UNASSIGNED: This study aims to determine whether the live birth rates were similar between GnRH antagonist original reference product Cetrotide® and generic Ferpront®, in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol for controlled ovarian stimulation (COS).
UNASSIGNED: This retrospective cohort study investigates COS cycles utilizing GnRH antagonist protocols. The research was conducted at a specialized reproductive medicine center within a tertiary care hospital, spanning the period from October 2019 to October 2021. Within this timeframe, a total of 924 cycles were administered utilizing the GnRH antagonist originator, Cetrotide® (Group A), whereas 1984 cycles were undertaken using the generic, Ferpront® (Group B).
UNASSIGNED: Ovarian reserve markers, including anti-Mullerian hormone, antral follicle number, and basal follicular stimulating hormone, were lower in Group A compared to Group B. Propensity score matching (PSM) was performed to balance these markers between the groups. After PSM, baseline clinical features were similar, except for a slightly longer infertile duration in Group A versus Group B (4.43 ± 2.92 years vs. 4.14 ± 2.84 years, P = 0.029). The duration of GnRH antagonist usage was slightly longer in Group B than in Group A (6.02 ± 1.41 vs. 5.71 ± 1.48 days, P < 0.001). Group B had a slightly lower number of retrieved oocytes compared to Group A (14.17 ± 7.30 vs. 14.96 ± 7.75, P = 0.024). However, comparable numbers of usable embryos on day 3 and good-quality embryos were found between the groups. Reproductive outcomes, including biochemical pregnancy loss, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth rate, did not differ significantly between the groups. Multivariate logistic regression analyses suggested that the type of GnRH antagonist did not independently impact the number of oocytes retrieved, usable embryos, good-quality embryos, moderate to severe OHSS rate, clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, or live birth rate.
UNASSIGNED: The retrospective analysis revealed no clinically significant differences in reproductive outcomes between Cetrotide® and Ferpront® when used in women undergoing their first and second COS cycles utilizing the GnRH antagonist protocol.

UNASSIGNED: The main purpose of this study is to compare the embryo development and clinical outcomes of women in different age groups undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) processes using gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol, GnRH agonist long protocol, and early follicular phase protocol. We aim to provide reliable reference for future clinical treatments.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a detailed analysis of patients who underwent treatment between January 2021 and February 2023. 1) In the overall patient population, we comprehensively compared the basic characteristics, the embryo development, and the clinical outcomes of patients treated with three different ovarian stimulation protocols, including the GnRH antagonist protocol group (n=4173), the agonist long protocol group (n=2410), and the early follicular phase long protocol group (n=341). 2) We divided the overall population into three age groups, one group for patients under 30 years old (n=2576), one for patients aged 30-35 (n=3249), and one for patients older than 35 years old (n=1099). Then, we compared the three stimulation protocols based on the group division. We separately compared the embryo development and clinical outcomes of patients using the three stimulation protocols in the under 30 years old, the 30-35 years old, and the over 35 years old age groups. With this analysis, we aimed to explore the response of different age groups to different stimulation protocols and their impact on the success rate of IVF.
