Skip to main content
PMC home page
Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics logoLink to Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics
. 2005 Feb;22(2):75–79. doi: 10.1007/s10815-005-1496-2

Modified Natural Cycle Using GnRH Antagonist Can Be an Optional Treatment in Poor Responders Undergoing IVF

Shai E Elizur 1,2,✉, Dilek Aslan 1,2, Adrian Shulman 1,2, Boaz Weisz 1,2, David Bider 1,2, Jehoshua Dor 1,2
PMCID: PMC3455473  PMID: 15844732

Abstract

Purpose: To investigate the efficacy of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist supplementation during natural cycles in poor responders undergoing IVF-ET treatment.

Methods: We retrospectively evaluated 540 cycles of 433 suitable patients who were divided by treatment protocol into modified natural, antagonist, and long agonist groups. There were 52 modified natural cycles with GnRH antagonist supplementation, 200 stimulated cycles with GnRH antagonist, and 288 long GnRH agonist cycles. Cycle characteristics and treatment outcomes were compared between the groups.

Results: The mean number of oocytes retrieved in the modified natural group was significantly lower than in the stimulated antagonist and long agonist groups (1.4± 0.5 vs. 2.3± 1.1 and 2.5± 1.1, respectively, p < 0.05). The respective implantation and pregnancy rates were 10% and 14.3%, 6.75% and 10.2%, and 7.4% and 10.6%. Cycle outcome and cycle properties were similar.

Conclusions: Modified natural IVF cycle with GnRH antagonist supplementation is a feasible alternative to ovarian stimulation protocols in poor responders.

Key words: GnRH antagonists, IVF, natural cycle, ovulation induction, poor ovarian response

Full Text

The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (66.9 KB).

References

  • 1.Keay SD, Liversedge NH, Mahur RS, Jenkins JM. Assisted conception following poor ovarian response to gonadotrophin stimulation. Br J Obstet Gynecol. 1997;104:521–527. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1997.tb11525.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Jenkins JM, Davies DW, Devonport H, Gadd SC, Watson RH, Masson GM. Comparison of ‘poor’ responders with ‘good’ responders using a standard buserelin/human menopausal gonadotrophin regime for in-vitro fertilization. Hum Reprod. 1991;6:918–921. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a137459. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Mahutte NG, Arici A. Poor responders: Does the protocol make a difference? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2002;14:275–281. doi: 10.1097/00001703-200206000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Ben-Rafael Z, Liptiz S, Bider D, Maschiach S. Ovarian hyporesponsiveness in combined gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist and menotropin therapy is associated with low serum follicle-stimulating hormone levels. Fertil Steril. 1991;55:272–275. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)54114-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Ben-Rafael Z, Menashe Y, Mimon R. Limitations in the use of combined gonadotrophin-releasing hormone analog and human menopausal gonadotrophin for in vitro fertilization. In: Maschiach S, Ben-Rafael Z, Laufer N, Schenker JG, editors. Advances in Assisted Reproductive Technologies. New York: Plenum; 1990. pp. 17–30. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Feldberg D, Farhi J, Ashkenazi J, Dicker D, Shalev J, Ben-Rafael Z. Minidose gonadotrophins-releasing hormone agonist is the treatment of choice in poor responders with high follicle-stimulating hormone levels. Fertil Steril. 1994;62:343–346. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)56889-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Surrey ES, Bower J, Hill DM, Ramsey J, Surrey MW. Clinical and endocrine effects of a microdose GnRH agonist flare regimen administered to poor responders who are undergoing in vitro fertilization. Fertil Steril. 1998;69:419–424. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(97)00575-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Craft I, Gorgy A, Hill J, Menon D, Podsiadly B. Will GnRH antagonists provide new hope for patients considered ‘difficult responders’ to GnRH agonist protocols? Hum Reprod. 1999;14:2959–2962. doi: 10.1093/humrep/14.12.2959. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Akman MA, Erden HF, Tosun SB, Bayazit N, Aksoy E, Bahceci M. Addition of GnRH antagonist in cycles of poor responders undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:2145–2147. doi: 10.1093/humrep/15.10.2145. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Nikolettos N, Al-Hasani S, Felberbaum R, Demirel LC, Kupker W, Montzka P, Xia YX, Schopper B, Sturm R, Diedrich K. Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol: A novel method of ovarian stimulation in poor responders. Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2001;97:202–207. doi: 10.1016/s0301-2115(00)00535-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Feldman B, Seidman DS, Levron J, Bider D, Shulman A, Shine S, Dor J. In vitro fertilization following natural cycles in poor responders. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2001;15:328–334. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Leroy I, d’Acremont M, Brailly-Tabard S, Frydman R, de Mouzon J, Bouchard P. A single injection of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist (Cetrorelix) postpones the luteinizing hormone (LH) surge: Further evidence for the role of GnRH during the LH surge. Fertil Steril. 1994;62:461–467. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)56932-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Crosignani PG, Ragni G, Lombrosso GC, Scarduelli C, de Lauretis L, Caccamo A, Dalpra L, Cavioni V, Cristiani C, Wyssling H, et al. IVF: Induction of ovulation in poor responders. J Steroid Biochem. 1989;32:171–173. doi: 10.1016/0022-4731(89)90160-x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hofmann GE, Toner JP, Muasher SJ, Jones GS. High dose follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) ovarian stimulation in low-responder patients for in vitro fertilization. J In Vitro Fertil Embryo Transf. 1989;6:285–289. doi: 10.1007/BF01139183. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.De Placido G, Alviggi C, Mollo A, Strina I, Varricchio MT, Molis M. Recombinant follicle stimulating hormone is effective in poor responders to highly purified follicle stimulating hormone. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:17–20. doi: 10.1093/humrep/15.1.17. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Surrey ES, Schoolcraft WB. Evaluating strategies for improving ovarian response of the poor responder undergoing assisted reproductive techniques. Fertil Steril. 2000;73:667–676. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(99)00630-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Karacan M, Erkan H, Karabulut O, Sarikamis B, Camlibel T, Benhabib M. Clinical pregnancy rates in an IVF program: Use of the flare-up protocol after failure with long regimens of GnRH-a. J Reprod Med. 2001;46:485–489. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mahutte NG, Arici A. Poor responders: Does the protocol make a difference? Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2002;14:275–281. doi: 10.1097/00001703-200206000-00005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Steptoe PC, Edwards RG. Birth after the reimplantation of a human embryo. Lancet. 1978;12:366. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(78)92957-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Pelinck MJ, Hoek A, Simons AH, Heineman MJ. Efficacy of natural cycle IVF: A review of the literature. Hum Reprod Update. 2002;8:129–139. doi: 10.1093/humupd/8.2.129. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Lindheim SR, Vidali A, Ditkoff E, Sauer MV. Poor responders to ovarian hyperstimulation may benefit from an attempt at natural-cycle oocyte retrieval. J Assist Reprod Genet. 1997;14:174–177. doi: 10.1007/BF02766136. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Journal of Assisted Reproduction and Genetics are provided here courtesy of Springer Science+Business Media, LLC

RESOURCES