Suppr超能文献

在体外受精的低反应者中,短效促性腺激素释放激素激动剂与灵活拮抗剂及枸橼酸氯米芬方案的比较:一项随机对照试验

Short gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist versus flexible antagonist versus clomiphene citrate regimens in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a randomized controlled trial.

作者信息

Schimberni M, Ciardo F, Schimberni M, Giallonardo A, De Pratti V, Sbracia M

机构信息

Bioroma, Centre for Reproductive Medicine, Clinica Valle Giulia, Rome, Italy.

出版信息

Eur Rev Med Pharmacol Sci. 2016 Oct;20(20):4354-4361.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Poor responders represent a frustrating condition for couples undergoing IVF and clinicians, and their treatment remains disputed. To assess the efficacy and the most suitable protocol, we conducted a randomized controlled trial comparing three different protocols of ovarian stimulation in poor responder women: clomiphene citrate (CC) plus a high dose of gonadotropins and GnRH antagonist, flexible GnRH antagonist protocol and a short GnRH agonist protocol.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Between July 2014 and December 2015 we enrolled 250 poor responders in a previous IVF cycle at least 3 months before. We divided into three groups: group A, 68 women treated with clomiphene citrate and FSH plus antagonist; Group B, 71 patients treated with FSH plus antagonist; Group C, 75 patients treated with FSH plus GnRH agonist.

RESULTS

The GnRH agonist protocol showed a significantly higher pregnancy rate (29.3% vs. 5.9% vs. 14.1% respectively) than the clomiphene and the GnRH antagonist protocol, number of mature oocytes collected, estradiol levels and endometrial thickness. The cost of medications for each baby born was lower for the GnRH agonist protocol than for the others; the implantation rate was significantly lower in the clomiphene group (4.8%) than in the GnRH antagonist group (9.3%) and the GnRH agonist groups (19.2%). No significant differences emerged for total FSH administered, days of stimulation, numbers of oocytes retrieved and embryos transferred.

CONCLUSIONS

This study demonstrates that short GnRH agonist protocol should be the first choice in poor responders; instead, clomiphene citrate should be avoided due to its very low success rate and high costs.

摘要

目的

对于接受体外受精(IVF)的夫妇和临床医生而言,反应不良者是一个令人沮丧的情况,其治疗方法仍存在争议。为了评估疗效和最合适的方案,我们进行了一项随机对照试验,比较了三种不同的卵巢刺激方案对反应不良女性的效果:枸橼酸氯米芬(CC)加高剂量促性腺激素和GnRH拮抗剂、灵活的GnRH拮抗剂方案以及短方案GnRH激动剂方案。

患者与方法

在2014年7月至2015年12月期间,我们招募了250名在至少3个月前进行过上一轮IVF周期的反应不良者。我们将其分为三组:A组,68名接受枸橼酸氯米芬和促卵泡生成素(FSH)加拮抗剂治疗的女性;B组,71名接受FSH加拮抗剂治疗的患者;C组,75名接受FSH加GnRH激动剂治疗的患者。

结果

与枸橼酸氯米芬和GnRH拮抗剂方案相比,GnRH激动剂方案的妊娠率(分别为29.3%、5.9%和14.1%)、采集到的成熟卵母细胞数量、雌二醇水平和子宫内膜厚度显著更高。GnRH激动剂方案每出生一个婴儿的药物成本低于其他方案;枸橼酸氯米芬组的着床率(4.8%)显著低于GnRH拮抗剂组(9.3%)和GnRH激动剂组(19.2%)。在总促卵泡生成素用量、刺激天数、取出的卵母细胞数量和移植的胚胎数量方面未出现显著差异。

结论

本研究表明,短方案GnRH激动剂方案应是反应不良者的首选;相反,由于枸橼酸氯米芬成功率极低且成本高,应避免使用。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验