The gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol has emerged as an efficacious alternative to the GnRH agonist protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) during in vitro fertilization (IVF) cy...The gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol has emerged as an efficacious alternative to the GnRH agonist protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) during in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles, and has been demonstrated applicability in infertile female patients with diverse ovarian responses. While the clinical implementation of the antagonist COH protocol has achieved widespread consensus, opportunities for refinement persist. Therefore, this review article focuses on the advantages and disadvantages of GnRH antagonist protocol, the selection of optimal standard doses, and the strategies for adjusting antagonist doses after the premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge, aiming to provide more reasonable and scientific recommendations for the application of this scheme.展开更多
Background: This study aimed to determine if the gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol is optimal for expected poor ovarian responders with tubal factor undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo tra...Background: This study aimed to determine if the gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol is optimal for expected poor ovarian responders with tubal factor undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET). Methods: A total of 341 IVF-ET cycles were retrospectively identified. The following inclusion criteria were applied: age ≥ 40 years and patients with tubal factors. The cycles were divided into two groups: a GnRH antagonist group (157 cycles) and a GnRH agonist group (184 cycles). Results: The duration of stimulation and the total doses of gonadotropin in the GnRH agonist group were significantly more than those in the GnRH antagonist group (P < 0.05). There were significant differences in LH and P values on the hCG measurement days between the two groups (0.91 ± 1.17 vs. 4.82 ± 4.69 U/L and 0.69 ± 0.42 vs. 1.03 ± 0.50 ng/mL, P < 0.05). The implantation rate of the GnRH antagonist group was 12.24%, which was slightly higher than that of the GnRH agonist group (10.10%, P = 0.437). The clinical pregnancy rate of the two groups showed no statistical differences (23.36% vs. 23.03%, P = 1.000). Conclusion: For expected poor ovarian responders, the GnRH antagonist protocol was, to some extent, superior to the GnRH agonist protocol in terms of the implantation and clinical pregnancy rates.展开更多
目的比较卵巢低反应(POR)患者行促性腺激素释放激素拮抗剂(GnRH-ant)及GnRH激动剂(GnRH-a)短方案的临床疗效。方法计算机检索PubMed、ProQuest Medical Library、Medline外文生物医学期刊文献数据库、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、中...目的比较卵巢低反应(POR)患者行促性腺激素释放激素拮抗剂(GnRH-ant)及GnRH激动剂(GnRH-a)短方案的临床疗效。方法计算机检索PubMed、ProQuest Medical Library、Medline外文生物医学期刊文献数据库、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、中国知网(CNKI)、中国科技期刊数据库(VIP)、万方数据库和读秀学术搜索引擎等。收集2000年至2014年10月发表的相关文献,比较POR患者行GnRH-ant及GnRH-a短方案的临床试验,按Cochrane系统评价方法提取有效数据,采用RevMan 5.2软件进行Meta分析。结果共纳入11篇文献,共855例(1 054个周期)POR患者,其中GnRHant组444例(549个周期),GnRH-a短方案组411例(505个周期);Meta分析结果显示:对于POR患者,两组间临床妊娠率[RR=1.25,95%CI(0.96,1.63),P=0.10]、促性腺激素(Gn)时间[WMD=-1.15,95%CI(-2.56,0.25),P=0.11]、Gn用量[WMD=63.54,95%CI(-59.08,186.17),P=0.31]、获卵数[WMD=0.16,95%CI(-0.66,0.98),P=0.70]、周期取消率[RR=1.07,95%CI(0.85,1.35),P=0.57]差异均无统计学意义,但临床妊娠率的结果偏向于拮抗剂组更优。结论对于POR患者,拮抗剂方案和GnRH-a短方案效果无统计学差异,但是拮抗剂组可能更有助于提高临床妊娠率,可以作为POR患者助孕的一个选择。展开更多
基金Hainan Province Major Science and Technology Plan Projects(No.ZDKJ2021037,ZDKJ2017007)National Natural Science Foundation of China(No.81960283),and Co-funded by the Hainan Provincial Academician Innovation Platform Research Project and the Hainan Provincial Clinical Medicine Center Construction Project。
文摘The gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol has emerged as an efficacious alternative to the GnRH agonist protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) during in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles, and has been demonstrated applicability in infertile female patients with diverse ovarian responses. While the clinical implementation of the antagonist COH protocol has achieved widespread consensus, opportunities for refinement persist. Therefore, this review article focuses on the advantages and disadvantages of GnRH antagonist protocol, the selection of optimal standard doses, and the strategies for adjusting antagonist doses after the premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge, aiming to provide more reasonable and scientific recommendations for the application of this scheme.
