Gonadotropin-Releasing Hormone (GnRH) Agonist Protocol Improves Pregnancy Outcomes During In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) and Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection (ICSI) Treatment in Young Infertile Women: A Retrospective Study.

Objective The objective of this study was to determine if gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) or gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocols during in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment in young infertile women improve their pregnancy outcomes. Methodology We retrospectively reviewed the records of 876 young infertile women aged 20-35 years who underwent fresh embryo transfer in IVF/ICSI cycles. The data were collected from their initial visits to the reproductive medicine center of the Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University between January 2019 and December 2022. We divided them into two groups according to the controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) protocols: GnRH-a (n = 580) and GnRH-ant (n = 296). The primary outcome assessed in this study was the live birth rate. The secondary observation indicators included the total dose and duration of gonadotropin (Gn), total embryo transfer, day three (D3) embryo transfer, total two pro-nuclei (2PN) cleavage count, number of fertilizations, and implantation rate. Results The live birth rate had no clinical significance (P > 0.05). The total dose and duration of Gn stimulation in the GnRH-ant group were lower than in the GnRH-a group (P  < 0.05). The total embryo transfer, D3 embryo transfer, total cleavage count, total 2PN cleavage count, number of fertilizations, transfer, and mature oocytes in metaphase II (MII) of D3 embryos in the GnRH-a group were higher than those in the GnRH-ant group (P  < 0.05). The clinical pregnancy rate and implantation rate of the GnRH-a group were higher than those of the control group. Conclusions The total embryo transfer, D3 embryo transfer, total cleavage count, total 2PN cleavage count, number of fertilizations, transfer and MII of D3 embryos, clinical pregnancy, and implantation rates were significantly higher in the GnRH-a protocol group. The total dosage of Gn and duration of Gn stimulation were lower in the GnRH-ant group than in the GnRH-a group. These findings provide the basis for the selection of the COH protocol in normal Chinese ovarian response patients undergoing IVF/ICSI.

Co-administration of GnRH-agonist and hCG (double trigger) for final oocyte maturation increases the number of top-quality embryos in patients undergoing IVF/ICSI cycles.

BACKGROUND: The utilization of a double trigger, involving the co-administration of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) and human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) for final oocyte maturation, is emerging as a novel approach in gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocols during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH). This protocol involves administering GnRH-a and hCG 40 and 34 h prior to ovum pick-up (OPU), respectively. This treatment modality has been implemented in patients with low/poor oocytes yield. This study aimed to determine whether the double trigger could improve the number of top-quality embryos (TQEs) in patients with fewer than three TQEs. METHODS: The stimulation characteristics of 35 in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles were analyzed. These cycles were triggered by the combination of hCG and GnRHa (double trigger cycles) and compared to the same patients' previous IVF attempt, which utilized the hCG trigger (hCG trigger control cycles). The analysis involved cases who were admitted to our reproductive center between January 2018 and December 2022. In the hCG trigger control cycles, all 35 patients had fewer than three TQEs. RESULTS: Patients who received the double trigger cycles yielded a significantly higher number of 2PN cleavage embryos (3.54 ± 3.37 vs. 2.11 ± 2.15, P = 0.025), TQEs ( 2.23 ± 2.05 vs. 0.89 ± 0.99, P < 0.001), and a simultaneously higher proportion of the number of cleavage stage embryos (53.87% ± 31.38% vs. 39.80% ± 29.60%, P = 0.043), 2PN cleavage stage embryos (43.89% ± 33.01% vs. 27.22% ± 27.13%, P = 0.014), and TQEs (27.05% ± 26.26% vs. 14.19% ± 19.76%, P = 0.019) to the number of oocytes retrieved compared with the hCG trigger control cycles, respectively. The double trigger cycles achieved higher rates of cumulative clinical pregnancy (20.00% vs. 2.86%, P = 0.031), cumulative persistent pregnancy (14.29% vs. 0%, P < 0.001), and cumulative live birth (14.29% vs. 0%, P < 0.001) per stimulation cycle compared with the hCG trigger control cycles. CONCLUSION: Co-administration of GnRH-agonist and hCG for final oocyte maturation, 40 and 34 h prior to OPU, respectively (double trigger) may be suggested as a valuable new regimen for treating patients with low TQE yield in previous hCG trigger IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles.