UNASSIGNED: 1) In the overall population, we found that the average number of oocytes retrieved in the GnRH agonist long protocol group was significantly higher than that in the GnRH antagonist protocol group ([13.85±7.162] vs. [13.36±7.862], P=0.0224), as well as the early follicular phase long protocol group ([13.85±7.162] vs. [11.86±6.802], P<0.0001). Patients in the GnRH antagonist protocol group not only had a significantly lower starting dose of gonadotrophin (Gn) compared to the other two groups (P<0.05) but also had a significantly lower number of days of Gn use (P<0.05). The blastocyst formation rate in the GnRH antagonist protocol group was the highest among the three groups, significantly higher compared to the GnRH agonist long protocol group (64.91% vs. 62.35%, P<0.0001) and the early follicular phase long protocol group (64.91% vs. 61.18%, P=0.0001). However, there were no significant differences in the clinical pregnancy rates or the live birth rates among the three groups treated with different ovarian stimulation protocols (P>0.05). 2) In the <30 age group, the blastocyst formation rate in the GnRH antagonist protocol group was the highest among the three groups, significantly higher compared to the GnRH agonist long protocol group (66.12% vs. 63.33%, P<0.0001) and the early follicular phase long protocol group (66.12% vs. 62.13%, P=0.0094). In the 30-35 age group, the blastocyst formation rate in the GnRH antagonist protocol group was the highest among the three groups, significantly higher compared to the GnRH agonist long protocol group (64.88% vs. 62.93%, P=0.000 9) and the early follicular phase long protocol group (64.88% vs. 60.39%, P=0.0011). In the >35 age group, the blastocyst formation rate in the GnRH antagonist protocol group was significantly higher than that in the GnRH agonist long protocol group (59.83% vs. 56.51%, P=0.0093), while there was no significant difference compared to that of the early follicular phase long protocol group (P>0.05). In the three age groups, we found that there were no significant differences in clinical pregnancy rate, live birth rate, and neonatal outcome indicators (fetal weight and Apgar score) among the three stimulation protocols (antagonist protocol, GnRH agonist long protocol, and early follicular phase long protocol) (P>0.05). The findings showed no significant differences between clinical and neonatal outcomes in patients of all ages, regardless of the ovarian stimulation protocol, suggesting that the three ovarian stimulation protocols have similar therapeutic effects in patients of different ages. The results of this study have important implications for the selection of an appropriate ovarian stimulation protocol and the prediction of treatment outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: In the younger than 30 and 30-35 age groups, the GnRH antagonist protocol showed a more significant advantage over the GnRH agonist long protocol and the early follicular phase long protocol. This suggests that for younger and middle-aged patients, the antagonist protocol may lead to better outcomes during ovarian stimulation. In the older than 35 age group, while the antagonist protocol still outperformed the GnRH agonist long protocol, there was no significant difference compared to the early follicular phase long protocol. This may imply that with increasing age, the early follicular phase long protocol may have effects similar to the antagonist protocol to some extent. The advantages of the antagonist protocol lie in its ability to reduce stimulation duration and the dosage of GnRH, while enhancing patient compliance with treatment. This means that patients may find it easier to accept and adhere to this treatment protocol, thereby improving treatment success rates. Particularly for older patients, the use of the antagonist protocol may significantly increase the blastocyst formation rate, which is crucial for improving the success rates. Although there were no significant differences in the clinical outcomes of patients treated with the three protocols in each age group, further research is still needed to validate these findings. Future multicenter studies and increased sample sizes may help comprehensively assess the efficacy of different stimulation protocols. Additionally, prospective studies are needed to further validate these findings and determine the optimal treatment strategies.

BACKGROUND: The gonadotropin hormone-releasing hormone agonists (GnRH-a) have been widely used for controlled ovarian stimulation in assisted reproductive technology (ART). The early-follicular long-acting GnRH-a long protocol (EFL) and the luteal phase short-acting GnRH-a long protocol (LPS) are commonly used GnRH agonist protocols. We conducted a retrospective analysis to assess and compare the rates of congenital abnormalities and safety profiles in offspring born from the EFL and LPS protocols.
METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study to analyze and compare neonatal data from patients who using EFL or LPS protocols at our center between January 1, 2014, and June 30, 2017. The study ultimately included 1810 neonates from 1401 cycles using the EFL protocol and 2700 neonates from 2129 cycles using the LPS protocol.The main outcome measures are gestational age at delivery, birth weight, and congenital anomaly rate.To assess the influence of various factors on congenital abnormalities, a random-effects logistic regression model was employed.
