Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.5653/cerm.2017.44.4.232

Reduction of the cetrorelix dose in a multiple-dose antagonist protocol and its impact on pregnancy rate and affordability: A randomized controlled multicenter study  

Dawood, Ayman S. (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University)
Algergawy, Adel (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University)
Elhalwagy, Ahmed (Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Faculty of Medicine, Tanta University)
Publication Information
Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine / v.44, no.4, 2017 , pp. 232-238 More about this Journal
Abstract
Objective: To determine whether reducing the cetrorelix dose in the antagonist protocol to 0.125 mg had any deleterious effects on follicular development, the number and quality of retrieved oocytes, or the number of embryos, and to characterize its effects on the affordability of assisted reproductive technology. Methods: This randomized controlled study was conducted at the Fertility Unit of Tanta Educational Hospital of Tanta University, the Egyptian Consultants' Fertility Center, and the Qurrat Aien Fertility Center, from January 1 to June 30, 2017. Patients' demographic data, stimulation protocol, costs, pregnancy rate, and complications were recorded. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups: group I (n = 61) received 0.125 mg of cetrorelix (the study group), and group II (n = 62) received 0.25 mg of cetrorelix (the control group). Results: The demographic data were comparable regarding age, parity, duration of infertility, and body mass index. The dose of recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone units required was $2,350.43{\pm}150.76$ IU in group I and $2,366.25{\pm}140.34$ IU in group II, which was not a significant difference (p= 0.548). The duration of stimulation, number of retrieved oocytes, and number of developed embryos were not significantly different between the groups. The clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates likewise did not significantly differ. The cost of intracytoplasmic sperm injection per cycle was significantly lower in group I than in group II (US $ $494.66{\pm}4.079$ vs. US $ $649.677{\pm}43.637$). Conclusion: Reduction of the cetrorelix dose in the antagonist protocol was not associated with any significant difference either in the number of oocytes retrieved or in the pregnancy rate. Moreover, it was more economically feasible for patients in a low-resource country.
Keywords
Antagonist; Assisted reproductive techniques; Gonadotropins;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Huirne JA, Homburg R, Lambalk CB. Are GnRH antagonists comparable to agonists for use in IVF? Hum Reprod 2007;22:2805-13.   DOI
2 Albano C, Smitz J, Camus M, RiethmUller-Winzen H, Van Steirteghem A, Devroey P. Comparison of different doses of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist cetrorelix during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation. Fertil Steril 1997;67:917-22.   DOI
3 A double-blind, randomized, dose-finding study to assess the efficacy of the gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist ganirelix (Org 37462) to prevent premature luteinizing hormone surges in women undergoing ovarian stimulation with recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (Puregon). The ganirelix dosefinding study group. Hum Reprod 1998;13:3023-31.   DOI
4 Olivennes F, Belaisch-Allart J, Emperaire JC, Dechaud H, Alvarez S, Moreau L, et al. Prospective, randomized, controlled study of in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer with a single dose of a luteinizing hormone-releasing hormone (LH-RH) antagonist (cetrorelix) or a depot formula of an LH-RH agonist (triptorelin). Fertil Steril 2000;73:314-20.   DOI
5 Sbracia M, Colabianchi J, Giallonardo A, Giannini P, Piscitelli C, Morgia F, et al. Cetrorelix protocol versus gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog suppression long protocol for superovulation in intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients older than 40. Fertil Steril 2009;91:1842-7.   DOI
6 Bodri D, Sunkara SK, Coomarasamy A. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists versus antagonists for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in oocyte donors: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Fertil Steril 2011;95:164-9.   DOI
7 Humaidan P, Quartarolo J, Papanikolaou EG. Preventing ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: guidance for the clinician. Fertil Steril 2010;94:389-400.   DOI
8 Itskovitz-Eldor J, Kol S, Mannaerts B. Use of a single bolus of GnRH agonist triptorelin to trigger ovulation after GnRH antagonist ganirelix treatment in women undergoing ovarian stimulation for assisted reproduction, with special reference to the prevention of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: preliminary report: short communication. Hum Reprod 2000;15:1965-8.   DOI
9 Baruffi RL, Mauri AL, Petersen CG, Felipe V, Martins AM, Cornicelli J, et al. Recombinant LH supplementation to recombinant FSH during induced ovarian stimulation in the GnRH-antagonist protocol: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online 2007;14:14-25.   DOI
10 Chang YL, Hsieh YY, Tsai HD. Preliminary report on the effect of a lower dose of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (cetrorelix) on ovarian hyperstimulation in lower-weight Asian women. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2006;45:317-20.   DOI
11 Gardner DK, Lane M, Stevens J, Schlenker T, Schoolcraft WB. Blastocyst score affects implantation and pregnancy outcome: towards a single blastocyst transfer. Fertil Steril 2000;73:1155-8.   DOI
12 Wintner EM, Hershko-Klement A, Tzadikevitch K, Ghetler Y, Gonen O, Wintner O, et al. Does the transfer of a poor quality embryo together with a good quality embryo affect the in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcome? J Ovarian Res 2017;10:2.   DOI
13 Huang SY, Huang HY, Yu HT, Wang HS, Chen CK, Lee CL, et al. Low-dose GnRH antagonist protocol is as effective as the long GnRH agonist protocol in unselected patients undergoing in vitro fertilization and embryo transfer. Taiwan J Obstet Gynecol 2011;50:432-5.   DOI
14 Griesinger G, Felberbaum RE, Schultze-Mosgau A, Diedrich K. Gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive techniques: are there clinical differences between agents? Drugs 2004;64:563-75.   DOI
15 Al-Inany HG, Youssef MA, Ayeleke RO, Brown J, Lam WS, Broekmans FJ. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;4:CD001750.
16 Lee TH, Wu MY, Chen HF, Chen MJ, Ho HN, Yang YS. Ovarian response and follicular development for single-dose and multipledose protocols for gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist administration. Fertil Steril 2005;83:1700-7.   DOI
17 Johnston-MacAnanny EB, DiLuigi AJ, Engmann LL, Maier DB, Benadiva CA, Nulsen JC. Selection of first in vitro fertilization cycle stimulation protocol for good prognosis patients: gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist versus agonist protocols. J Reprod Med 2011;56:12-6.
18 Pu D, Wu J, Liu J. Comparisons of GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod 2011;26:2742-9.   DOI