Is there a perfect protocol for patients with low ovarian reserve: a retrospective study comparing antagonist or agonist protocol in patients with low ovarian reserve


  • Seema Rai Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, MH Bhopal, Bairagarh, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
  • Yasaswi Khandavalli Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, MH Bhopal, Bairagarh, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
  • Rama S. Lodha Department of Community Medicine, Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India



Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation, GnRH-agonist, GnRH-antagonist, In vitro fertilization, Poor ovarian reserve


Background: The high prevalence of infertility has made it a major healthcare problem in the present era. A majority of patients presenting with infertility have poor ovarian reserve (POR). Patients with POR are challenging to treat due to reduced treatment success and high cycle cancellation rate as there is no uniform definition and treatment protocol for these patients. The present retrospective study was performed to compare the pregnancy outcome between a long agonist protocol and flexible antagonist protocol in patients with POR. Patients with AMH ≤1.5 ng/mL and AFC ≤4 was included in the study. Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation is the basis of any in vitro fertilisation (IVF) procedure. There is no universally accepted ideal stimulation protocol for patients with POR, and it remains a challenge.

Methods: This was a retrospective study covering the period from May 2019 to March 2020. Ninety-nine patients with low ovarian reserve (AMH ≤1.5 ng/mL and AFC ≤4) were included in the study. The patients underwent GnRH agonist/GnRH antagonist stimulation protocol using recombinant FSH. Demographic characteristics like age, BMI, duration of infertility was comparable. Total days of stimulation, total Gonadotropin dose used and clinical pregnancy rate in both the protocols was analyzed. Difference between the two groups was considered statistically significant at p-value <0.05.

Results: Fifty-three patients underwent antagonist stimulation protocol and forty-six long agonist protocol. The clinical pregnancy rate was 37.7% (20/53) and 32.6% (15/46) in antagonist and agonist protocol respectively (p-value=0.5983). Pregnancy rate was higher in the antagonist group but the difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusions: Antagonist protocol could marginally increase pregnancy rate in patients with low ovarian reserve. However, patients with poor ovarian reserve require a tailor-made protocol.


Sunkara SK, Rittenberg V, Raine-Fenning N, Bhattacharya S, Zamora J, Coomarasamy A. Association between the number of eggs and live birth in IVF treatment: an analysis of 400 135 treatment cycles. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:1768-74.

De Geyter C, Fehr P, Moffat R, Gruber IM, von Wolff M. Twenty years' experience with the Swiss data registry for assisted reproductive medicine: outcomes, key trends and recommendations for improved practice. Swiss Med Wkly. 2015;145:w14087.

Drakopoulos P, Blockeel C, Stoop D, Camus M, de Vos M, Tournaye H, et al. Conventional ovarian stimulation and single embryo transfer for IVF/ICSI. How many oocytes do we need to maximize cumulative live birth rates after utilization of all fresh and frozen embryos? Hum Reprod. 2016;31:370-6.

Esteves SC, Roque M, Bedoschi GM, Conforti A, Humaidan P, Alviggi C. Defining low prognosis patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology: POSEIDON Criteria - The why. Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2018;9:461.

Practice Committee of the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. Testing and interpreting measures of ovarian reserve: a committee opinion. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:e9-17.

Tal R, Seifer DB. Ovarian reserve testing: a user’s guide. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2017;217(2):105-234.

Rasool S, Shah D. Fertility with early reduction of ovarian reserve: the last straw that breaks the Camel’s back. Fertil Res Pract. 2017;3:15.

Cheung LP, Lam PM, Lok IH, Tak-Yu Chiu T, Yeung SY, et al. GnRH antagonist versus long GnRH agonist protocol in poor responders undergoing IVF: a randomized controlled trial. Human Reprod. 2005;20(3):616-21.

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;15:2145-7.

Patrizio P, Vaiarelli A, Setti L, Tobler KJ, Shoham G, Leong M, et al. How to define, diagnose and treat poor responders? Responses from a worldwide survey of IVF clinics. Reprod Biomed Online. 2015;30:581-92.

Oudendijk JF, Yarde F, Eijkemans MJ, Broekmans FJ, Broer SL. The poor responder in IVF: is the prognosis always poor?: a systematic review. Hum Reprod Update. 2012;18:1-11.

Lazer T, Dar S, Shlush E, Al Kudmani BS, Quach K, Sojecki A, et al. Comparison of IVF outcomes between minimal stimulation and high-dose stimulation for patients with poor ovarian reserve. Int J Reprod Med. 2014:Article ID 581451.

Kyrou D, Kolibianakis EM, Venetis CA, Papanikolaou EG, Bontis J, Tarlatzis BC. How to improve the probability of pregnancy in poor responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2009;91(3):749-66.

Vollenhoven B, Osianlis T, Catt J. Is there an ideal stimulation regimen for IVF for poor responders and does it change with age? J Assist Reprod Genet. 2008;25(11-12):523-9.

Verberg MF, Eijkemans MJ, Macklon NS, Heijnen EM, Baart EB, Hohmann FP, et al. The clinical significance of the retrieval of a low number of oocytes following mild ovarian stimulation for IVF: a meta-analysis. Hum Reprod Update. 2009;15:5-12.

Polyzos NP, Sunkara SK. Sub-optimal responders following controlled ovarian stimulation: an overlooked group? Hum Reprod. 2015;30:2005-8.

Sharara FI, Scott RT, Seifer DB. The detection of diminished ovarian reserve in infertile women. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1998;179:804-12.

