https://doi.org/10.4081/ejtm.2022.10634
Comparison of two ovarian stimulation protocols among women with poor response: A randomized clinical trial
Submitted: 23 May 2022
Accepted: 30 May 2022
Published: 6 July 2022
Accepted: 30 May 2022
Abstract Views: 1143
PDF: 572
HTML: 99
HTML: 99
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Authors
This is a randomized controlled trial conducted in a tertiary referral fertility department. Participants were women with previous poor ovarian response undergoing in vitro fertilization. (IVF). One hundred and ninety-two women were randomized to the short GnRH agonist and antagonist regimens. The primary outcome was the number of oocytes retrieved. Secondary outcome measures were the number of embryos transferred, chemical and clinical pregnancy rate and live birth. The number of oocytes retrieved was higher with the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist regimen compared to the short agonist regimen (3.10 2.70 vs. 2.992.60), but there was no significant difference. The duration of stimulation and total gonadotropin dose were higher with short agonist regimens compared to antagonist regimens, with the latter being statistically significant (p < 0.001). The chemical pregnancy rate was 8.33 percent with the short agonist regimen and 7.29 percent with the antagonist regimen, with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.79). In terms of lower cycles cancelation and higher chemical pregnancy, short GnRH agonist regim is appropriate choice for poor responders.
Keay SD, Liversedge NH, Mathur RS, Jenkins JM. Assisted conception following poor ovarian response to gonadotrophin stimulation. BJOG An Int J Obstet Gynaecol. 1997;104:521–7.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb11525.x
Garcia JE, Jones GS, Acosta AA, Wright G. Human menopausal gonadotropin/human chorionic gonadotropin follicular maturation for oocyte aspiration: Phase II, 1981. Fertil Steril. 1983;39:174–9.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)46815-9
Karande V, Gleicher N. A rational approach to the management of low responders in in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:1744–8.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/14.7.1744
Bewley S, Braude P, Davies M. Which career first? Bmj. 2005;331:588–9.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.331.7517.588
Ulug U, Ben-Shlomo I, Turan E, Erden HF, Ali Akman M, Bahceci M. Conception rates following assisted reproduction in poor responder patients: A retrospective study in 300 consecutive cycles. Reprod Biomed Online. 2003;6:439–43.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1472-6483(10)62164-5
Scott RT, Navot D. Enhancement of ovarian responsiveness with microdoses of gonadotropin- releasing hormone agonist during ovulation induction for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1994;61:880–5.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(16)56700-4
Surrey ES, Bower J, Hill DM, Ramsey J, Surrey MW. Clinical and endocrine effects of a microdose GnRH agonist flare regimen administered to poor responders who are undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1998;69 3 SUPPL. 2:419–24.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0015-0282(97)00575-X
Zhang X, Feng T, Yang J, Hao Y, Li S, Zhang Y, et al. A flexible short protocol in women with poor ovarian response over 40 years old. J Ovarian Res. 2021;14:3.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13048-020-00761-1
Huirne JAF, Lambalk CB. Gonadotropin-releasing-hormone-receptor antagonists. Lancet. 2001;358:1793–803.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(01)06797-6
Huirne JAF, van Loenen ACD, Schats R, McDonnell J, Hompes PGA, Schoemaker J, et al. Dose-finding study of daily gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist for the prevention of premature luteinizing hormone surges in IVF/ICSI patients: Antide and hormone levels. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:2206–15.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh357
Huirne JAF, Lambalk CB, Van Loenen ACD, Schats R, Hompes PGA, Fauser BCJM, et al. Contemporary Pharmacological Manipulation in Assisted Reproduction. Drugs. 2004;64:297–322.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00003495-200464030-00005
Craft I, Gorgy A, Hill J, Menon D, Podsiadly B. Will GnRH antagonists provide new hope for patients considered “difficult responders” to GnRH agonist protocols? Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2959–62.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/14.12.2959
Akman MA. Addition of GnRH antagonist in cycles of poor responders undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:2145–7.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/15.10.2145
Akman MA, Erden HF, Tosun SB, Bayazit N, Aksoy E, Bahceci M. Comparison of agonistic flare-up-protocol and antagonistic multiple dose protocol in ovarian stimulation of poor responders: Results of a prospective randomized trial. Hum Reprod. 2001;16:868–70.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/16.5.868
Sunkara SK, Coomarasamy A, Faris R, Braude P, Khalaf Y. Long gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus short agonist versus antagonist regimens in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: A randomized controlled trial. Fertil Steril. 2014;101:147–53.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2013.09.035
Kahraman K, Berker B, Atabekoglu CS, Sonmezer M, Cetinkaya E, Aytac R, et al. Microdose gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist flare-up protocol versus multiple dose gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in poor responders undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection-embryo transfer cycle. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:2437–44.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2008.03.057
Malmusi S, La Marca A, Giulini S, Xella S, Tagliasacchi D, Marsella T, et al. Comparison of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist and GnRH agonist flare-up regimen in poor responders undergoing ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2005;84:402–6.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2005.01.139
Schmidt DW, Bremner T, Orris JJ, Maier DB, Benadiva CA, Nulsen JC. A randomized prospective study of microdose leuprolide versus ganirelix in in vitro fertilization cycles for poor responders. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:1568–71.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.10.053
Lainas TG, Sfontouris IA, Papanikolaou EG, Zorzovilis JZ, Petsas GK, Lainas GT, et al. Flexible GnRH antagonist versus flare-up GnRH agonist protocol in poor responders treated by IVF: A randomized controlled trial. Hum Reprod. 2008;23:1355–8.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/den107
Aletebi F. Comparing gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists or gonadotrophin- releasing hormone antagonists in poor responder in IVF. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2007;12:123.
