Hum. Reprod. Advance Access originally published online on June 2, 2005
Human Reproduction 2005 20(9):2373-2375; doi:10.1093/humrep/dei086
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GnRH antagonists in ovarian stimulation: a treatment regimen of clinicians’ second choice? Data from the German national IVF registry
1 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Clinic of Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Luebeck, Luebeck and 2 Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Clinic Kempten-Oberallgaeu, Kempten, Germany
3 To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: georg.griesinger{at}frauenklinik.uni-luebeck.de
The place of GnRH antagonists in ovarian stimulation is controversial. Meta-analyses on studies comparing GnRH agonist and GnRH antagonist treatment regimens have suggested a comparatively lower efficacy of GnRH antagonists, which is likely to have influenced clinicians’ attitudes. This report describes GnRH antagonist utilization for ovarian stimulation in Germany from 2000–2003. Data from the national IVF registry were analysed. The majority of ovarian stimulation cycles are still performed in long GnRH agonist protocols, although a significant increase in GnRH antagonist usage has been noted (P < 0.0001). Two observations support the notion that GnRH antagonists are often utilized as a treatment option in cycles with an unfavourable a priori prognosis: (i) the proportion of GnRH antagonist cycles increases with cycle rank (P < 0.0001, 
2 for linear trend); and (ii) GnRH antagonist cycles are more often conducted in older patients as compared to GnRH agonist cycles (P < 0.0001). This has important implications for interpreting clinical performance of GnRH antagonists outside a research context.
Key words: assisted reproductive technology/GnRH antagonist/IVF/ovarian stimulation/registry
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  P. Devroey, M. Aboulghar, J. Garcia-Velasco, G. Griesinger, P. Humaidan, E. Kolibianakis, W. Ledger, C. Tomas, and B. C.J.M. Fauser Improving the patient's experience of IVF/ICSI: a proposal for an ovarian stimulation protocol with GnRH antagonist co-treatment Hum. Reprod., April 1, 2009; 24(4): 764 - 774. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J.A. Huirne, R. Homburg, and C.B. Lambalk Are GnRH antagonists comparable to agonists for use in IVF? Hum. Reprod., November 1, 2007; 22(11): 2805 - 2813. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. G. Lainas, G. K. Petsas, I. Z. Zorzovilis, G. S. Iliadis, G. T. Lainas, H. E. Cazlaris, and E. M. Kolibianakis Initiation of GnRH antagonist on Day 1 of stimulation as compared to the long agonist protocol in PCOS patients. A randomized controlled trial: effect on hormonal levels and follicular development Hum. Reprod., June 1, 2007; 22(6): 1540 - 1546. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E.M. Kolibianakis, J. Collins, B.C. Tarlatzis, P. Devroey, K. Diedrich, and G. Griesinger Among patients treated for IVF with gonadotrophins and GnRH analogues, is the probability of live birth dependent on the type of analogue used? A systematic review and meta-analysis Hum. Reprod. Update, November 1, 2006; 12(6): 651 - 671. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M.J.C. Eijkemans, E.M.E.W. Heijnen, C. de Klerk, J.D.F. Habbema, and B.C.J.M. Fauser Comparison of different treatment strategies in IVF with cumulative live birth over a given period of time as the primary end-point: methodological considerations on a randomized controlled non-inferiority trial Hum. Reprod., February 1, 2006; 21(2): 344 - 351. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|