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 2
2025 pubmed

GnRH antagonist protocol versus long-acting GnRH agonist protocol on pregnancy outcomes in IVF/ICSI: a retrospective cohort study.

Zhao. Panpan P; Wang. Xiliang X; Zhang. Qian Q; Xiu. Yinling Y; Sun. Kaixuan K; Wang. Kaiyue K; Yan. Li L; Yu. Yuexin Y

Key Findings

  • Biochemical, clinical, abnormal pregnancy, and miscarriage rates were similar for both protocols.
  • Unadjusted data suggested a lower live‑birth rate with the antagonist, but this difference disappeared after statistical adjustment.
  • Overall, the two GnRH‑based stimulation protocols produce comparable IVF outcomes.

Practical Outcomes

  • For people experimenting with fertility optimization, either GnRH antagonist or long‑acting GnRH agonist can be used without expecting a big difference in success rates. No specific dosage tweaks or protocol switches are indicated by this study, but larger prospective trials are still needed to confirm these findings.

Summary

A study of 575 women undergoing IVF compared two common hormone regimens—GnRH antagonist and long‑acting GnRH agonist. After looking at pregnancy rates, miscarriage rates, and live‑birth rates, the researchers found no meaningful differences between the two approaches once they accounted for other factors.

Abstract

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist and long-acting GnRH agonist regimens are commonly employed for ovarian stimulation in women undergoing <i>in-vitro</i> fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), but their relative efficacy in improving pregnancy outcomes remains controversial. Previous studies has yielded conflicting results, leaving clinicians and researchers uncertain about which protocol is more favorable. Given the high prevalence of infertility and the importance of improving pregnancy outcomes for these patients, understanding the differences in the efficacy of these two protocols is crucial. Therefore, our study aims to conduct a direct comparison of pregnancy outcomes between patients using GnRH antagonist protocol or long-acting GnRH agonist protocol. This retrospective study included 575 women with primary infertility who underwent IVF/ICSI at our hospital between January 2021 and December 2022. The study included 501 women who underwent the GnRH antagonist protocol and 74 who underwent the long-acting GnRH agonist protocol. The investigated outcomes included biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, abnormal pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth rates. Univariate analysis found no significant differences between the GnRH antagonist and long-acting GnRH agonist protocols for biochemical pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, abnormal pregnancy rate, and miscarriage rate, whereas the GnRH antagonist protocol was associated with a lower live birth rate than the long-acting GnRH agonist protocol. After adjusting for potential confounding factors, no significant differences were found between the two protocols for biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, abnormal pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth rates. Our study results show that the GnRH antagonist and long-acting GnRH agonist protocols yielded comparable outcomes in terms of pregnancy outcomes. Further large-scale prospective studies are required to confirm these findings.

Study Information

Provider

pubmed

Year

2025

Date

2025-09-30T00:00:00.000Z

DOI

10.1080/07853890.2025.2564279

References

28