RESULTS: The EFL and LPS protocols led to similar congenital anomaly rates (1.64% vs. 2.35%, P = 0.149). No significant differences were found between the two groups regarding birth weight and its categories, newborn gender and congenital anomaly rate. The results of the multivariate logistic regression model indicated no association between congenital anomaly and BMI, duration of infertility, treatment protocol, fertilization method, or embryo transfer stage. Compared with singleton pregnancies, the probability of congenital defects in multiple pregnancies was 2.64 times higher (OR: 2.64, 95% CI: 1.72-4.05, P < 0.0001). Newborns with congenital defects were born with a lower gestational age compared with full-term pregnancies.
CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, the EFL protocol is considered a safe option for ensuring offspring safety, comparable with the LPS protocol; however, multiple pregnancies represent an independent risk factor for congenital abnormalities. This approach can be widely adopted; however, prioritizing single embryo transfers is strongly recommended to minimize the potential risks associated with multiple pregnancies in offspring.

BACKGROUND: The key to enhancing the efficacy of antagonistic regimens in pregnancy is to better synchronize follicular growth during cycles of controlled ovarian stimulation (COS), especially in patients with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR). During in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET) treatment, luteal phase estrogen pretreatment may enhance follicular development synchronization and yield of mature oocytes. However, the effect of estrogen pretreatment in DOR patients with elevated basal follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) levels has not been well studied.
METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the clinical data of patients with elevated basal FSH levels and DOR (401 cycles) who underwent IVF/intracytoplasmic monosperm injection (ICSI)-assisted conception. Both groups were treated with a flexible gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist regimen and were further divided into two groups according to whether they received luteal estrogen pretreatment. There were 79 patients in the estrogen pretreatment group and 322 patients in the control group. On the second day of the menstrual cycle, gonadotropin (Gn) stimulation of the ovaries was initiated. The general characteristics, clinical, biological parameters and outcomes of the two groups were compared.
RESULTS: The basic profiles of the two groups were similar (P > 0.05). More patients in the pretreatment group showed FSH rebound after gonadotropin (Gn) initiation, resulting in a significantly higher number of Gn days and total Gn than those in the control group (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the number of days of antagonist use, follicle output rate (FORT), number of metaphase II(MII)eggs obtained, number of Two pronuclei (2PN) fertilized, number of D3 quality embryos, blastocyst formation rate, fresh embryo clinical pregnancy rate, cumulative pregnancy rate, and non-transferable embryo rate between the two groups (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The use of luteal phase estrogen pretreatment in patients with elevated basal FSH combined with DOR resulted in high FSH levels after the release of negative feedback, which was detrimental to early follicular growth, did not increase the follicular output rate, may have increased the use and duration of controlled ovarian stimulation drugs, and did not increase the number of eggs gained or improve clinical outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist relugolix, which temporarily stops menstruation, is used to treat heavy menstrual bleeding, pelvic pressure, and low back pain in women with uterine fibroids. Treatment can also help women recover from low hemoglobin levels and possibly shrink the fibroids. However, evidence of preoperative use of relugolix before laparoscopic myomectomy is limited. Nevertheless, the treatment could reduce interoperative blood loss, decrease the risk of developing postoperative anemia, and shorten the operative time. Thus, we aim to test whether 12-week preoperative treatment with relugolix (40 mg orally, once daily) is similar to or not worse than leuprorelin (one injection every 4 weeks) to reduce intraoperative blood loss.
METHODS: Efficacy and safety of preoperative administration of drugs will be studied in a multi-center, randomized, open-label, parallel-group, noninferiority trial enrolling premenopausal women ≥ 20 years of age, diagnosed with uterine fibroids and scheduled for laparoscopic myomectomy. Participants (n = 80) will be recruited in the clinical setting of participating institutions. The minimization method (predefined factors: presence or absence of fibroids ≥ 9 cm and the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics [FIGO] type 1-5 fibroids) with randomization is used in a 1:1 allocation. Relugolix is a 40-mg oral tablet taken once a day before a meal, for 12 weeks, up to the day before surgery. Leuprorelin is a 1.88 mg, or 3.75 mg subcutaneous injection, given in three 4-week intervals during patient visits before the surgery. For the primary outcome measure of intraoperative bleeding, the blood flow is collected from the body cavity, surgical sponges, and collection bag and measured in milliliters. Secondary outcome measures are hemoglobin levels, myoma size, other surgical outcomes, and quality-of-life questionnaire responses (Kupperman Konenki Shogai Index and Uterine Fibroid Symptoms-Quality of Life).
