GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in ovarian stimulation: An ongoing debate

Raoul Orvieto; Pasquale Patrizio

doi:10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.11.001

GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in ovarian stimulation: An ongoing debate

Raoul Orvieto, Pasquale Patrizio

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

53 Scopus citations

Abstract

The availability of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists for ovarian stimulation protocols has generated many meta-analyses comparing it to GnRH agonist long protocols. These meta-analyses have yielded conflicting results for pregnancy rate, with a tendency toward a better outcome for GnRH agonists. Recently, a Cochrane review seems to have settled the conflicts by demonstrating no evidence of statistically significant differences in the rates of live births or ongoing pregnancies when comparing GnRH agonist long protocols with GnRH antagonist protocols. This paper disputes the equivalence of these two protocols as discussed in the latest meta-analysis and argue that the GnRH agonist still has a demonstrable superiority over GnRH antagonist protocols.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	4-8
Number of pages	5
Journal	Reproductive BioMedicine Online
Volume	26
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.11.001
State	Published - 1 Jan 2013

Keywords

GnRH agonist
GnRH antagonist
IVF outcome
Pregnancy

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Reproductive Medicine
Obstetrics and Gynecology
Developmental Biology

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.11.001

Cite this

@article{396f3be4dfbc4041b51ff469bc84030a,

title = "GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in ovarian stimulation: An ongoing debate",

abstract = "The availability of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists for ovarian stimulation protocols has generated many meta-analyses comparing it to GnRH agonist long protocols. These meta-analyses have yielded conflicting results for pregnancy rate, with a tendency toward a better outcome for GnRH agonists. Recently, a Cochrane review seems to have settled the conflicts by demonstrating no evidence of statistically significant differences in the rates of live births or ongoing pregnancies when comparing GnRH agonist long protocols with GnRH antagonist protocols. This paper disputes the equivalence of these two protocols as discussed in the latest meta-analysis and argue that the GnRH agonist still has a demonstrable superiority over GnRH antagonist protocols.",

keywords = "GnRH agonist, GnRH antagonist, IVF outcome, Pregnancy",

author = "Raoul Orvieto and Pasquale Patrizio",

year = "2013",

month = jan,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.11.001",

language = "English",

volume = "26",

pages = "4--8",

journal = "Reproductive BioMedicine Online",

issn = "1472-6483",

publisher = "Elsevier Ltd.",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in ovarian stimulation

T2 - An ongoing debate

AU - Orvieto, Raoul

AU - Patrizio, Pasquale

PY - 2013/1/1

Y1 - 2013/1/1

N2 - The availability of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists for ovarian stimulation protocols has generated many meta-analyses comparing it to GnRH agonist long protocols. These meta-analyses have yielded conflicting results for pregnancy rate, with a tendency toward a better outcome for GnRH agonists. Recently, a Cochrane review seems to have settled the conflicts by demonstrating no evidence of statistically significant differences in the rates of live births or ongoing pregnancies when comparing GnRH agonist long protocols with GnRH antagonist protocols. This paper disputes the equivalence of these two protocols as discussed in the latest meta-analysis and argue that the GnRH agonist still has a demonstrable superiority over GnRH antagonist protocols.

AB - The availability of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists for ovarian stimulation protocols has generated many meta-analyses comparing it to GnRH agonist long protocols. These meta-analyses have yielded conflicting results for pregnancy rate, with a tendency toward a better outcome for GnRH agonists. Recently, a Cochrane review seems to have settled the conflicts by demonstrating no evidence of statistically significant differences in the rates of live births or ongoing pregnancies when comparing GnRH agonist long protocols with GnRH antagonist protocols. This paper disputes the equivalence of these two protocols as discussed in the latest meta-analysis and argue that the GnRH agonist still has a demonstrable superiority over GnRH antagonist protocols.

KW - GnRH agonist

KW - GnRH antagonist

KW - IVF outcome

KW - Pregnancy

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84874111104&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.11.001

DO - 10.1016/j.rbmo.2012.11.001

M3 - Review article

C2 - 23186555

AN - SCOPUS:84874111104

SN - 1472-6483

VL - 26

SP - 4

EP - 8

JO - Reproductive BioMedicine Online

JF - Reproductive BioMedicine Online

IS - 1

ER -

GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in ovarian stimulation: An ongoing debate

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this