Effectiveness and safety of GnRH antagonist originator and generic in real-world clinical practice: a retrospective cohort study.

Objective: 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). Methods: 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). Results: 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. Conclusion: 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.

A modified flexible GnRH antagonist protocol using antagonist early cessation and a gonadotropin step-down approach improves live birth rates in fresh cycles: a randomized controlled trial.

STUDY QUESTION: Can pregnancy outcomes following fresh elective single embryo transfer (eSET) in gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocols increase using a gonadotropin (Gn) step-down approach with cessation of GnRH antagonist on the day of hCG administration (hCG day) in patients with normal ovarian response? SUMMARY ANSWER: The modified GnRH antagonist protocol using the Gn step-down approach and cessation of GnRH antagonist on the hCG day is effective in improving live birth rates (LBRs) per fresh eSET cycle. WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY: Currently, there is no consensus on optimal GnRH antagonist regimens. Studies have shown that fresh GnRH antagonist cycles result in poorer pregnancy outcomes than the long GnRH agonist (GnRHa) protocol. Endometrial receptivity is a key factor that contributes to this phenomenon. STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION: An open label randomized controlled trial (RCT) was performed between November 2021 and August 2022. There were 546 patients allocated to either the modified GnRH antagonist or the conventional antagonist protocol at a 1:1 ratio. PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS: Both IVF and ICSI cycles were included, and the sperm samples used were either fresh or frozen from the partner, or from frozen donor ejaculates. The primary outcome was the LBRs per fresh SET cycle. Secondary outcomes included rates of implantation, clinical and ongoing pregnancy, miscarriage, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), as well as clinical outcomes of ovarian stimulation. MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE: Baseline demographic features were not significantly different between the two ovarian stimulation groups. However, in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, the LBRs in the modified antagonist group were significantly higher than in the conventional group (38.1% [104/273] vs. 27.5% [75/273], relative risk 1.39 [95% CI, 1.09-1.77], P = 0.008). Using a per-protocol (PP) analysis which included all the patients who received an embryo transfer, the LBRs in the modified antagonist group were also significantly higher than in the conventional group (48.6% [103/212] vs. 36.8% [74/201], relative risk 1.32 [95% CI, 1.05-1.66], P = 0.016). The modified antagonist group achieved significantly higher implantation rates, and clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates than the conventional group in both the ITT and PP analyses (P < 0.05). The two groups did not show significant differences between the number of oocytes retrieved or mature oocytes, two-pronuclear zygote (2PN) rates, the number of embryos obtained, blastocyst progression and good-quality embryo rates, early miscarriage rates, or OHSS incidence rates (P > 0.05). LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION: A limitation of our study was that the subjects were not blinded to the treatment allocation in the RCT trial. Only women under 40 years of age who had a good prognosis were included in the analysis. Therefore, use of the modified antagonist protocol in older patients with a low ovarian reserve remains to be investigated. In addition, the sample size for Day 5 elective SET was small, so larger trials will be required to strengthen these findings. WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS: The modified GnRH antagonist protocol using the Gn step-down approach and cessation of GnRH antagonist on hCG day improved the LBRs per fresh eSET cycle in normal responders. STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S): This project was funded by grant 2022YFC2702503 from the National Key Research & Development Program of China and grant 2021140 from the Beijing Health Promotion Association. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The RCT was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry; Study Number: ChiCTR2100053453. TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE: 21 November 2021. DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLLMENT: 23 November 2021.

