Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2007 Dec;24(12):613-9.
doi: 10.1007/s10815-007-9180-3. Epub 2007 Nov 29.

Management of the poor responder: the role of GnRH agonists and antagonists

Affiliations
Review

Management of the poor responder: the role of GnRH agonists and antagonists

Eric S Surrey. J Assist Reprod Genet. 2007 Dec.

Abstract

Purpose: Evaluate the relative benefit of various doses and regimens of GnRH agonists (GnRHa) and antagonists (GnRHant) in the management of the poor responder.

Methods: Review of English language publications with an emphasis on prospective randomized trials where available.

Results: The lack of a uniformly applied definition of the poor responder and dearth of prospective randomized trials make data analysis difficult. Traditional GnRHa flare and long luteal phase protocols do not appear to be beneficial. Reduction of GnRHa doses, "stop" protocols, and microdose GnRHa flare regimes all appear to enhance outcomes, although the relative benefit of one approach over another has not been conclusively demonstrated. GnRHant does improve outcomes in this patient population, although, in general, pregnancy rates appear to be lower in comparison to microdose GnRHa flare regimes.

Conclusions: There is no one controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) protocol which is best suited for all poor responders. Low dose GnRHa regimes appear to be most advantageous. Prediction of compromised response prior to cycle initiation by a thorough assessment of ovarian reserve as well as a careful review of past response should allow for selection of an appropriate COH protocol for each individual patient.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Surrey E, Schoolcraft W. Evaluating strategies for improving ovarian response of the poor responder undergoing assisted reproductive technologies. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:667–76. doi: 10.1016/S0015-0282(99)00630-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. McKenna K, Foster P, McBain J, Martin M, Johnston W. Combined treatment with gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist and gonadotropins in poor responders to hyperstimulation for in vitro fertilization (IVF): clinical and endocrine results. Aust NZ J Obstet Gynaecol. 1989;29:428–32. - PubMed
    1. Ziegler D, Cedars M, Randle D, Lu J, Judd H, Meldrum D. Suppression of the ovary using a gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist prior to stimulation for oocyte retrieval. Fertil Steril. 1987;48:807–10. - PubMed
    1. Serafini P, Stone B, Kerin J, Batzofin J, Quinn P, Marrs R. An alternate approach to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in “poor responders”: pretreatment with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog. Fertil Steril. 1988;49:90–5. - PubMed
    1. Droesch K, Muasher S, Brzyski R, Jones G, Simonetti S, Liu H-C, et al. Value of suppression with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist prior to gonadotropin stimulation for in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1989;51:292–7. - PubMed

MeSH terms

Substances