GnRH agonist during luteal phase in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

GRADE Use in Evidence Syntheses Published in High-Impact-Factor Gynecology and Obstetrics Journals: A Methodological Survey

Objective: To identify and describe the certainty of evidence of gynecology and obstetrics systematic reviews (SRs) using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Method: Database searches of SRs using GRADE, published between 1 January 2016 to 31 December 2020, in the 10 "gynecology and obstetrics" journals with the highest impact factor, according to the Journal Citation Report 2019. Selected studies included those SRs using the GRADE approach, used to determine the certainty of evidence. Results: Out of 952 SRs, ninety-six SRs of randomized control trials (RCTs) and/or nonrandomized studies (NRSs) used GRADE. Sixty-seven SRs (7.04%) rated the certainty of evidence for specific outcomes. In total, we identified 946 certainty of evidence outcome ratings (n = 614 RCT ratings), ranging from very-low (42.28%) to low (28.44%), moderate (17.65%), and high (11.63%). High and very low certainty of evidence ratings accounted for 2.16% and 71.60% in the SRs of NRSs, respectively, compared with 16.78% and 26.55% in the SRs of RCTs. In the SRs of RCTs and NRSs, certainty of evidence was mainly downgraded due to imprecision and bias risks. Conclusions: More attention needs to be paid to strengthening GRADE acceptance and building knowledge of GRADE methods in gynecology and obstetrics evidence synthesis.

Luteal phase support for women trying to conceive by intrauterine insemination or sexual intercourse

BACKGROUND

Ovulation induction may impact endometrial receptivity due to insufficient progesterone secretion. Low progesterone is associated with poor pregnancy outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effectiveness and safety of luteal phase support (LPS) in infertile women trying to conceive by intrauterine insemination or by sexual intercourse.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, LILACS, trial registries for ongoing trials, and reference lists of articles (from inception to 25 August 2021).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of LPS using progestogen, human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG), or gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist supplementation in IUI or natural cycle.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were live birth rate/ongoing pregnancy rate (LBR/OPR) and miscarriage.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 25 RCTs (5111 participants). Most studies were at unclear or high risk of bias. We graded the certainty of evidence as very low to low. The main limitations of the evidence were poor reporting and imprecision. 1. Progesterone supplement versus placebo or no treatment  We are uncertain if vaginal progesterone increases LBR/OPR (risk ratio (RR) 1.10, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 1.48; 7 RCTs; 1792 participants; low-certainty evidence) or decreases miscarriage per pregnancy compared to placebo or no treatment (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.25; 5 RCTs; 261 participants). There were no data on LBR or miscarriage with oral stimulation. We are uncertain if progesterone increases LBR/OPR in women with gonadotropin stimulation (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.92; 4 RCTs; 1054 participants; low-certainty evidence) and oral stimulation (clomiphene citrate or letrozole) (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.58 to 1.64; 2 RCTs; 485 participants; low-certainty evidence). One study reported on OPR in women with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation; the evidence from this study was uncertain (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.37 to 1.42; 1 RCT; 253 participants; low-certainty evidence). Given the low certainty of the evidence, it is unclear if progesterone reduces miscarriage per clinical pregnancy in any stimulation protocol (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.91; 2 RCTs; 102 participants, with gonadotropin; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.50; 2 RCTs; 123 participants, with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation; and RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.14; 2 RCTs; 119 participants, with oral stimulation). Low-certainty evidence suggests that progesterone in all types of ovarian stimulation may increase clinical pregnancy compared to placebo (RR 1.38, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.74; 7 RCTs; 1437 participants, with gonadotropin; RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.90; 4 RCTs; 733 participants, with gonadotropin plus oral stimulation (clomiphene citrate or letrozole); and RR 1.44, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.98; 6 RCTs; 1073 participants, with oral stimulation). 2. Progesterone supplementation regimen  We are uncertain if there is any difference between 300 mg and 600 mg of vaginal progesterone for OPR and multiple pregnancy (RR 1.58, 95% CI 0.81 to 3.09; 1 RCT; 200 participants; very low-certainty evidence; and RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.43; 1 RCT; 200 participants, very low-certainty evidence, respectively). No other outcomes were reported for this comparison. There were three different comparisons between progesterone regimens. For OPR, the evidence is very uncertain for intramuscular (IM) versus vaginal progesterone (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.02; 1 RCT; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence); we are uncertain if there is any difference between oral and vaginal progesterone (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.70 to 2.22; 1 RCT; 150 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or between subcutaneous and vaginal progesterone (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.54 to 2.05; 1 RCT; 246 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain if IM or oral progesterone reduces miscarriage per clinical pregnancy compared to vaginal progesterone (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.43 to 1.32; 1 RCT; 81 participants and RR 0.58, 95% CI 0.11 to 3.09; 1 RCT; 41 participants, respectively). Clinical pregnancy and multiple pregnancy were reported for all comparisons; the evidence for these outcomes was very uncertain. Only one RCT reported adverse effects. We are uncertain if IM route increases the risk of adverse effects when compared with the vaginal route (RR 9.25, 95% CI 2.21 to 38.78; 1 RCT; 225 participants; very low-certainty evidence). 3. GnRH agonist versus placebo or no treatment  No trials reported live birth. The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of GnRH agonist in ongoing pregnancy (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.74; 1 RCT; 291 participants, very low-certainty evidence), miscarriage per clinical pregnancy (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.26 to 2.10; 2 RCTs; 79 participants, very low-certainty evidence) and clinical pregnancy (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.47; 2 RCTs; 340 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and multiple pregnancy (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.70; 2 RCTs; 126 participants). 4. GnRH agonist versus vaginal progesterone  The evidence for the effect of GnRH agonist injection on clinical pregnancy is very uncertain (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.95; 1 RCT; 242 participants). 5. HCG injection versus no treatment  The evidence for the effect of hCG injection on clinical pregnancy (RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.40 to 2.13; 1 RCT; 130 participants) and multiple pregnancy rates (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.22 to 4.92; 1 RCT; 130 participants) is very uncertain. 6. Luteal support in natural cycle No study evaluated the effect of LPS in natural cycle. We could not perform sensitivity analyses, as there were no studies at low risk of selection bias and not at high risk in other domains.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are uncertain if vaginal progesterone supplementation during luteal phase is associated with a higher live birth/ongoing pregnancy rate. Vaginal progesterone may increase clinical pregnancy rate; however, its effect on miscarriage rate and multiple pregnancy rate is uncertain. We are uncertain if IM progesterone improves ongoing pregnancy rates or decreases miscarriage rate when compared to vaginal progesterone. Regarding the other reported comparisons, neither oral progesterone nor any other medication appears to be associated with an improvement in pregnancy outcomes (very low-certainty evidence).

