Abstract
Purpose: A prospective study was conducted to compare the efficiency of ovarian blockade with nafarelin versus leuprolide in a population whose indication for assisted reproduction was the male factor.
Methods: A total of 238 patients were assigned at random to two types of treatment: Group I (119 aspirations), nafarelin (Synarel, Searle), 200 μg by the nasal route twice a day, and Group II (119 aspirations), leuprolide acetate (Lupron, Abbott), 0.5 mg by the subcutaneous route once a day. Both types of blockade were started during the 2nd phase (21st day of the menstrual cycle) and were continued until the day of HCG (5,000–10,000 IU). All patients received a fixed dose of recombinant FSH for 7 days and on the 8th day of stimulation the doses started to be adapted according to ovarian response.
Results: Patients' age did not differ (p = 0.93) between Group I (34.1 ± 3.79) and Group II (34 ± 4.64). The number of oocytes retrieved from Group I (10.5 ± 5.93) was also similar (p = 0.57) to that retrieved from Group II (10.2 ± 6.36). In addition, there was no difference (p = 0.58) in the number of oocytes retrieved at Metaphase II between Group I (8.2 ± 4.61) and Group II (7.9 ± 5.2). Fertilization rates and embryo scores were similar (p = 0.81 and p = 0.25, respectively) for Group I (67.5% ± 21.3 and 34.4% ± 14.4) and Group II (68.1% ± 23 and 32.2% ± 14.7, respectively). In addition, pregnancy rates per puncture and per embryo transfer and implantation rates were similar for Group I (30.2, 31.3, and 16.2%, respectively) then compared with Group II (24.4, 25.2, and 12.6%, respectively) (p = 0.38, p = 0.37, and p = 0.22, respectively).
Conclusions: Implantation and pregnancy rates per puncture and per embryo transfer are not statistically significant in the nafarelin group when compared with leuprolide group.
Keywords: ICSI, implantation, leuprolide, nafarelin, ovarian stimulation, pregnancy, recombinant FSH
Full Text
The Full Text of this article is available as a PDF (53.6 KB).
REFERENCES
- 1.Westergaard LG, Laursen SB, Andersen CY. Increased risk of early pregnancy loss by profound suppression of luteinizing hormone during ovarian stimulation in normogonadotrophic women undergoing assisted reproduction. Hum Reprod. 2000;15:1003–1008. doi: 10.1093/humrep/15.5.1003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Simberg N, Tulppala M, Husa LM, Tiitinen A. Comparison of buserelin and nafarelin in IVF cycles and in subsequent frozenthawed embryo transfer cycles. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 1998;77:854–859. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Franco JG, Jr, Baruffi RLR, Coelho J, Mauri AL, Petersen CG, Garbellini E. A prospective and randomized study of ovarian stimulation for ICSI with recombinant FSH versus highly purified urinary FSH. Gynecol Endocrinol. 2000;14:5–10. doi: 10.3109/09513590009167653. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Oliveira JBA, Baruffi RLR, Mauri AL, Petersen CG, Borges MC, Franco JG., Jr Endometrial ultrasonography as a predictor of pregnancy in an in-vitro fertilization programme after ovarian stimulation and gonadotrophin-releasing hormone and gonadotrophins. Hum Reprod. 1997;12:2515–2518. doi: 10.1093/humrep/12.11.2515. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Svalander P, Forsberg AS, Jakobsson AH, Wikland M. Factors of importance for the establishment of a successful program of intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment for male infertility. Fertil Steril. 1995;63:828–837. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)57489-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Yuzpe AA, Nisker JA, Kaplan BR, Tummon IS, Auckland J. Nafarelin acetate for pituitary down-regulation in in vitro fertilization. Comparison of two dosages. J Reprod Med. 1995;40:83–88. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Penzias AS, Shamma FN, Gutmann JN, Jones EE, DecHerney AH, Lavy G. Nafarelin versus leuprolide in ovulation induction for in vitro fertilization: A randomized clinical trial. Obstet Gynecol. 1992;79:739–742. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Goldman JA, Dicker D, Feldberg D, Ashenazi J, Voliowich I. A prospective randomized comparison of two gonadotropinreleasing hormone agonists, nafarelin acetate and buserelin acetate in in-vitro fertilization-embryo transfer. Hum Reprod. 1994;9:226–228. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a138486. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Lockwood GM, Pinkerton SM, Barlow DH. A prospective randomized single-blind comparative trial of nafarelin acetate with buserelin in long-protocol gonadotropin releasing hormone analogue controlled in-vitro fertilization cycles. Hum Reprod. 1995;10:293–298. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.humrep.a135930. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Dantas ZN, Vicino M, Balmaceda J, Asch RH, Stone SC. Comparison between nafarelin and leuprolide acetate for in vitro fertilization: Preliminary clinical study. Fertil Steril. 1994;61:705–708. doi: 10.1016/s0015-0282(16)56649-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11.Martin MC, Givens CR, Schriock ED, Glass RH, Dandekar PV. The choice of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog influences outcome of in vitro fertilization treatment. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1994;170:1629–1632. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9378(94)70333-7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Corson SL, Guttmann JN, Batzer FR, Gocial B. A doubleblind comparison of nafarelin and leuprolide acetate for down-regulation in IVF cycles. Int J Fertil Menopausal Stud. 1996;41:446–449. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Dada T, Salha O, Baillie HS, Sharma V. A comparison of three gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogues in an in-vitro fertilization programme: A prospective randomized study. Hum Reprod. 1999;14:288–293. doi: 10.1093/humrep/14.2.288. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Givens CR. Nafarelin acetate for pituitary suppression for in vitro fertilization: Results from a decade of use. Assisted Reprod. 1999;9:192–198. [Google Scholar]