CONCLUSIONS: Real-world evidence will be collected in a clinical setting to use pre-treatment with an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist to reduce intraoperative bleeding in women who undergo laparoscopic myomectomy.
BACKGROUND: jRCTs031210564 was registered on 19 January 2022 in the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials ( https://jrct.niph.go.jp ).

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that for men undergoing combined androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) and radiation therapy (RT) for prostate cancer, substitution of LHRH-agonists with 5-α- reductase inhibitors (5-ARIs) led to improved preservation of 6-month hormonal quality of life (hQOL). With longer term follow-up, we evaluated disease control.
METHODS: In this non-randomized trial, men with unfavorable intermediate or high-risk prostate cancer, aged ≥70 years or with Charlson Comorbidity Index ≥2, were treated with RT (78-79.2 Gy in 39-44 fractions) and either oral ADT (oADT; 5-ARI with antiandrogen) or standard of care ADT (SOC; leuprolide with antiandrogen) for up to 28 months. The primary endpoint was EPIC hQOL; secondary endpoints included biochemical control and survival as well as changes in cholesterol and hemoglobin levels.
RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2018, 70 men were enrolled (40 in oADT; 30 in SOC). Median follow-up was 65 months [IQR 36-94]. Five-year freedom from biochemical failure for oADT and SOC was 89% versus 86%, disease free survival was 62% versus 69%, cancer-specific survival was 100% versus 96%, and overall survival was 70% versus 81% (all P>.1). Testosterone (2 mo through 3 yr) and hemoglobin levels (2 mo through 2 yr) were higher, and cholesterol levels (1 yr) were lower in the oADT groups (all P < .05).
CONCLUSIONS: In this non-randomized study, men treated with combined RT and oADT had better preservation of hQOL and comparable 5-year disease outcomes to men treated with SOC. Eugonadal testosterone with this approach may yield measurable benefits in cholesterol and hemoglobin levels.

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence indicates that adjuvant, short-course androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) improves metastasis-free survival when given with primary radiotherapy for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the value of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy is unclear.
METHODS: RADICALS-HD was an international randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy of ADT used in combination with postoperative radiotherapy for prostate cancer. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to radiotherapy alone (no ADT) or radiotherapy with 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT), using monthly subcutaneous gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue injections, daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as distant metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. Standard survival analysis methods were used, accounting for randomisation stratification factors. The trial had 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 80% to 86% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·67). Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047.
RESULTS: Between Nov 22, 2007, and June 29, 2015, 1480 patients (median age 66 years [IQR 61-69]) were randomly assigned to receive no ADT (n=737) or short-course ADT (n=743) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 121 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 9·0 years (IQR 7·1-10·1), metastasis-free survival events were reported for 268 participants (142 in the no ADT group and 126 in the short-course ADT group; HR 0·886 [95% CI 0·688-1·140], p=0·35). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 79·2% (95% CI 75·4-82·5) in the no ADT group and 80·4% (76·6-83·6) in the short-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 121 (17%) of 737 participants in the no ADT group and 100 (14%) of 743 in the short-course ADT group (p=0·15), with no treatment-related deaths.
CONCLUSIONS: Metastatic disease is uncommon following postoperative bed radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy. Adding 6 months of ADT to this radiotherapy did not improve metastasis-free survival compared with no ADT. These findings do not support the use of short-course ADT with postoperative radiotherapy in this patient population.
BACKGROUND: Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society.

BACKGROUND: Previous evidence supports androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) with primary radiotherapy as initial treatment for intermediate-risk and high-risk localised prostate cancer. However, the use and optimal duration of ADT with postoperative radiotherapy after radical prostatectomy remains uncertain.