The effectiveness of relugolix compared with leuprorelin for preoperative therapy before laparoscopic myomectomy in premenopausal women, diagnosed with uterine fibroids: protocol for a randomized controlled study (MyLacR study).

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). DISCUSSION: 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. TRIAL REGISTRATION: jRCTs031210564 was registered on 19 January 2022 in the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials ( https://jrct.niph.go.jp ).

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

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

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

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

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.

Follicle-Stimulating Hormone Exacerbates Cardiovascular Disease in the Presence of Low or Castrate Testosterone Levels.

Low testosterone (T), common in aging men, associates with cardiovascular disease. We investigated whether follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), which is affected by T, modulates the cardiovascular effects associated with low T or castration. FSHß-/-:low-density lipoprotein receptor (LDLR)-/- mice, untreated or castrated (orchiectomy, gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist or antagonist), demonstrated significantly less atherogenesis compared with similarly treated LDLR-/- mice, but not following FSH delivery. Smaller plaque burden in LDLR-/- mice receiving gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists vs agonists were nullified in FSHß-/-:LDLR-/- mice. Atherosclerotic and necrotic plaque size and macrophage infiltration correlated with serum FSH/T. In patients with prostate cancer, FSH/T following androgen-deprivation therapy initiation predicted cardiovascular events. FSH facilitates cardiovascular disease when T is low or eliminated.

A Comprehensive Approach to Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome: A Case Report of Successful Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection Treatment Utilizing the Short Antagonist Protocol and Hatching.

The 29-year-old participant in the case study has been grappling with infertility for the last six years. Following an assessment of her symptoms, hormone profile, and ultrasound results, she received a diagnosis of polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS). PCOS is a multifaceted endocrine and metabolic disorder characterized by symptoms such as obesity, insulin resistance, anovulation, and polycystic ovaries. Various factors, including heredity, intestinal dysbiosis, obesity, environmental pollutants, lifestyle choices, and neuroendocrine abnormalities, contribute to the susceptibility of women to PCOS. In planning polycystic ovarian stimulation, it is crucial to consider parameters such as antral follicle count (AFC), luteinizing hormone (LH), and anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH). Careful planning of the gonadotrophin dose is essential to achieve an optimal response during a gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) cycle. In our case, the brief antagonist protocol was used, resulting in a favorable outcome with minimal risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Despite multiple unsuccessful attempts at natural conception, the patient successfully conceived with the help of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), leading to a positive pregnancy outcome. In addition to incorporating mechanical hatching to promote implantation, we diligently selected the most beneficial medications for the patient.

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.

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

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

Elagolix Represents a Less Invasive and Cheaper Option than Injectable GnRH Antagonist for Ovulation Suppression in IVF.

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.

Implications of Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation (PPOS) in a Patient With Diminished Ovarian Reserve (DOR) and Its In Vitro Fertilization (IVF) Outcome.

In this case study, a 39-year-old woman pursuing treatment for secondary infertility at our infertility clinic was visited by her 42-year-old husband. The couple had a history of failed attempts, including two intrauterine insemination (IUI), two intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles, and two miscarriages. Diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) was noted in the patient's medical profile. A gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist, cetrorelix acetate, was given to the patient at a daily dosage of 0.25 mg to treat their condition once the maturing follicle had grown to a diameter of 10 mm. Following the administration of the GnRH antagonist, the first oocyte pick-up (OPU) procedure was conducted. During this process, two oocytes were successfully retrieved. Subsequently, ICSI was performed to facilitate fertilization. However, during the fertilization check, it was observed that no pronuclear fertilization (PN) formations occurred, leading to a cessation of development. Following the initial failure, an ovarian stimulation strategy based on progestin priming was implemented. Progestin is administered using this technique to ready the endometrium for the implantation of the embryo. After the modified ovarian stimulation protocol, an additional beta-human chorionic gonadotropin (ß-hCG) test was verified as a successful clinical pregnancy outcome.

