Leuprolide acetate reduces both in vivo and in vitro ovarian steroidogenesis in infertile women undergoing assisted reproduction

Despite the probable inhibitory effects of GnRH analogues on ovarian steroidogenesis in vitro, their association with assisted reproduction protocols shows favorable results. This suggests that there are important differences in the behaviors of these drugs when administered in vivo versus in vitro. To clarify these differences, this study was designed to analyze the effect of leuprolide acetate (LA) on ovarian steroidogenesis in women undergoing In Vitro Fertilization (IVF). A prospective, randomized open label study was conducted on 14 women (26-35 years): seven receiving only gonadotrophins (Group 1) and seven receiving gonadotrophin plus LA at 1mg/day (Group 2). The LA in vivo effect was determined with serum and follicular fluid (FF) samples and via luteinized granulosa cell cultivation (GCC), where cells were obtained during oocyte retrieval after ovarian hyperstimulation. In vitro analysis was performed via addition of LA to GCC only for Group 1 (without LA) at progressively higher concentrations (0, 10(-12), 10(-9) and 10(-6) M). In vivo, the main observation was a reduction in androgen production in Group 2, represented by lower androstenedione production in FF (G1 = 6479 +/- 3458; G2 = 3021 +/- 1119 ng/ml; p = 0.04) and a lower testosterone peak in GC at 96 h (G1 = 0.64 +/- 0.12 ng/ml; G2 = 0.50 +/- 0.19ng/ml; P = 0.02), but a higher fertilization rate (G1 = 67%; G2 = 83%; p = 0.009). in vitro, testosterone, estradiol and progesterone were also reduced by LA, even though this reduction occurred for progesterone only at the highest LA dosage (10(-6) M; 606.0 +/- 114.3 ng/ml versus 1524.0 +/- 246.5 ng/ml; p=0.02). Results show that LA reduces ovarian steroidogenesis in vivo by essentially inhibiting androgen synthesis; whereas, in vitro, ovarian steroidogenesis is reduced overall. (C) 2008 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Ovarian reserve evaluation: state of the art

Purpose Revise role of hormonal basal and dynamic tests, as well as ultrasonographic measures as ovarian reserve markers, in order to provide better counseling to subfertile couples. Methods Review of publications on the topic, with an emphasis on recent well designed articles. Results Currently available ovarian reserve tests do not provide sufficient evidence to be solely considered ideal, even for premature ovarian senescence patients who do not present subfertility complaints. However, these markers occupy important place in initial approach to treatment of subfertile couples, predicting unsatisfactory results that could be improved by differentiated induction schemes and reducing excessive psychological and financial burdens, and adverse effects. Conclusions In order to remedy the limitations due to the scarcity of strong evidence about this topic, future studies should try to clarify predictive value of markers in groups of specific diseases-related subfertility and pay special attention to propaedeutic multivariate models including anti-Mullerian hormone and antral follicle count.