Gallos ID, Eapen A, Price MJ, Sunkara SK, Macklon NS, Bhattacharya S, Khalaf Y, Tobias A, Deeks JJ, Rajkhowa M, Coomarasamy A. Controlled ovarian stimulation protocols for assisted reproduction: a network meta‐analysis. Coch Data Syst Rev. 2017;2017(3):CD012586.

Yu R, Jin H, Huang X, Lin J, Wang P. Comparison of modified agonist, mild-stimulation and antagonist protocols for in vitro fertilization in patients with diminished ovarian reserve. J Inter Med Res. 2018;46(6):2327-37.

Lainas TG, Sfontouris IA, Venetis CA, Lainas GT, Zorzovilis IZ, Tarlatzis BC, et al. Live birth rates after modified natural cycle compared with high-dose FSH stimulation using GnRH antagonists in poor responders. Human Reprod. 2015;30(10):2321-30.

Sbracia M, Farina A, Poverini R, Morgia F, Schimberni M, Aragona C. Short versus long gonadotropin-releasing hormone analogue suppression protocols for superovulation in patients≥ 40 years old undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(3):644-8..

Sibai H, Elgindy EA, Mostafa MI. ICSI cycles in women over 40 years: analysis of 3 different ovarian stimulation protocols. Middle East Fertil Society J. 2018;23(4):319-23.

Z. Pandian, A.R. McTavish, L. Aucott, M.P. Hamilton, S. Bhattacharya, Interventions for ‘poor responders’ to controlled ovarian hyper stimulation (COH) in in-vitro fertilization (IVF). Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;1:CD004379.

Haahr T, Esteves SC, Humaidan P. Poor definition of poor-ovarian response results in misleading clinical recommendations. Hum Reprod. 2018;33:979-80.

Haahr T, Esteves SC, Humaidan P. Individualized controlled ovarian stimulation in expected poor-responders: an update. Reprod Biol Endocrinol. 2018;16:20.

Orvieto R, Patrizio P. GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in ovarian stimulation: an ongoing debate. Reprod Biomed Online. 2013;26(1):4-8.

Griesinger G, Diedrich K, Tarlatzis BC, Kolibiana-kis EM. GnRH-antagonists in ovarian stimulation for IVF in patients with poor response to gonadotrophins, polycystic ovary syndrome, and risk of ovarian hyperstimulation: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13(5):628-38.

Tal, R, Tal, O, Seifer BJ. Antimüllerian hormone as predictor of implantation and clinical pregnancy after assisted conception: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2015;103:119-30.

Pastore LM, Christianson MS, Stelling J, Kearns WG, Segars JH. Reproductive ovarian testing and the alphabet soup of diagnoses: DOR, POI, POF, POR, and FOR. J Assisted Reprod Genetics. 2018;35(1):17-23.

Lai Q, Zhang H, Zhu G, Li Y, Jin L, He L, et al. Comparison of the GnRH agonist and antagonist protocol on the same patients in assisted reproduction during controlled ovarian stimulation cycles. Int J Clin Experimental Pathol. 2013;6(9):1903.

Mo Y, Peng P, Zhou R, He Z, Huang L, Yang D. Regulation of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor-I expression in the pituitary and ovary by a GnRH agonist and antagonist. Reprod Sci. 2010;17(1):68-77.

Howles CM. The place of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists in reproductive medicine. Reproductive BioMedicine Online. 2002;4(3):64-71.

Lavorato HL, Oliveira JB, Petersen CG, Vagnini L, Mauri AL, Cavagna M, et al. GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in IVF/ICSI cycles with recombinant LH supplementation: DNA fragmentation and apoptosis in granulosa cells. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2012;165:61-5.

Bodri D, Vernaeve V, Guillen JJ, Vidal R, Figueras F, Coll O. Comparison between a GnRH antagonist and a GnRH agonist flare-up protocol in oocyte donors: a randomized clinical trial. Hum Reprod. 2006;21:2246-51.

Pu D, Wu J, Liu J. Comparison of GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol in poor ovarian responders undergoing IVF. Hum Reprod. 2011;26:2742-9.

Franco JG, Baruffi RL, Mauri AL, Petersen CG, Felipe V, Cornicelli J, et al. GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in poor ovarian responders: a meta-analysis. Reprod Biomed Online. 2006;13(5):618-27.

Malmusi S, La Marca A, Giulini S, Xella S, Tagliasacchi D, Marsella T, et al. Comparison of a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist and GnRH agonist flare-up regimen in poor responders undergoing ovarian stimulation. Fertil Steril. 2005;84(2):402-6.

Xiao J, Chang S, Chen S. The effectiveness of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist in poor ovarian responders undergoing in vitro fertilization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Fertil Steril. 2013;100:1594-601.e1-9.

Roberto M, Donatella C, Vincenza D, Carla T, Antonio P, Massimo M. GnRH antagonist in IVF poor-responder patients: results of a randomized trial. Reprod Biomed Online 2005;11:189-93.

Orvieto R, Homburg R, Meltcer S, Rabinson J, Anteby EY, Scharf S. GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in controlled ovarian hyperstimulation: their role in patients with an unfavorable prognosis a priori. Fertil Steril. 2009;91:1378-80.

Orvieto R, Rabinson J, Meltcer S, Homburg R, Anteby E, Zohav E. GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist in ovarian stimulation: is the emperor naked?. Clin Exp Obstet Gynecol. 2006;33:197-9.

Prapas Y, Petousis S, Dagklis T, Panagiotidis Y, Papatheodorou A, Assunta I, et al. GnRH antagonist versus long GnRH agonist protocol in poor IVF responders: a randomized clinical trial. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol. 2013;166(1):43-6.






Original Research Articles