and international guidelines now suggest a new therapeutic approach. In addition, a novel validated screening method based on patient questionnaires and analysis of 109-miRNA saliva signatures, which combines biomarkers and artificial intelligence, opens up new avenues for overcoming diagnostic challenges in patients with pelvic pain and for avoiding laparoscopic surgery when sonography and MRI are not conclusive. Dienogest (DNG) 2 mg has been a reimbursable healthcare expense in France since 2020, and, according to recent studies, it is at least as effective as combined hormonal contraception (CHC) and can be used as an alternative to CHC for first-line treatment of endometriosis-associated pain. Since 2018, the literature concerning the use of DNG has grown considerably, and the French guidelines should be modified accordingly. The levonorgestrel intrauterine system (LNG IUS) and other available progestins per os, including DNG, or the subcutaneous implant, can be offered as first-line therapy, gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists with add-back therapy (ABT) as second-line therapy. Oral GnRH antagonists are promising new medical treatments for women with endometriosis-associated pain. They competitively bind to GnRH receptors in the anterior pituitary, preventing native GnRH from binding to GnRH receptors and from stimulating the secretion of luteinizing hormone and follicle-stimulating hormone. Consequently, estradiol and progesterone production is reduced. Oral GnRH antagonists will soon be on the market in France. Given their mode of action, their efficacy is comparable to that of GnRH agonists, with the advantage of oral administration and rapid action with no flare-up effect. Combination therapy with ABT is likely to allow long-term treatment with minimal impact on bone mass. GnRH antagonists with ABT may thus be offered as second-line treatment as an alternative to GnRH agonists with ABT. This article presents an update on the management of endometriosis-associated pain in women who do not have an immediate desire for pregnancy.

Impact of growth hormone on IVF/ICSI outcomes and endometrial receptivity of patients undergoing GnRH antagonist protocol with fresh embryo transfer: a pilot study.

Introduction: Gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol is widely used in the world for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). However, previous studies have shown that pregnancy outcomes of fresh embryo transfer with GnRH-ant protocol are not ideal. Current studies have demonstrated the value of growth hormone (GH) in improving the pregnancy outcome of elderly women and patients with diminished ovarian reserve, but no prospective studies have confirmed the efficacy of GH in fresh embryo transfer with GnRH-ant protocol, and its potential mechanism is still unclear. This study intends to evaluate the impact of GH on IVF/ICSI outcomes and endometrial receptivity of patients undergoing GnRH-ant protocol with fresh embryo transfer, and preliminarily explore the possible mechanism. Methods: We designed a randomized controlled trial of 120 infertile patients with normal ovarian response (NOR) who will undergo IVF/ICSI from April 2023 to April 2025, at Department of Reproductive Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology. The patients will be divided into the depot gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) protocol group, GnRH-ant protocol control group, and GnRH-ant protocol plus GH intervention group at a ratio of 1:1:1 by block randomization design. Patients will be followed on enrollment day, trigger day, embryo transfer day, 7 days after oocytes pick-up, 15 days after embryo transfer, 28 days after embryo transfer, and 12 weeks of gestation. The primary outcome is the ongoing pregnancy rate. Secondary outcomes include the gonadotropin dosage, duration of COH, endometrial thickness and pattern, luteinizing hormone, estradiol, progesterone level on trigger day, numbers of retrieved oocytes, high-quality embryo rate, biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, ectopic pregnancy rate, early miscarriage rate, multiple pregnancy rate and incidence of moderate and severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. The endometrium of certain patients will be collected and tested for endometrial receptivity. Ethics and dissemination: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology [approval number: TJ-IRB20230236; approval date: February 10, 2023]. The research results will be presented at scientific/medical conferences and published in academic journals. Clinical trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry; identifier: ChiCTR2300069397.

The effect of luteinizing hormone changes in GnRH antagonist protocol on the outcome of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation and embryo transfer.

BACKGROUD: To investigate the effect of Luteinizing hormone (LH) level changes on the outcomes of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) and embryo transfer (ET) in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol. METHODS: A total of 721 patients undergoing GnRH-ant protocol COH for the first IVF/ICSI cycles were retrospectively analyzed. COH process were divided into 2 stages, before (stage 1) and after (stage 2) the GnRH-ant initiation, and each with 5 groups basing on LH levels: LH decreased more than 50% (groups A1, A2), decreased 25-50% (groups B1, B2), change less than 25% (groups C1, C2), increased 25-50% (groups D1, D2), and increased more than 50% (groups E1, E2). RESULTS: There were no significant differences among groups of stage1 regarding COH and ET outcomes. For stage 2, the more obvious the decrease of LH level, the more the number of oocytes retrieved, mature oocytes, fertilized oocytes, embryos cleavaged and the numbers of embryo available (P < 0.05), but without significant differences regarding ET outcomes. We also found the freeze-all rate in Group A2 was higher (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: LH level changes before GnRH-ant addition were not related to COH and ET outcomes. LH level changes after the addition of GnRH-ant were related to the outcome of COH, and no significant differences were found relating to ET outcomes.