Griesinger G, Diedrich K, Tarlatzis BC, Kolibianakis EM. GnRH-antagonists in ovarian stimulation for IVF in patients with poor response to gonadotrophins, polycystic ovary syndrome, and risk of ovarian hyperstimulation: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13:628–38.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S1472-6483(10)60652-9
Pu D, Wu J, Liu J. Comparisons of GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2742–9.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der240
Ferraretti AP, La Marca A, Fauser BCJM, Tarlatzis B, Nargund G, Gianaroli L. ESHRE consensus on the definition of’poor response to ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization: The Bologna criteria. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1616–24.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der092
Papamentzelopoulou M, Stavros S, Mavrogianni D, Kalantzis C, Loutradis D, Drakakis P. Meta-analysis of GnRH-antagonists versus GnRH-agonists in poor responder protocols. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2021;304:547–57.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-020-05954-z
Lambalk CB, Banga FR, Huirne JA, Toftager M, Pinborg A, Homburg R, et al. GnRH antagonist versus long agonist protocols in IVF: A systematic review and meta-analysis accounting for patient type. Hum Reprod Update. 2017;23:560–79.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/dmx017
Madani T, Ashrafi M, Yeganeh LM. Comparison of different stimulation protocols efficacy in poor responders undergoing IVF: A retrospective study. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2012;28:102–5.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/09513590.2011.579206
Hugues JN, Durnerin IC. Revisiting gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist protocols and management of poor ovarian responses to gonadotrophins. Hum Reprod Update. 1998;4:83–101.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humupd/4.1.83
Cummins JM, Yovich JM, Edirisinghe WR, Yovich JL. Pituitary down-regulation using leuprolide for the intensive ovulation management of poor prognosis patients having in vitro fertilization (IVF)-related treatments. J Vitr Fertil Embryo Transf. 1989;6:345–52.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01138775
Kailasam C, Keay SD, Wilson P, Ford WCL, Jenkins JM. Defining poor ovarian response during IVF cycles, in women aged <40 years, and its relationship with treatment outcome. Hum Reprod. 2004;19:1544–7.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/deh273
Sunkara SK, Rittenberg V, Raine-Fenning N, Bhattacharya S, Zamora J, Coomarasamy A. Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: An analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1768–74.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/humrep/der106
Tazegül A, Görkemli H, Özdemir S, Aktan TM. Comparison of multiple dose GnRH antagonist and minidose long agonist protocols in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: A randomized controlled trial. Arch Gynecol Obstet. 2008;278:467–72.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-008-0620-9
Mohamed KA, Davies WAR, Allsopp J, Lashen H. Agonist “flare-up” versus antagonist in the management of poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization treatment. Fertil Steril. 2005;83:331–5.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fertnstert.2004.07.963
Bosch E, Broer S, Griesinger G, Grynberg M, Humaidan P, Kolibianakis E, et al. ESHRE guideline: ovarian stimulation for IVF/ICSI†. Hum Reprod Open. 2020;2020.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoaa009
Li XL, Wang L, Lv F, Huang XM, Wang LP, Pan Y, et al. The influence of different growth hormone addition protocols to poor ovarian responders on clinical outcomes in controlled ovary stimulation cycles: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Med (United States). 2017;96.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/MD.0000000000006443
Nagels HE, Rishworth JR, Siristatidis CS, Kroon B. Androgens (dehydroepiandrosterone or testosterone) for women undergoing assisted reproduction. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2015:CD009749.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009749.pub2
Siristatidis CS, Basios G, Pergialiotis V, Vogiatzi P. Aspirin for in vitro fertilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;2016:CD004832–CD004832.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004832.pub4
Ataalla WM, Elhamid T, Elhalwagy AE. Adjuvant sildenafil therapy in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: A prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Middle East Fertil Soc J. 2016;21:175–9.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mefs.2015.12.004
How to Cite
Bavarsadkarimi, M., Omidi, S., Shahmoradi, F., Heidar, Z., & Mirzaei, S. (2022). Comparison of two ovarian stimulation protocols among women with poor response: A randomized clinical trial. European Journal of Translational Myology, 32(3). https://doi.org/10.4081/ejtm.2022.10634
PAGEPress has chosen to apply the Creative Commons Attribution NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0) to all manuscripts to be published.