• Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
• /
• v.3 no.1
• /
• pp.37-43
• /
• 2000

We used a mammalian GnRH antagonist, $[Ac-3,4-dehydro-Pro^1,\;D-p-F-Phe^2,\;D-Trp^{3.6}]$-GnRH, to examine the details of the salmon type gonadotropin-releasing hormone (sGnRH) and GnRH agonist analog $(Des-Gly^{10}$[d-Ala^6]-ethylamide GnRH; GnRHa) functions in the control of maturational gonadotropin (GTH II) secretion, in precocious male rainbow trout, in both in vivo and in vitro experiments. In the in vivo study, plasma GTH II levels increased by sGnRH or GnRHa treatment, but the response was more rapid and stronger in the GnRHa treatment group. The increase in GTH II was significantly suppressed by the GnRH antagonist, while the antagonist had no effect on basal GTH II levels in both groups. The GnRH antagonist showed stronger suppression of GTH II levels in the sGnRH treatment fish than in the GnRHa treatment fish. In addition, plasma androgenic steroid hormones (testosterone and 11-ketotestosterone) increased by the sGnRH or GnRHa treatment. The GnRH antagonist significantly inhibited the increases in plasma androgenic steroid hormone levels stimulated by the sGnRH or GnRHa, while the antagonist had no effect on basal androgenic steroid hormone levels in both groups. In the in vitro study, treatment with sGnRH or GnRHa increased GTH II release from the cultured dispersed pituitary cells, but the response was stronger in the GnRHa treatment group. The increase in GTH II release by GnRH was suppressed by adding the GnRH antagonist, dose­dependently. On the other hand, basal release of GTH II did not decrease by the GnRH antagonist treatment in both groups. These results suggest that the GnRH antagonist, $[Ac-3,4-dehydro-Pro^1,\;D-p-F-Phe^2,\;D-Trp^{3.6}]-GnRH$, used in this study is effective in blocking the action of GnRH-induced GTH II release from the pituitary gland both in vivo and in vitro.

• Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.251-258
• /
• 2002

Objective : The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of the GnRH antagonist (Cetrotide) minimal stimulation protocol comparing with GnRH agonist combined long step down stimulation protocol in PCOS patients. Materials and Method: From Apr 2001 to May 2002, 22 patients (22 cycles) were performed in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation using by GnRH antagonist and GnRH agonist for PCOS patients. GnRH antagonist (Cetrotide) combined minimal stimulation protocol was administered in 10 patients (10 cycles, Study Group) and GnRH agonist long step down stimulation protocol was administered in 12 patients (12 cycles, Control Group). We compared the pregnancy rate/cycle, total FSH (A)/cycle, Retrieved oocyte/cycle, the incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, multiple pregnancy rate between the two groups. Student-t test were used to determine statistical significance. Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05. Results: Group of GnRH antagonist (Cetrorelix) minimal stimulation protocol produced fewer oocytes (6.4 versus 16.3 oocytes/cycle) using a lower dose of FSH (22.2 versus 36.1 Ample/cycle) and none developed OHSS and multiple pregnancy. Although the trends were in favour of the GnRH antagonist (Cetrorelix) protocol, the differences did not reach statistical significance. This was probably due to small sample size. Conclusion: The use of GnRH antagonist reduce the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation and multiple pregnancy. We suggest that GnRH antagonist might be alternative controlled ovarian hyperstimulation method, especially in PCOS patients who will be ovarian high response.

• Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
• /
• v.37 no.3
• /
• pp.239-244
• /
• 2010

Objective: The objective of this retrospective study was to compare the in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes of gonadotropinreleasing hormone (GnRH) agonist and GnRH antagonist protocols in poor responders. Methods: A total of 172 cycles in subjects with less than 5 oocytes retrieved treated with either GnRH agonist long protocols or antagonist protocols were included. The outcome variables such as numbers of growing follicles and retrieved oocytes, and the fertilization rate were evaluated as the main outcome measures. Results: There was no difference in regard to the numbers of growing follicles and oocytes, and fertilization rate between the two groups. $E_2$ level on Day 7/8, mean gonadotropin dose, and the days of stimulation were shown to be statistically different (p<0.01, respectively). Conclusion: Considering that similar results were observed with less time and gonadotropin dose, GnRH antagonist protocol may be considered as a preferable choice over GnRH agonist protocols in poor responders.

• Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
• /
• v.29 no.4
• /
• pp.259-267
• /
• 2002

Objective: This study was performed to compare the clinical outcomes of GnRH antagonist (Cetrorelix) single dose and multiple dose protocols for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with GnRH agonist long protocol. Materials and Method: From September 2001 to March 2002, 48 patients (55 cycles) were performed controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for ART using by either GnRH antagonist and GnRH agonist. Single dose of 3 mg GnRH antagonist was administered in 15 patients (17 cycles, single dose group) at MCD #8 and multiple dose of 0.25 mg of GnRH antagonist was administered in 15 patients (18 cycles, multiple dose group) from MCD #7 to hCG injection day. GnRH agonist was administered in 18 patients (20 cycles, control group) by conventional GnRH agonist long protocol. We compared the implantation rate, number of embryos, and clinical pregnancy rate among three groups. Student-t test and Chi-square were used to determine statistical significance. Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05. Results: There were no significant differences in ampules of used gonadotropins, number of mature oocytes, obtained embryos between single and multiple dose group, but compared with control group, ampules of used gonadotropins, number of mature oocytes, obtained embryos were decreased significantly in both groups. Clinical pregnancy rate and implantation rate were not different in three groups. There were no premature LH surge and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in three groups. Multiple pregnancy were occurred 1 case in multiple dose group and 2 case in control group. Conclusions: GnRH antagonist is a safe, effective, and alternative method in the controlled ovarian hyperstimulation compared with GnRH agonist. Clinical outcomes and efficacy of both single and multiple dose protocol are similar between two groups.

• Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.95-103
• /
• 2003

Objective : To assess and compare the clinical outcomes between GnRH agonist long protocol and GnRH antagonist short protocol in oocyte donation program. Materials and Methods: Of total 18 oocyte donation cycles, controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) were performed with GnRH agonist long protocol and GnRH antagonist short protocol in initial 9 cycles and later 9 cycles, respectively. Oral estradiol valerate and progesterone in oil we re administrated to all recipients for endometrial preparation. Oral estradiol administration was started from donor cycle day 1 after full shut down of gonadal axis with GnRH agonist in patients with ovarian function. Progesterone was injected from oocyte retrieval day of donor initially, then continuously till pregnancy 12 weeks if pregnancy was ongoing. We compared the parameters of clinical outcomes, such as number of the retrieved oocytes, fertilization rate, high grade embryo production rate, clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, COH duration, total gonadotropin dose for COH between GnRH agonist long protocol group and GnRH antagonist group. Statistical analysis was performed using Mann-Whitney test, p<0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results: The number of retrieved oocytes, fertilization rate, high grade embryo production rate, clinical pregnancy rate, implantation rate, ongoing pregnancy rate were $14.89{\pm}7.83$, 81%, 64%, 78%, 31%, 78%, respectively in GnRHa long protocol group and $11.22{\pm}8.50$, 79%, 64%, 67%, 34%, 56%, respectively in GnRH antagonist group. There was no significant differences in parameters of clinical outcomes between 2 groups (all p value >0.05). Duration and total gonadotropin dose for COH were $10.94{\pm}1.70$ days and $43.78{\pm}6.8$ vials in 18 cycles, $12.00{\pm}1.73$ days and $48.00{\pm}6.93$ vials in agonist group, $9.88{\pm}0.78$ days and $39.55{\pm}3.13$ vials in antagonist group, respectively. In GnRH agonist long protocol group, significantly longer duration and higher gonadotropin dose for COH were needed (p=0.012). Conclusion: In oocyte donation program, clinical outcomes from controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with GnRH antagonist were comparable to those from GnRH agonist long protocol group, so controlled ovarian hyperstimulation with GnRH antagonist may be effective as GnRH agonist long protocol. At least there may not be harmful effects of GnRH antagonist on oocyte development and quality.

• Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
• /
• v.34 no.2
• /
• pp.125-131
• /
• 2007

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare GnRH antagonist and agonist flare-up treatment in the management of poor responder patients. Methods: One hundred forty-four patients from Jan. 1, 2002 to Aug. 31, 2005 undergoing IVF/ICSI treatment who responded poorly to the previous cycle (No. of oocyte retrieved$\leq$5) and had high early follicular phase follicle stimulating hormone (FSH>12 mIU/ml were selected. Seventy-five patients received agonist flare-up protocol and 71 patients received antagonist protocol. We analyzed the number of oocytes retrieved, number of good embryos (GI, GI-1), total dose of hMG administered, implantation rate, cycle cancellation rate, pregnancy rate, live birth rate. Results: The cancellation rate was high in antagonist protocol (53.5% vs. 30.1%). The number of oocyte retrieved, the number of good embyos were high in agonist flare-up group. There was no statistical difference between GnRH agonist flare up protocol and GnRH antagonist protocol in implantation rate (14.5%, 10.1%), clinical pregnancy rate per transfer (29.4%, 21.2%) and live birth rate per transfer (21.6%, 18.2%). Although the result was not statistically significant, GnRH agonist flare up group showed a nearly doubled pregnancy rate and live birth rate per initial cycle than GnRH antagonist group. Conclusions: The agonist flare-up protocol appears to be slightly more effective than the GnRH antagonist protocol in implantation rate, pregnancy rate, live birth rate but shows statistically no significance. Agonist flare-up protocol improved the ovarian response in poor responders. However, based of the result of the study, we can expect improved ovarian response in poor responders by GnRH agonist flare up protocol.

• Animal cells and systems
• /
• v.13 no.4
• /
• pp.429-437
• /
• 2009

The control mechanism of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) on gonadotropin (GTH) release was studied using cultured pituitary cell or cultured whole pituitary obtained from Testosterone (T) treated and control immature rainbow trout. The release of FSH was not changed by salmon type GnRH (sGnRH), chiken-II type (cGnRH-II), GnRH analogue ([des-$Gly^{10}D-Ala^6$] GnRH ethylamide) and GnRH antagonist ([Ac-3, 4-dehydro-$Pro^1$, D-p-F-$Phe^2$, D-$Trp^{3,6}$] GnRH) in cultured pituitary cells of T-treated and control fish. Indeed, FSH release was not also altered by sGnRH in cultured whole pituitary. All tested drugs had no effect on the release of LH in both culture systems of control fish. The levels of LH, in contrast, such as the pituitary content, basal release and responsiveness to GnRH were increased by T administration in both culture systems. In addition, the release of LH in response to sGnRH or cGnRH-II induced in a dose-dependent manner from cultured pituitary cells of T-treated fish, but which is not significantly different between in both GnRH at the concentration examined. Indeed, LH release was also increased by sGnRH in cultured whole pituitary of T-treated fish. GnRH antagonist suppressed the release of LH by sGnRH ($10^{-8}\;M$) and GnRH analogue ($10^{-8}\;M$) stimulation in a dose-dependent manner from cultured pituitary cells of T-treated fish, and which were totally inhibited by $10^{-7}\;M$ GnRH antagonist. These results indicate that the sensitivity of pituitary cells to GnRH is elevated probably through the T treatment, and that GnRH is involved in the regulation of LH release. GnRH-stimulated LH release is inhibited by GnRH antagonist in a dose-dependent manner. The effects of gonadal steroids on FSH levels are less clear.

• Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
• /
• v.28 no.4
• /
• pp.265-270
• /
• 2001

Objective : The aim of this study was to evaluate the outcome the GnRH antagonist (Cetrotide) short protocol in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation comparing with GnRH agonist long protocol. Materials and Method: From July 2000 to November 2001, 26 patients, 28 cycles were performed in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation by GnRH antagonist and GnRH agonist. GnRH antagonist (Cetrotide) was administered in 12 patients (14 cycles, Group 1) and GnRH agonist (Lucrin, Sub Q, Group 2) in 14 patients (14 cycles). Ovulation induction was performed by hMG (Pergonal) in group 1, and by Combo (Metrodine HP + Pergonal) in group 2. We compared the fertilization rate, good quality embryo, and clinical pregnancy rate between the two groups. Student-t test and Chi-square were used to determine statistical significance. Statistical significance was defined as p<0.05. Results: Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome did not occurred in which estradiol (E2) level was $3874{\pm}809\;pg/ml$ and the number of retrieved oocytes was $18.4{\pm}2.4$. The number of used gonadotropin ampules was significantly decreased in Group 1 (26.0 vs. 33.1, p<0.04). There were no significant difference in the number of preovulatory oocyte ($10.6{\pm}6.9$ vs. $10.0{\pm}6.1$), fertilization rate ($74.8{\pm}23.4$ vs. $72.2{\pm}21.8$), good quality embryo ($58.7{\pm}23.6$ vs. $38.7{\pm}36.6$), and embryo transfer ($4.3{\pm}1.6$ vs. $4.4{\pm}1.6$). Although the age of the group 1 was older than the group 2 (34.4 vs. 30.8), there was no significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate (50.0% vs. 57.1%). Conclusions: We suggest that GnRH antagonist was a safe, effective, and alternative method in the controlled ovarian hyperstimulation, especially in PCOD patients who will be develop the ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

• Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.191-200
• /
• 2004

Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of double intrauterine insemination with single intrauterine insemination in GnRH antagonist combined ovarian hyperstimulation (Mild ovarian hyperstimulation) Materials and Methods: From Jan. 2001 to Jul. 2004, a retrospective clinical analysis was done of a total of 295 cycles in 170 patients who underwent ovarian hyperstimulation for ART (assisted reproductive technique). Subjects were divided into three groups; only clomiphene citrate ovarian hyperstimulation (n=55, 95cycles), GnRH antagonist combined ovarian hyperstimulation (soft ovarian hyperstimulation) (n=66 99cycles), and GnRH agonist combined ovarian hyperstimulation (short protocol) (n=49, 101cycles) Each group were randomly devided into two subgroups. One group underwent single IUI and the other group underwent double IUI. Results: GnRH antagonist group and GnRH agonist group had similar pregnancy rate. In GnRH antagonist Group, pregnancy rate was 36.1% in single IUI subgroup and was 36.6% in double IUI subgroup. These finding were not statistically significant. And Pregnancy rate was 20.8% in single IUI subgroup and was 19.3% in double IUI subgroup in single clomiphene citrate group, and 36.3% in single IUI subgroup and was 33.3% in double IUI subgroup in GnRH agonist group. These finding were not statistically significant, too. Conclusion: Pregnancy rate of GnRH antagonist was high and complication rate such as OHSS and multiple pregnancy was lower. In GnRH antagonist group, to compare with single IUI and double IUI, the result do not statistically differ. So GnRH antagonist single injection with single IUI was relatively comparable ART in infertiliry patient.

• Clinical and Experimental Reproductive Medicine
• /
• v.41 no.4
• /
• pp.158-164
• /
• 2014

Objective: To assess whether an early GnRH antagonist start leads to better follicular synchronization and an improved clinical pregnancy rate (CPR). Methods: A retrospective cohort study. A total of 218 infertile women who underwent IVF between January 2011 and February 2013. The initial cohort (Cohort I) that underwent IVF between January 2011 and March 2012 included a total of 68 attempted IVF cycles. Thirty-four cycles were treated with the conventional GnRH antagonist protocol, and 34 cycles with an early GnRH antagonist start protocol. The second cohort (Cohort II) that underwent IVF between June 2012 and February 2013 included a total of 150 embryo-transfer (ET) cycles. Forty-three cycles were treated with the conventional GnRH antagonist protocol, 34 cycles with the modified early GnRH antagonist start protocol using highly purified human menopause gonadotropin and an addition of GnRH agonist to the luteal phase support, and 73 cycles with the GnRH agonist long protocol. Results: The analysis of Cohort I showed that the number of mature oocytes retrieved was significantly higher in the early GnRH antagonist start cycles than in the conventional antagonist cycles (11.9 vs. 8.2, p=0.04). The analysis of Cohort II revealed higher but non-significant CPR/ET in the modified early GnRH antagonist start cycles (41.2%) than in the conventional antagonist cycles (30.2%), which was comparable to that of the GnRH agonist long protocol cycles (39.7%). Conclusion: The modified early antagonist start protocol may improve the mature oocyte yield, possibly via enhanced follicular synchronization, while resulting in superior CPR as compared to the conventional antagonist protocol, which needs to be studied further in prospective randomized controlled trials.