Oral gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists: the continuing search for the ideal nonsurgical therapy of uterine fibroids with a cautionary tale.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Uterine fibroids are very common with a prevalence of over 70%. They present a significant economic and psychological burden. A variety of nonsurgical treatments exist for its management encompassing hormonal and nonhormonal methods. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists are a novel treatment for uterine fibroids. They cause a rapid reduction in endogenous GnRH, leading to a dose-dependent reduction in levels of oestradiol and progesterone, thus reduction in bleeding. The addition of hormones, estrogen, and progesterone, known as add-back therapy, helps curb the menopausal side effects. As such, they pose a potential long-term nonsurgical therapy for management of symptomatic fibroids. RECENT FINDINGS: There are various uses of GnRH antagonists and the results from the clinical trials are promising. Caution needs to be taken when new treatment options are introduced with audit and data collection tools in place to assess effectiveness as well as any side effects. SUMMARY: This article highlights the uses of GnRH antagonists in practice and reflects on previous novel treatments for fibroids with a focus on Ulipristal acetate. It states the importance of using audit tools and multiinstitutional databases to prevent and allow early discovery of issues such as those that encumbered Ulipristal.

Association between serum LH levels on hCG trigger day and live birth rate after fresh embryo transfer with GnRH antagonist regimen in different populations.

Objective: To investigate whether serum LH levels on hCG trigger day are associated with live birth rate (LBR) after fresh embryo transfer with GnRH antagonist regimen in different populations. Methods: This study was a retrospective study. A total of 3059 fresh embryo transfers were divided into three populations: predicted normal ovarian responders (NOR) (n=2049), patients with PCOS (n=533), and predicted poor ovarian responders (POR) (n=477). Each population was stratified into three groups based on LH levels: < 25th percentile, 25-75th percentile, and > 75th percentile. The primary outcome of the study was LBR, and secondary outcomes included implantation, clinical pregnancy, and early pregnancy loss rates. Univariable and multivariable regression analyses were performed to adjust for potential confounders. Results: In NOR, compared to the reference group (>75th percentile), LBR was significantly lower in the < 25th percentile group (adjusted OR=0.662; 95%CI, 0.508-0.863) and 25-75th percentile group (adjusted OR=0.791; 95%CI, 0.633-0.988). In PCOS patients, LBR decreased significantly in the < 25th percentile group (41.4%) compared to the 25-75th percentile group (53.7%) and > 75th percentile group (56.1%). In addition, the LBR was lower in the < 25th percentile group (33.6%) compared with the 25-75th percentile group (43.4%) and the>75th percentile group (42.0%) in POR, but this was not statistically significant. Conclusions: High serum LH levels are associated with increased LBR after fresh embryo transfer in GnRH antagonist cycles, which may be attributable to higher implantation rate. LH may be a predictor of whether to schedule fresh embryo transfer in IVF cycles for better clinical outcomes.