Effects of different gonadotropin preparations in GnRH antagonist protocol for patients with polycystic ovary syndrome during IVF/ICSI: a retrospective cohort study.

Purpose: To compare the effects of recombinant FSH alfa (rFSH-alfa), rFSH-beta, highly purified human menopausal gonadotropin (HP-hMG) and urinary FSH (uFSH) in women with polycystic ovarian syndrome who have undertaken the GnRH antagonist protocol during IVF/ICSI treatment. Method: A single-center retrospective cohort study including women with PCOS who received the GnRH antagonist protocol from January 2019 to July 2022 was conducted. Patients were divided into rFSH-alfa group, HP-hMG group, uFSH group, and rFSH-beta group, and the number of oocytes retrieved, clinical pregnancy rate of the fresh cycle (primary outcomes), embryo quality, and severe OHSS rate (secondary outcomes) were compared. Results: No statistical differences were found among the four groups in fresh cycle clinical pregnancy rate (p=0.426), nor in the subgroup analyses. The HP-hMG group had a smaller number of oocytes retrieved and a higher high-quality D3 embryo rate than the three FSH groups (p<0.05). No statistical differences were found among the four groups in the severe OHSS rate (p=0.083). Conclusion: For women with PCOS undergoing the GnRH antagonist protocol, the clinical pregnancy rates of fresh IVF/ICSI-ET cycle are similar for all four types of Gn. With a lower risk of OHSS and a similar number of high-quality and available embryos, HP-hMG may have an advantage in the PCOS population.

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

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

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

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

A randomized controlled trial to compare the live birth rate of the first frozen embryo transfer following the progestin-primed ovarian stimulation protocol vs. the antagonist protocol in women with an anticipated high ovarian response.

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. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: A tertiary assisted reproduction center. PATIENTS: Women with infertility aged <43 years undergoing the first in vitro fertilization cycle and having antral follicle count of >15. INTERVENTIONS: 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. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: 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. CONCLUSION: The live birth rates of the first FET following the PPOS and antagonist protocols were comparable in women with an anticipated high ovarian response. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04414761 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Oocyte competence is comparable between progestin primed ovarian stimulation with Norethisterone acetate (NETA-PPOS) and GnRH-antagonist protocols: A matched case-control study in PGT-A cycles.

OBJECTIVE: To outline oocyte competence after progestin primed ovarian stimulation with Norethisterone acetate (NETA-PPOS) compared to conventional GnRH-antagonist protocol. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective matched case-control study involving advanced-maternal-age women undergoing ICSI with PGT-A. 89 NETA-PPOS were matched with 178 control patients based on maternal age and ovarian reserve biomarkers. Both groups underwent recombinant-FSH OS with GnRH-agonist ovulation trigger and collected ≥1 MII. In the study group, NETA (10 mg/day) was administered orally starting from day2 of the menstrual cycle. Euploid blastocyst rate per cohort of metaphase-II oocytes (EBR per MII) was the primary outcome. All other embryological and clinical outcomes were reported. Gestational age, birthweight and length were also assessed. RESULTS: The EBR per MII was comparable among PPOS and control (13.9 % ± 19.3 % versus 13.3 % ± 17.9 %; the sample size allowed to exclude up to a 10 % difference). Blastocysts morphology and developmental rate were similar. No difference was reported for all clinical outcomes among the 61 and 107 vitrified-warmed euploid single blastocyst transfers respectively conducted. The cumulative live birth delivery rate per concluded cycles was also comparable (24.7 % versus 21.9 %). Neonatal outcomes were analogous. CONCLUSIONS: Oocyte competence after NETA-PPOS and standard OS is comparable. This evidence is reassuring and, because of its lower cost and possibly higher patients' compliance, supports PPOS administration whenever the patients are indicated to freeze-all (e.g., fertility preservation, PGT-A, oocyte donation). More data are required about follicle recruitment, oocyte yield, gestational and perinatal outcomes. Randomized-controlled-trials are advisable to confirm our evidence.