Observational Study to Assess the Therapeutic Value of Four Ovarian Hyperstimulation Protocols in IVF After Pituitary Suppression with GnRH Antagonists in Normally Responding Women

Abstract

Objective: To compare the clinical results of four different protocols of COH for IVF-ICSI in normovulatory women, using in all cases pituitary suppression with GnRH antagonists.

Materials/methods: A single center, open label, parallel-controlled, prospective, post-authorization study under the approved conditions for use where 305 normal responders women who were candidates to COH were assigned to r-FSH +hp-hMG (n = 51, Group I), hp-hMG (n = 61, Group II), fixed-dose r-FSH (n = 118, Group III), and r-FSH with potential dose adjustment (n = 75, Group IV) to subsequently undergo IVF-ICSI.

Results: During stimulation, Group IV needed significantly more days of stimulation as compared to Group II [8.09 ± 1.25 vs. 7.62 ± 1.17; P < 0.05], but was the group in which more oocytes were recovered [Group I: 9.43 ± 4.99 vs. Group II: 8.96 ± 4.82 vs. Group III: 8.78 ± 3.72 vs. Group IV: 11.62 ± 5.80; P < 0.05]. No significant differences were seen between the groups in terms of clinical and ongoing pregnancy, but among patients in whom two embryos with similar quality parameters (ASEBIR) were transferred, the group treated with hp-hMG alone achieved a significantly greater clinical pregnancy rate as compared to all other groups [Group I: 31.6%, Group II: 56.4%, Group III: 28.7%, Group IV: 32.7%; P < 0.05].

Conclusions: Although randomized clinical trials should be conducted to achieve a more reliable conclusion, these observations support the concept that stimulation with hp-hMG could be beneficial in normal responders women undergoing pituitary suppression with GnRH antagonists.

Keywords: GnRH antagonist; IVF/ICSI; controlled ovulation hyperstimulation; embryo quality; highly purified menotropin; recombinant-FSH.

Figure 1

Flow chart.

Figure 2

Mean gonadotropin doses used in each stimulation protocol (international units). Significant differences in Groups I and II as compared to Groups III and IV. Kruskal-Wallis test.