Effect of Mifepristone vs Placebo for Treatment of Adenomyosis With Pain Symptoms: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Adenomyosis is a common chronic gynecological disorder, and its treatment is an unmet need. New therapies need to be developed. Mifepristone is being tested for adenomyosis treatment. Objective: To determine whether mifepristone is effective and safe for adenomyosis treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, placebo-controlled, double-blind randomized clinical trial was conducted in 10 hospitals in China. In total, 134 patients with adenomyosis pain symptoms were enrolled. Trial enrollment began in May 2018 and was completed in April 2019, and analyses were conducted from October 2019 to February 2020. Interventions: Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive mifepristone 10 mg or placebo orally once a day for 12 weeks. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was the change in adenomyosis-associated dysmenorrhea intensity, evaluated by the visual analog scale (VAS) after 12 weeks of treatment. Secondary end points included the change in menstrual blood loss, increased level of hemoglobin in patients with anemia, CA125 level, platelet count, and uterine volume after 12 weeks of treatment. Safety was assessed according to adverse events, vital signs, gynecological examinations, and laboratory evaluations. Results: In total, 134 patients with adenomyosis and dysmenorrhea were randomly assigned, and 126 patients were included in the efficacy analysis, including 61 patients (mean [SD] age, 40.2 [4.6] years) randomized to receive mifepristone and 65 patients (mean [SD] age, 41.7 [5.0] years) randomized to received the placebo. The characteristics of the included patients at baseline were similar between groups. The mean (SD) change in VAS score was -6.63 (1.92) in the mifepristone group and -0.95 (1.75) in the placebo group (P < .001). The total remission rates for dysmenorrhea in the mifepristone group were significantly better than those in the placebo group (effective remission: 56 patients [91.8%] vs 15 patients [23.1%]; complete remission: 54 patients [88.5%] vs 4 patients [6.2%]). All the secondary end points showed significant improvements after mifepristone treatment for menstrual blood loss, hemoglobin (mean [SD] change from baseline: 2.13 [1.38] g/dL vs 0.48 [0.97] g/dL; P < .001), CA125 (mean [SD] change from baseline: -62.23 [76.99] U/mL vs 26.89 [118.70] U/mL; P < .001), platelet count (mean [SD] change from baseline: -28.87 [54.30]×103/µL vs 2.06 [41.78]×103/µL; P < .001), and uterine volume (mean [SD] change from baseline: -29.32 [39.34] cm3 vs 18.39 [66.46] cm3; P < .001). Safety analysis revealed no significant difference between groups, and no serious adverse events were reported. Conclusions and Relevance: This randomized clinical trial showed that mifepristone could be a new option for treating patients with adenomyosis, based on its efficacy and acceptable tolerability. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03520439.

Outcomes and cost-effectiveness comparisons of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation, GnRH antagonist protocol, and luteal phase stimulation for fertility preservation.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) and the gonadotropin-releasing hormone-antagonist (GnRH-A) protocol in fertility preservation (FP) in cancer patients. The stimulation option when patients were in the luteal phase was also explored. METHODS: This retrospective study analyzed clinical data from 163 patients who underwent FP. The number of retrieved oocytes and vitrified oocytes/embryos, total dose of gonadotropin, duration of stimulation, number of injections, and cost were compared among the PPOS, GnRH-A, and luteal phase stimulation (LPS) groups. RESULTS: No significant differences were noted in the numbers of retrieved oocytes and vitrified oocytes/embryos among the three groups. In the multiple regression model, age (P = 0.02) and antral follicle count (AFC) (P < 0.001), but not the controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) protocols (P = 0.586), were associated with the number of retrieved oocytes. The number of injections and the cost were all significantly lower in the PPOS and LPS groups than in the GnRH-A group(P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: PPOS had similar clinical results but was superior medically and economically to GnRH-A. For patients in the luteal phase, LPS was an optional protocol with similar outcomes and costs to PPOS.

A premature luteinizing hormone surge without elevated progesterone levels has no adverse effect on cumulative live birth rate in patient undergoing a flexible GnRH antagonist protocol: a retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: A premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge refers to an endogenous LH peak that occurs before follicle maturation or human chorionic gonadotropin injection in the process of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. The effect of premature LH surge on pregnancy outcomes in fresh embryo transfer cycles is still controversial. The aim of this study was to explore the effect of a premature LH surge without elevated progesterone levels on the cumulative pregnancy rate (CPR) and cumulative live birth rate (CLBR) of patients during a flexible GnRH antagonist protocol. METHODS: A total of 730 infertile women undergoing IVF/ICSI were recruited for this retrospective study. Only women who either delivered a live infant or had no remaining frozen embryos after a single stimulation cycle were included in the analysis. During the study period, each patient underwent a flexible GnRH antagonist protocol. Women were divided into two groups according to the presence or absence of a premature LH surge. The primary outcome measures were the CPR and CLBR per ovarian stimulation cycle. The secondary outcome measures were the number of oocytes retrieved, fertilization rate, good-quality embryo rate, and clinical pregnancy rate. RESULTS: Ninety-one women (12.47%) experienced a premature LH surge without elevated progesterone levels, and the other 639 (87.53%) women were assigned to the control group. The numbers of oocytes retrieved and fertilization rate were significantly greater in the premature LH surge group than in the control group. There was no significant difference between groups in the good-quality embryo rate, clinical pregnancy rate or live birth rate in the fresh embryo transfer cycle. The primary outcome measures, the CPR and CLBR per ovarian stimulation cycle, were not significantly different between the premature LH surge group and the control group. According to the analysis stratified by ovarian response (normal or high), there were no significant differences in pregnancy outcomes between the groups with and without a premature LH surge. CONCLUSIONS: The retrospective study demonstrated that the patients experiencing a transient premature LH surge without progesterone elevation had equivalent pregnancy outcomes with those without a premature LH surge on a flexible GnRH antagonist protocol. The present conclusions need to be further validated in a prospective well-designed large-scale study.