Menu
Peptide Database
Results
No peptides found
Featured

Use search to browse all 100+ peptides

Gonadorelin

GnRH, Luteinizing Hormone-Releasing Hormone, LHRH, Factrel

Quick Stats
Studies 192
Trials 100
Score 1
2025 pubmed

Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone Antagonist versus Fixed Progestin-Primed Ovarian Stimulation in <i>In vitro</i> Fertilisation: A Cohort Study.

Kothekar. Manjushri Amol MA; Jagtap. Richa A RA; Katiyar. Parul P; Fatemi. Human M HM; Lawrenz. Barbara B

Key Findings

  • No significant difference in the number of eggs retrieved or their maturation rate between GnRH‑antagonist and PPOS protocols.
  • Fertilisation, blastulation, implantation and cumulative pregnancy rates were comparable across the two groups.
  • Serum LH levels (a measure of pituitary suppression) before final egg maturation were similar for both protocols.

Practical Outcomes

  • For people using GnRH‑based drugs in fertility treatments, either the antagonist or the progestin‑primed approach works equally well, so there’s no clear advantage to switching protocols. This study doesn’t provide new guidance for general health or longevity practices outside of IVF.

Summary

Researchers looked at two ways to stimulate the ovaries for IVF – a GnRH‑antagonist protocol and a fixed progestin‑primed protocol – and found that they gave almost identical results in terms of eggs retrieved, how many eggs matured, fertilisation, embryo development, implantation and overall pregnancy rates. The level of hormone (LH) suppression before the final egg‑maturation step was also the same for both methods.

Abstract

Investigators have compared progestin-primed ovarian stimulation (PPOS) and conventional stimulations in multiple studies, however, with contrasting observations with respect to <i>in vitro</i> fertilisation (IVF) cycle outcomes. The extent of serum luteinising hormone (LH) suppression has not been studied much between the protocols. The primary aim of this study was to compare IVF cycle outcomes in terms of oocyte yield, maturation rate, fertilisation rate, blastulation rate, implantation and cumulative pregnancy rate between gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol and fixed PPOS protocol. The secondary aim was to compare the extent of pituitary suppression as reflected by serum LH before final oocyte maturation between both the protocols. This was a retrospective observational cohort study. All ovarian stimulation cycles, either performed as GnRH-antagonist or as fixed PPOS, between 1<sup>st</sup> October 2023 and 15<sup>th</sup> July 2024, at a tertiary level IVF centre were included. Egg freezing cycles and donor egg cycles were excluded. Statistical tests applied were Student's <i>t</i>-test two-tailed for interval/ratio variables and the Chi-square test for nominal variables with a significance level of 0.05. The total number of cycles was 189, of which 87 (46.03%) cycles were in the GnRH antagonist group and 102 (53.96%) in the PPOS group. The groups were similar with respect to age, anti-M&#xfc;llerian hormone, body mass index as well as total gonadotropin consumption. There was no significant difference observed for the number of oocytes (<i>P</i> = 0.92), maturation rate (<i>P</i> = 0.07), fertilisation rate (<i>P</i> = 0.84), blastulation rate (<i>P</i> = 0.52), implantation rate (<i>P</i> = 0.36) and cumulative pregnancy rate (<i>P</i> = 0.63). The serum LH values before final oocyte maturation (suppressed LH) were similar (<i>P</i> = 0.09) in both the protocols. IVF cycle outcomes with respect to oocyte yield, maturation rate, fertilisation rate, blastulation rate, implantation rates and cumulative pregnancy were comparable between GnRH antagonist and PPOS cycles. Furthermore, the extent of pituitary suppression, reflected by the serum LH levels before final oocyte maturation, was similar between the groups as observed in our analysis. However, these findings need to be validated by prospective studies or randomised trials with equal patient division.

Study Information

Provider

pubmed

Year

2025

Date

2025-09-25T00:00:00.000Z

DOI

10.4103/jhrs.jhrs_97_25

References

16