Estradiol and Antagonist Pretreatment Prior to Microdose Leuprolide in in Vitro Fertilization. Does It Improve IVF Outcomes in Poor Responders as Compared to Oral Contraceptive Pill?

Objective: To compare in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes in low responders stimulated with microdose leuprolide protocol (ML) following pretreatment with either oral contraceptive pill (OCP) or luteal estradiol (E2) + GnRH antagonist (E2 + antag) for follicular synchronization prior to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH).

Study Design: This was a retrospective study of 130 women, who were poor responders, undergoing IVF with either OCP/ML or E2+ antag/ML protocols. The main outcome measures were ongoing pregnancy rates, number of oocytes retrieved, and cancellation rate.

The relationship between follicle development and progesterone receptor membrane component-1 expression in women undergoing in vitro fertilization.

Objective: To determine the relationship between progesterone receptor membrane component-1 (PGRMC1) expression and the outcome of IVF treatment.

Design: A prospective study in which PGRMC1 messenger RNA (mRNA) levels, methylation status of the Pgrmc1 promoter, and the presence of point mutations within Pgrmc1 were obtained from granulosa (GC)/luteal cells of women undergoing controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH).

Setting: Fertility center/basic science laboratory.

Letrozole and gonadotropins versus luteal estradiol and gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in women with a prior low response to ovarian stimulation.

Objective: To compare in vitro fertilization outcomes after ovarian stimulation using letrozole/antagonist (LA) versus luteal-phase estradiol (E(2))/gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist (LPG) in poor responders.

Design: Retrospective study.

Setting: Academic center.

Luteal phase estradiol versus luteal phase estradiol and antagonist protocol for controlled ovarian stimulation before in vitro fertilization in poor responders.

Luteal phase synchronization of follicular growth has been suggested as a means to improve ovarian response in low responders. We compared luteal E2 and antagonist (n=256) with luteal E2 only (n=57) before antagonist protocol in low responders. The addition of GnRH antagonist to luteal E2 for luteal suppression before ovarian stimulation for IVF does not improve IVF outcomes in poor responders.