Impact of GnRH analogues on oocyte/embryo quality and embryo development in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: a case control study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Despite the clinical outcomes of ovarian stimulation with either GnRH-agonist or GnRH-antagonist analogues for in vitro fertilization (IVF) being well analysed, the effect of analogues on oocyte/embryo quality and embryo development is still not known in detail. The aim of this case-control study was to compare the efficacy of a multiple-dose GnRH antagonist protocol with that of the GnRH agonist long protocol with a view to oocyte and embryo quality, embryo development and IVF treatment outcome.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Between October 2001 and December 2008, 100 patients were stimulated with human menopausal gonadotrophin (HMG) and GnRH antagonist in their first treatment cycle for IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). One hundred combined GnRH agonist + HMG (long protocol) cycles were matched to the GnRH antagonist + HMG cycles by age, BMI, baseline FSH levels and by cause of infertility. We determined the number and quality of retrieved oocytes, the rate of early-cleavage embryos, the morphology and development of embryos, as well as clinical pregnancy rates. Statistical analysis was performed using Wilcoxon's matched pairs rank sum test and McNemar's chi-square test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The rate of cytoplasmic abnormalities in retrieved oocytes was significantly higher with the use of GnRH antagonist than in GnRH agonist cycles (62.1% vs. 49.9%; P < 0.01). We observed lower rate of zygotes showing normal pronuclear morphology (49.3% vs. 58.0%; P < 0.01), and higher cell-number of preembryos on day 2 after fertilization (4.28 vs. 4.03; P < 0.01) with the use of GnRH antagonist analogues. The rate of mature oocytes, rate of presence of multinucleated blastomers, amount of fragmentation in embryos and rate of early-cleaved embryos was similar in the two groups. Clinical pregnancy rate per embryo transfer was lower in the antagonist group than in the agonist group (30.8% vs. 40.4%) although this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.17).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Antagonist seemed to influence favourably some parameters of early embryo development dynamics, while other morphological parameters seemed not to be altered according to GnRH analogue used for ovarian stimulation in IVF cycles.</p

The INeS study: prevention of multiple pregnancies: a randomised controlled trial comparing IUI COH versus IVF e SET versus MNC IVF in couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility

BACKGROUND Multiple pregnancies are high risk pregnancies with higher chances of maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity. In the past decades the number of multiple pregnancies has increased. This trend is partly due to the fact that women start family planning at an increased age, but also due to the increased use of ART. Couples with unexplained or mild male subfertility generally receive intrauterine insemination IUI with controlled hormonal stimulation (IUI COH). The cumulative pregnancy rate is 40%, with a 10% multiple pregnancy rate. This study aims to reveal whether alternative treatments such as IVF elective Single Embryo Transfer (IVF e SET) or Modified Natural Cycle IVF (MNC IVF) can reduce the number of multiple pregnancy rates, but uphold similar pregnancy rates as IUI COH in couples with mild male or unexplained subfertility. Secondly, the aim is to perform a cost effective analyses and assess treatment preference of these couples. METHODS/DESIGN We plan a multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial in the Netherlands comparing six cycles of intra-uterine insemination with controlled ovarian hyperstimulation or six cycles of Modified Natural Cycle (MNC) IVF or three cycles with IVF-elective Single Embryo Transfer (eSET) plus cryo-cycles within a time frame of 12 months. Couples with unexplained subfertility or mild male subfertility and a poor prognosis for treatment independent pregnancy will be included. Women with anovulatory cycles, severe endometriosis, double sided tubal pathology or serious endocrine illness will be excluded. Our primary outcome is the birth of a healthy singleton. Secondary outcomes are multiple pregnancy, treatment costs, and patient experiences in each treatment arm. The analysis will be performed according tot the intention to treat principle. We will test for non-inferiority of the three arms with respect to live birth. As we accept a 12.5% loss in pregnancy rate in one of the two IVF arms to prevent multiple pregnancies, we need 200 couples per arm (600 couples in total). DISCUSSION Determining the safest and most cost-effective treatment will ensure optimal chances of pregnancy for subfertile couples with substantially diminished perinatal and maternal complications. Should patients find the most cost-effective treatment acceptable or even preferable, this could imply the need for a world wide shift in the primary treatment. TRIAL REGISTRATION Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN 52843371Alexandra J Bensdorp, Els Slappendel, Carolien Koks, Jur Oosterhuis, Annemieke Hoek, Peter Hompes, Frank Broekmans, Harold Verhoeve, Jan Peter de Bruin, Janne Meije van Weert, Maaike Traas, Jacques Maas, Nicole Beckers, Sjoerd Repping, Ben W Mol, Fulco van der Veen and Madelon van Wel

