Search

Introduction and objective: This study aims to clarify if the GnRH agonist STOP-antagonist protocol versus the GnRH antagonist protocol can be useful in improving IVF (In vitro fertilization) outcomes in patients with poor ovarian response candidates for IVF. Methods: The present study was conducted as a single-blind clinical trial in the infertility ward of Arash Hospital of Tehran University of Medical Sciences. In this study, 133 patients with a poor ovarian response (POR) according to Bologna criteria were randomly assigned to two groups GnRH agonist stop-antagonist protocol and GnRH antagonist protocol. The number of dominant follicles and number of oocytes retrieved, the number of embryos and their grade, level of antagonist used, level of gonadotropin used, length of days of stimulation and endometrial thickness, level of estrogen, level of progesterone, trigger day, and fertilization rate were measured. Results: In the present study, the frequency of dominant follicles in the GnRH agonist stop-antagonist group was significantly higher than that in the GnRH antagonist group (p-value = 0.01). The number of embryos in the GnRH agonist stop antagonist group was significantly higher than that in the GnRH antagonist group (p-value = 0.02). The percentage of AB embryo agonists in the GnRH agonist stop _anta group was significantly higher than that in the GnRH antagonist group (p-value = 0.003). The number of mature oocytes in the GnRH agonist stop _antagonist group was more than that in the GnRH antagonist group, but the difference between the two groups was not statistically significant. The number of used gonadotropin doses in the GnRH agonist stop _antagonist group was significantly higher than that in the GnRH antagonist group (p-value = 0.01). The number of used antagonists in the GnRH antagonist group was significantly higher than that in the GnRH agonist stop _antagonist group (p-value = 0.02). Conclusion: The GnRH agonist stop-Anta protocol is a valuable tool for the treatment of poor ovarian responders. However, controlled prospective randomized studies with larger sample sizes are needed.

Additional file 1: Figure S1. Flow cytometric characterization of UC-MSCs. The cells were negative for (A) CD31 (endothelial marker), (B) CD45, (C) CD34 (hematopoietic stem cell markers), (D) CD11b (leukocyte marker), and (E) HLD-R (MHC-II). They displayed positive expression for MSCs markers; (F) CD105, (G) CD90, (H) CD73, and (I) CD29.

Additional file 2: Figure S2. Timeline for ICU admitted the patients treated with MSCs. (A) Survivors. (B) Non-survivors. Nine patients received three intravenous (IV) infusions. The course of cell therapy of patient number #8 was interrupted following frequent hemodialysis as a result of acute renal failure that developed on day 4. This patient took 12 days to complete the three doses. Patient number #1 was intubated and did not complete the course of his cell therapy and died on day 4. CRRT performed for both patients (#5 and 9) late during the course of disease and at least 48 h after completion of the cell infusion. ICU: Intensive care unit, ARDS: Acute respiratory distress syndrome, MSCs: Mesenchymal stem cells; ECMO: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, CRRT: Continuous renal replacement therapies, MOF: Multi-organ failure, #: Patient number.

Additional file 4: Table S2. Laboratory findings before the first and after the last cell infusions.

Additional file 3: Table S1. Clinical data before the first (day one) and last (day 5) cell infusions.

"nObjective:Premenstrual syndromes (PMS) affecting 20-40% of women of reproductive age. The aim of this double blind and placebo controlled trial was to investigate whether femicofort a supplement contains Vitamin B6, Vitamin E and evening primrose oil could relieve symptoms of PMS. "nMethod: This was a randomized and double blind clinical trial. The trial was conducted between November 2009 and April March 2010. Women aged 20 to 45 years with regular menstrual cycles and experience of PMS symptoms (According to the current diagnostic criteria proposed by the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology) for at least 6 months were eligible for the study. Patients were randomized to receive femicomfort or placebo in a 1: ratio using a computer-generated code. The assignments were kept in sealed, opaque envelopes until the point of analysis of data. In this double-blind, patients were randomly assigned to receive capsule of femicomfort (Group A) or capsule placebo for two menstrual cycles (cycles 3 and 4). The primary outcome measure was the Daily Symptom Report, a checklist of 17 premenstrual symptoms rated from 0 to 4 according to their severity throughout the menstrual cycle. Secondary outcome measure was Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (17-item). "nResults:Femicomfort at this dose was found to be effective in relieving symptoms of PMS. The difference between the femicomfort and placebo in the frequency of side effects was not significant. Conclusion: The results of this study indicate the efficacy of femicomfort in the treatment of PMS.