文摘Background: This study aimed to determine if the gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol is optimal for expected poor ovarian responders with tubal factor undergoing in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer (IVF-ET). Methods: A total of 341 IVF-ET cycles were retrospectively identified. The following inclusion criteria were applied: age ≥ 40 years and patients with tubal factors. The cycles were divided into two groups: a GnRH antagonist group (157 cycles) and a GnRH agonist group (184 cycles). Results: The duration of stimulation and the total doses of gonadotropin in the GnRH agonist group were significantly more than those in the GnRH antagonist group (P < 0.05). There were significant differences in LH and P values on the hCG measurement days between the two groups (0.91 ± 1.17 vs. 4.82 ± 4.69 U/L and 0.69 ± 0.42 vs. 1.03 ± 0.50 ng/mL, P < 0.05). The implantation rate of the GnRH antagonist group was 12.24%, which was slightly higher than that of the GnRH agonist group (10.10%, P = 0.437). The clinical pregnancy rate of the two groups showed no statistical differences (23.36% vs. 23.03%, P = 1.000). Conclusion: For expected poor ovarian responders, the GnRH antagonist protocol was, to some extent, superior to the GnRH agonist protocol in terms of the implantation and clinical pregnancy rates.
文摘目的比较卵巢低反应(POR)患者行促性腺激素释放激素拮抗剂(GnRH-ant)及GnRH激动剂(GnRH-a)短方案的临床疗效。方法计算机检索PubMed、ProQuest Medical Library、Medline外文生物医学期刊文献数据库、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)、中国知网(CNKI)、中国科技期刊数据库(VIP)、万方数据库和读秀学术搜索引擎等。收集2000年至2014年10月发表的相关文献,比较POR患者行GnRH-ant及GnRH-a短方案的临床试验,按Cochrane系统评价方法提取有效数据,采用RevMan 5.2软件进行Meta分析。结果共纳入11篇文献,共855例(1 054个周期)POR患者,其中GnRHant组444例(549个周期),GnRH-a短方案组411例(505个周期);Meta分析结果显示:对于POR患者,两组间临床妊娠率[RR=1.25,95%CI(0.96,1.63),P=0.10]、促性腺激素(Gn)时间[WMD=-1.15,95%CI(-2.56,0.25),P=0.11]、Gn用量[WMD=63.54,95%CI(-59.08,186.17),P=0.31]、获卵数[WMD=0.16,95%CI(-0.66,0.98),P=0.70]、周期取消率[RR=1.07,95%CI(0.85,1.35),P=0.57]差异均无统计学意义,但临床妊娠率的结果偏向于拮抗剂组更优。结论对于POR患者,拮抗剂方案和GnRH-a短方案效果无统计学差异,但是拮抗剂组可能更有助于提高临床妊娠率,可以作为POR患者助孕的一个选择。
文摘目的 比较高孕激素状态促排卵(PPOS)方案与GnRH拮抗剂方案(GnRH-ant)在高龄患者促排卵中应用的效果。 方法 回顾性分析2017年1月至2018年10月在我院生殖医学中心行IVF/ICSI助孕的高龄女性(>35岁)临床资料,包括GnRH-ant组70例与PPOS方案组230例,比较两种方案促排卵治疗前后情况。 结果 两组患者年龄、不孕年限、BMI、AFC、基础E 2 、基础FSH、基础LH等基本资料均无明显统计学差异( P >0.05)。两组患者GnRH-ant组的HCG日E 2 水平、Gn总量和天数、胚胎数、2PN数、早发LH峰发生率及优胚率均无统计学差异( P >0.05)。GnRH拮抗剂的获卵数[(5.32±3.71)vs.(4.20±2.75)]、卵裂数[(3.69±2.95)vs.(2.95±2.33)]、优胚数[(2.32±2.05)vs.(1.80±1.67)]均显著多于PPOS组( P <0.05);GnRH-ant组的HCG日孕酮水平[(2.24±1.93)vs.(3.77±3.42)nmol/L]显著小于PPOS组( P <0.01)。 结论 本研究发现在高龄(>35岁)患者行IVF/ICSI助孕的患者中,GnRH-ant方案和PPOS方案相比较,两者在抑制早发LH峰发生率上没有明显的差异,但是GnRH-ant方案可以获得较多的优质胚胎,因此患者可能有更好的助孕结局。