Efficacy of natural cycle IVF: a review of the literature

Since the introduction of IVF treatments, natural cycle IVF has been largely replaced by IVF with ovarian stimulation. However, natural cycle IVF has several advantages. It is associated with a close to zero multiple pregnancy rate, and a zero risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. Per cycle, natural cycle WIT is less time consuming, physically and emotionally less demanding for patients, and cheaper than stimulated IVF, but also less effective. This systematic literature review addresses the issue of effectiveness of natural cycle IVF. Herein, 20 studies describing natural cycle IVF are presented; 12 case series and eight in which a comparison was made between natural cycle WIT and IVF with ovarian stimulation. Good-quality randomized controlled trials and formal cost-effectiveness analyses are lacking. The 20 selected studies comprised a total of 1800 cycles of natural cycle IVF, resulting in 819 embryo transfers (45.5% per cycle) and 129 ongoing pregnancies (7.2% per cycle and 15.8% per embryo transfer). Efficacy of natural cycle IVF is hampered by high cancellation rates because of premature LH rise and premature ovulations. It is concluded that natural cycle IVF is a low-risk, low-cost and patient-friendly procedure. A randomized controlled trial comparing natural cycle IVF with current standard treatment strategies is warranted

Minimal stimulation IVF with late follicular phase administration of the GnRH antagonist cetrorelix and concomitant substitution with recombinant FSH:a pilot study

BACKGROUND: The use of the natural cycle for IVF offers the advantage of a patient-friendly and low-risk protocol. Its effectiveness is limited, but may be improved by using a GnRH antagonist to prevent untimely LH surges. METHODS: In this pilot study, minimal stimulation IVF with late follicular phase administration of the GnRH antagonist cetrorelix and simultaneous substitution with recombinant FSH was applied for a maximum of three cycles per patient. Main outcome measures were pregnancy rates per started cycle and cumulative pregnancy rates after three cycles. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients completed 119 cycles (2.4 per patient). Fifty-two embryo transfers resulted in 17 ongoing pregnancies [14.3% per started cycle; 32.7% per embryo transfer; 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.9-20.7% and 19.7-45.7%, respectively]. One dizygotic twin pregnancy occurred after transfer of two embryos, the other pregnancies were singletons. The cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate after three cycles was 34% (95% CI 20.6-47.4%). Live birth rate was 32% per patient (95% CI 18.8-45.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Pregnancy rates after IVF with minimal, late follicular phase stimulation are encouraging. Considering the low-risk and patient-friendly nature of this protocol, it may be a feasible alternative to IVF with ovarian hyperstimulation.</p

Minimal stimulation IVF with late follicular phase administration of the GnRH antagonist cetrorelix and concomitant substitution with recombinant FSH:a pilot study

BACKGROUND: The use of the natural cycle for IVF offers the advantage of a patient-friendly and low-risk protocol. Its effectiveness is limited, but may be improved by using a GnRH antagonist to prevent untimely LH surges. METHODS: In this pilot study, minimal stimulation IVF with late follicular phase administration of the GnRH antagonist cetrorelix and simultaneous substitution with recombinant FSH was applied for a maximum of three cycles per patient. Main outcome measures were pregnancy rates per started cycle and cumulative pregnancy rates after three cycles. RESULTS: A total of 50 patients completed 119 cycles (2.4 per patient). Fifty-two embryo transfers resulted in 17 ongoing pregnancies [14.3% per started cycle; 32.7% per embryo transfer; 95% confidence interval (CI) 7.9-20.7% and 19.7-45.7%, respectively]. One dizygotic twin pregnancy occurred after transfer of two embryos, the other pregnancies were singletons. The cumulative ongoing pregnancy rate after three cycles was 34% (95% CI 20.6-47.4%). Live birth rate was 32% per patient (95% CI 18.8-45.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Pregnancy rates after IVF with minimal, late follicular phase stimulation are encouraging. Considering the low-risk and patient-friendly nature of this protocol, it may be a feasible alternative to IVF with ovarian hyperstimulation