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.

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 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.

BACKGROUND: The injectable GnRH antagonists have traditionally been used for ovulation suppression during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in IVF, leading to increased painful daily injections and cost. The use of the oral GnRH antagonist elagolix for ovulation suppression in IVF has not been studied.
METHODS: A retrospective cohort study of patients undergoing IVF received either oral elagolix 50 mg every other day or ganirelix/cetrotide injection daily for ovulation suppression during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. A total of 269 patients, 173 in the elagolix group and 96 in the ganirelix/cetrotide group, were included. The main outcome was the suppression of luteinizing hormone (LH) blood levels reflecting ovulation suppression.
RESULTS: The age, body mass index, AMH levels, baseline FSH, antral follicles count, the dose of medications used, the number of days of ovarian stimulation, and peak estradiol (E2) levels were similar in both groups. When blood LH and E2 levels were measured before the intake and the day after intake of either elagolix or ganirelix/cetrotide, both groups had significant and similar drop in LH levels and increase in E2 levels. When comparing the IVF cycle outcomes in both groups, the number of oocytes retrieved, the number of mature oocytes, the fertilization rate, the blastocyst formation rate, the euploidy rate and the endometrial lining thickness at the time of the trigger were all similar.
CONCLUSIONS: Oral GnRH antagonist, a much cheaper and less invasive medication that is used at a lower frequency, showed comparable ovulation suppression to the costly injectable GnRH antagonist. Further studies are required to evaluate the effect of oral GnRH antagonist on endometrial lining receptivity and pregnancy outcomes especially when using fresh embryo transfer IVF protocols.

OBJECTIVE: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
BACKGROUND: The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number: CRD42023413217.

暂无摘要。

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.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the teverelix DP doses were generally well-tolerated but did not adequately maintain castration levels.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the live birth rate of the first frozen embryo transfer (FET) after ovarian stimulation by the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) protocol vs. the antagonist protocol in women with an anticipated high ovarian response who were undergoing in vitro fertilization.
METHODS: Randomized controlled trial.
METHODS: A tertiary assisted reproduction center.
METHODS: Women with infertility aged <43 years undergoing the first in vitro fertilization cycle and having antral follicle count of >15.
METHODS: Medroxyprogesterone 10 mg daily was given from the start of ovarian stimulation until the day of ovulation trigger in the PPOS protocol. In the antagonist protocol, an antagonist 0.25 mg daily was given from the sixth day of ovarian stimulation until the day of ovulation trigger. Blinding was not possible for women or physicians but the biostatistician was blinded to the group assignment.
METHODS: Live birth rate of the first FET cycle.
RESULTS: A total of 784 women were recruited from June 2020 and October 2021 and assigned randomly in a 1:1 ratio into two groups: PPOS group (n = 392) and antagonist group (n = 392). Embryo transfer was either cancelled or postponed in 62 women (62/392, 15.8%) in the PPOS group and 65 (65/392, 16.6%) in the antagonist group because of no transferable embryos or no FET within 6 months after randomization. The two groups were similar in demographic characteristics and the numbers of oocytes obtained or fertilized, cleaving embryos, good-quality embryos at day 3, blastocysts developed, and embryos or blastocysts frozen. There was no statistically significant difference in the live birth rate of the first FET cycle between the PPOS and antagonist groups on the basis of both the intention-to-treat analysis (37.5.0% [147/392] vs. 32.7% [128/392]; relative risk, 1.148 [95% confidence interval, 0.949-1.390]) and per-protocol analysis (44.5% [147/330] vs. 39.1% [128/327]; relative risk, 1.138 [95% confidence interval, 0.950-1.364]). Both groups showed comparable clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, ectopic pregnancy, and cumulative live birth rates.
CONCLUSIONS: The live birth rates of the first FET following the PPOS and antagonist protocols were comparable in women with an anticipated high ovarian response.
BACKGROUND: NCT04414761 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

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.

UNASSIGNED: Ovarian reactivity to gonadotrophin stimulation varies, and individual adjustments to the timing and dose of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist administration are necessary to prevent excessive increases and decreases in luteinizing hormone (LH) levels in patients with different ovarian response following the GnRH antagonist (GnRH-A) protocol. The present study aims to investigate optimal LH suppression thresholds for patients with normal ovarian response (NOR), high ovarian response (HOR), and poor ovarian response (POR) following the GnRH-A protocol respectively.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 865 in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles using a flexible or fixed GnRH-A protocol were included. Patients were categorized into the HOR, NOR, or POR group according to their anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) levels. Then, patients in each group were stratified into one of four subgroups according to the quartile (Q1-Q4) of the basal LH level to LH on triggering day ratio (bLH/hLH). The primary outcomes were the clinical pregnancy and live birth rates, and the secondary outcomes were the number of oocytes retrieved, MII oocytes, two pronucleus (2PN) embryos, and good-quality embryos.
UNASSIGNED: There were 526 patients with NOR, 180 with HOR, and 159 with POR. Basal LH level, LH on triggering day and bLH/hLH were identified as independent predictors of clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate by logistics regression analysis. Compared to those with NOR, patients with POR had the lowest embryo implantation rate (22.6% vs. 32.8%, P < 0.05), clinical pregnancy rate (32.3% vs. 47.3%, P < 0.05) and live birth rate (22.6 vs. 37.8%, P < 0.05) of fresh embryo transfer (ET). The embryo implantation, clinical pregnancy and live birth rates of frozen embryo transfer (FET) were not significantly different among the three groups. In the subgroup analysis, patients with HOR had the highest embryo implantation rate (51.6%, P < 0.05), clinical pregnancy rate (68.4%, P < 0.05) and live birth rate (52.6%, P < 0.05) of ET in Q3, with a bLH/hLH ratio of 2.40-3.69. In the NOR group, the embryo implantation rate (41.9%, P < 0.05), clinical pregnancy rate (61.5%, P < 0.05) and live birth rate (50.8%, P < 0.05) of ET and live birth rate (53.1%, P < 0.05) of FET were highest in Q2, with a bLH/hLH ratio of 1.29-2.05. Patients with POR had the highest clinical pregnancy rate (57.1%, P < 0.05) and live birth rate (42.9%, P < 0.05) of ET in Q2, with a bLH/hLH ratio of 0.86-1.35.
UNASSIGNED: In the present study, the bLH/hLH ratio represented the LH suppression threshold. The subgroup analysis of HOR, NOR and POR showed that, the LH suppression threshold varies according to ovarian response. We recommend LH suppression thresholds of 2.40-3.69 for HOR, 1.29-2.05 for NOR, and 0.86-1.35 for POR to obtain the highest clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate. This study provides comprehensive and precise references for clinicians to monitor LH levels individually during controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) according to the patient\'s ovarian response following the GnRH-A protocol.