View clinical trials related to GnRH Antagonist.
Filter by:This randomized trial aims to compare the euploid rate of blastocysts between PPOS and GnRH antagonist protocols in patients undergoing PGT-A. Infertile women who have medical indication for PGT-A will be recruited for study after explanation and counseling if they fulfill the inclusion criteria and do not have the exclusion criteria. Eligible women will be randomised into one of the two groups: Antagonist group: Women will receive antagonist once subcutaneously daily from day 6 of ovarian stimulation till the day of the ovulation trigger. PPOS group: Women will receive oral Duphaston 10mg bd from Day 3 till the day of ovulation trigger. The primary outcome is the euploidy rate of blastocysts.
Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome is an iatrogenic complication of controlled ovarian stimulation. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome prevention is a multistage process and more important than treatment.Preventive administration of GnRH antagonist for high risk OHSS patients from the day of oocyte retrieval is not investigated. Besides, the relevant mechanism is not clear yet. Here we designed a prospective randomized study to investigate whether GnRH anatagonist treatment after oocyte retrieval is more effective in preventing early ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome development than traditional aspirin preventive administration in women at high risk for OHSS.
Poor ovarian response to stimulation in IVF cycles is a challenging and frustrating condition, due to its poor prognosis in terms of chances of pregnancy and live births. Various ovarian stimulation regimens have been tried to overcome these obstacles. A simple approach is increase the dose of the gonadotropin administration, but the results in terms of pregnancy rate are very low Another commonly used stimulation regimen is the microdose GnRH agonist protocol, which takes advantage of the initial rise in endogenous gonadotropins that follows the agonist administration in the early follicular phase and subsequently prevents a premature LH surge, with fewer cycle cancellations. However, their application in poor responders, even if in small doses and for a limited period, has been questioned as they may cause oversuppression of ovarian function, leading to a prolonged cycle and increased treatment costs without improving the outcomes. Recently, GnRH antagonists were introduced in ART treatment. They are effective in preventing a premature LH surge and allow for a more natural recruitment of follicles in the follicular phase in a non-suppressed ovary, offering a potential alternative in the treatment of these patients. However, randomized studies evaluating the efficacy of this regimen in poor responders did not show any improvements in pregnancy rates. Current approach have included the addition of oral agents such us clomiphene citrate (CC) to gonadotropins. Some authors have investigated the role of CC in addition to low dose of gonadotropins in mild stimulation regimen, demonstrating that, despite a small number of retrieved oocytes, good quality embryos were produced with a subsequent improvement in the fertilization rate, clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate. The only study that evaluate the efficacy of CC in addition to high doses of gonadotropins in poor responders showed improving in number of retrieved oocytes, transferred embryos and biochemical pregnancy; however, clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate remained low and showed no measurable increase. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of the CC as an adjunctive to a high dose of gonadotropins in cycles with antagonist protocols with the microdose GnRH agonist and flexible antagonist protocols in women who responded poorly to ovarian stimulation, to determine whether this protocol may improve IVF outcomes, offering a valid alternative in poor responder patients treatment.