METHODS: RADICALS-HD was a randomised controlled trial of ADT duration within the RADICALS protocol. Here, we report on the comparison of short-course versus long-course ADT. Key eligibility criteria were indication for radiotherapy after previous radical prostatectomy for prostate cancer, prostate-specific antigen less than 5 ng/mL, absence of metastatic disease, and written consent. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1) to add 6 months of ADT (short-course ADT) or 24 months of ADT (long-course ADT) to radiotherapy, using subcutaneous gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analogue (monthly in the short-course ADT group and 3-monthly in the long-course ADT group), daily oral bicalutamide monotherapy 150 mg, or monthly subcutaneous degarelix. Randomisation was done centrally through minimisation with a random element, stratified by Gleason score, positive margins, radiotherapy timing, planned radiotherapy schedule, and planned type of ADT, in a computerised system. The allocated treatment was not masked. The primary outcome measure was metastasis-free survival, defined as metastasis arising from prostate cancer or death from any cause. The comparison had more than 80% power with two-sided α of 5% to detect an absolute increase in 10-year metastasis-free survival from 75% to 81% (hazard ratio [HR] 0·72). Standard time-to-event analyses were used. Analyses followed intention-to-treat principle. The trial is registered with the ISRCTN registry, ISRCTN40814031, and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT00541047.
RESULTS: Between Jan 30, 2008, and July 7, 2015, 1523 patients (median age 65 years, IQR 60-69) were randomly assigned to receive short-course ADT (n=761) or long-course ADT (n=762) in addition to postoperative radiotherapy at 138 centres in Canada, Denmark, Ireland, and the UK. With a median follow-up of 8·9 years (7·0-10·0), 313 metastasis-free survival events were reported overall (174 in the short-course ADT group and 139 in the long-course ADT group; HR 0·773 [95% CI 0·612-0·975]; p=0·029). 10-year metastasis-free survival was 71·9% (95% CI 67·6-75·7) in the short-course ADT group and 78·1% (74·2-81·5) in the long-course ADT group. Toxicity of grade 3 or higher was reported for 105 (14%) of 753 participants in the short-course ADT group and 142 (19%) of 757 participants in the long-course ADT group (p=0·025), with no treatment-related deaths.
CONCLUSIONS: Compared with adding 6 months of ADT, adding 24 months of ADT improved metastasis-free survival in people receiving postoperative radiotherapy. For individuals who can accept the additional duration of adverse effects, long-course ADT should be offered with postoperative radiotherapy.
BACKGROUND: Cancer Research UK, UK Research and Innovation (formerly Medical Research Council), and Canadian Cancer Society.

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

OBJECTIVE: There have been rare data on letrozole for height improvement in girls. This study aimed to clarify the efficacy and safety of combination therapy with recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH), GnRHa, and letrozole in improving the height of girls with short stature and advanced bone age.
METHODS: This was a hospital record-based retrospective study. Follow-up was conducted on girls with short stature who received treatment with rhGH, GnRHa, and letrozole in our hospital. The treatment group included a total of 29 participants. Before treatment, the mean age of the patients was 11.17 years, and the mean treatment duration was 17.31 months. The control group consisted of 29 short-statured girls who received rhGH/GnRHa treatment, with the mean age and treatment duration of 12.43 years and 16.59 months, respectively.
RESULTS: The predicted adult heights (PAHs) before and after treatment were 155.38 and 161.32 cm (P < .001). The ΔPAH in the treatment group was 4 cm higher than that in the control group (5.85 vs 1.82 cm, P < .001). Significant differences were noted in the height standard deviation scores of bone age (P < .001) and chronological age (P = .003) before and after treatment. There was an increasing body mass index during therapy (P = .039). The height gain was 8.71 ± 4.46 cm, and the growth rate was 6.78 ± 3.84 cm per year.
CONCLUSIONS: Combined treatment with GH, GnRHa, and letrozole can enhance the adult height and PAH in short-statured girls, and no significant side effects have been reported.