The role of elagolix in ovulation suppression during controlled ovarian stimulation: a retrospective cohort study

David Soliman M.Sc. , Rita Naoom B.Sc. , Mohamed Zaied B.Sc. , Samuel Soliman M.D.
{"title":"The role of elagolix in ovulation suppression during controlled ovarian stimulation: a retrospective cohort study","authors":"David Soliman M.Sc. ,&nbsp;Rita Naoom B.Sc. ,&nbsp;Mohamed Zaied B.Sc. ,&nbsp;Samuel Soliman M.D.","doi":"10.1016/j.xfre.2024.06.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>To compare in vitro fertilization treatment outcomes for the oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist elagolix (E) to the conventionally used injectable GnRH antagonist ganirelix (G) for achieving pituitary gonadotropin suppression during a controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) cycle.</div></div><div><h3>Design</h3><div>Retrospective cohort study.</div></div><div><h3>Setting</h3><div>Private university-affiliated fertility center.</div></div><div><h3>Patient(s)</h3><div>One hundred and ninety-four infertility patients receiving either E or G for pituitary suppression during the COS cycle.</div></div><div><h3>Exposure</h3><div>Use of E for ovulation suppression during the COS cycle.</div></div><div><h3>Main Outcome Measure(s)</h3><div>Biochemical pregnancy, sustained implantation, and cycle cancellation rates were the primary outcome measures. Secondary outcomes included miscarriage, fertilization, and blastulation rates.</div></div><div><h3>Result(s)</h3><div>The groups did not differ in their baseline demographic characteristics (age, body mass index, hormone profiles, total dosage of gonadotropins, number of oocytes retrieved, and number of embryos transferred). The overall cycle cancellation rates were 7.0% and 4.9% for e and G, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant. For the frozen embryo transfers, the biochemical pregnancy, sustained implantation, and miscarriage rates for E were 74.5%, 51.0%, and 31.6%, respectively. For G, these were 55.9%, 39.8%, and 28.8%. Out of these outcomes, only the biochemical pregnancy rates were significantly different. For the fresh embryo transfers, biochemical pregnancy, sustained implantation, and miscarriage rates for E were 33.3%, 33.3%, and 0.0%, and for G, they were 37.5%, 25.0%, and 33.3%. None of the differences reached significance.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion(s)</h3><div>The oral GnRH antagonist, E, may be as effective as the injected antagonist, G, regarding embryological and clinical outcomes and could offer a less invasive, more cost-effective, and “patient-friendly” approach to pituitary suppression for in vitro fertilization treatment.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":34409,"journal":{"name":"FS Reports","volume":"5 4","pages":"Pages 356-362"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"FS Reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666334124000771","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

To compare in vitro fertilization treatment outcomes for the oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist elagolix (E) to the conventionally used injectable GnRH antagonist ganirelix (G) for achieving pituitary gonadotropin suppression during a controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) cycle.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Private university-affiliated fertility center.

Patient(s)

One hundred and ninety-four infertility patients receiving either E or G for pituitary suppression during the COS cycle.

Exposure

Use of E for ovulation suppression during the COS cycle.

Main Outcome Measure(s)

Biochemical pregnancy, sustained implantation, and cycle cancellation rates were the primary outcome measures. Secondary outcomes included miscarriage, fertilization, and blastulation rates.

Result(s)

The groups did not differ in their baseline demographic characteristics (age, body mass index, hormone profiles, total dosage of gonadotropins, number of oocytes retrieved, and number of embryos transferred). The overall cycle cancellation rates were 7.0% and 4.9% for e and G, respectively, and the difference was not statistically significant. For the frozen embryo transfers, the biochemical pregnancy, sustained implantation, and miscarriage rates for E were 74.5%, 51.0%, and 31.6%, respectively. For G, these were 55.9%, 39.8%, and 28.8%. Out of these outcomes, only the biochemical pregnancy rates were significantly different. For the fresh embryo transfers, biochemical pregnancy, sustained implantation, and miscarriage rates for E were 33.3%, 33.3%, and 0.0%, and for G, they were 37.5%, 25.0%, and 33.3%. None of the differences reached significance.

Conclusion(s)

The oral GnRH antagonist, E, may be as effective as the injected antagonist, G, regarding embryological and clinical outcomes and could offer a less invasive, more cost-effective, and “patient-friendly” approach to pituitary suppression for in vitro fertilization treatment.
艾拉戈利在控制性卵巢刺激过程中抑制排卵的作用 一项回顾性队列研究
目的比较口服促性腺激素释放激素(GnRH)拮抗剂elagolix (E)与常规注射促性腺激素拮抗剂ganirelix (G)在体外受精治疗中抑制垂体促性腺激素的效果。设计回顾性队列研究。背景:私立大学附属生育中心:194例在COS周期内接受E或G垂体抑制的不孕症患者。暴露E在COS周期中抑制排卵。主要结局指标:生化妊娠、持续着床和周期取消率是主要结局指标。次要结果包括流产、受精率和囊胚率。结果:两组在基线人口统计学特征(年龄、体重指数、激素谱、促性腺激素总剂量、回收卵母细胞数量和移植胚胎数量)方面没有差异。e组和G组的总周期取消率分别为7.0%和4.9%,差异无统计学意义。冷冻胚胎移植的生化妊娠率、持续着床率和流产率分别为74.5%、51.0%和31.6%。对于G,分别为55.9%、39.8%和28.8%。在这些结果中,只有生化妊娠率有显著差异。新鲜胚胎移植中,E组生化妊娠、持续着床和流产率分别为33.3%、33.3%和0.0%,G组为37.5%、25.0%和33.3%。结论(5)在胚胎学和临床结果方面,口服GnRH拮抗剂E可能与注射拮抗剂G一样有效,并且可以提供一种侵入性更小、成本效益更高、“患者友好”的体外受精治疗垂体抑制方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
FS Reports
FS Reports Medicine-Embryology
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
78
审稿时长
60 days
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信