Single-administered GnRH agonist as luteal phase support in insemination cycles: a randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To find out whether a single-administered GnRH agonist improves the live birth rate in real-life patients undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles.

STUDY DESIGN

A prospective, randomized controlled trial in a public single tertiary center in Tampere University Hospital, Finland. Altogether 251 IUI cycles in 163 patients were randomized to triptorelin and a control group between January 2017 and April 2019. In the triptorelin group, the participants had a single administration of a subcutaneous GnRH agonist triptorelin 0.1 mg at the time of implantation. In the control group, there was no luteal phase support. The primary outcome measure was the live birth rate (LBR). The secondary outcome measures were clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) and miscarriage rate.

RESULTS

Overall, the live birth rate was lower in the triptorelin group compared to the control group (7.9 vs. 12.1%; p = .297). The clinical pregnancy rates were 12.6 and 13.7%, respectively. There were 2.4% miscarriages in the triptorelin group and no miscarriages in the control group. Ovarian stimulation with letrozole was associated with lower LBR among the triptorelin group, in comparison to the control group (0 vs. 14.7%, p = .020). In contrast, when gonadotrophin was added to the letrozole, LBR was almost doubled compared to the control group (15.9 vs. 8.3%, p = .341).

CONCLUSION

A single administration of GnRH agonist in the luteal phase does not improve LBR in IUI cycles.

Effects of multiple doses of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist on the luteal-phase support in assisted reproductive cycles: A clinical trial study

Background

The effect of adding gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist on the luteal phase support in assisted reproductive technique (ART) cycles is controversial.

Objective

To determine the effects of adding multiple doses of GnRH agonist to the routine luteal phase support on ART cycle outcomes.

Materials and Methods

This clinical trial study included 200 participants who underwent the antagonist protocol at the Research and Clinical Center for Infertility, Yazd, Iran, between January and March 2020. Of the 200, 168 cases who met the inclusion criteria were equally divided into two groups - the case and the control groups. Both groups received progesterone in the luteal phase, following which the case group received GnRH agonist subcutaneously (0/1 mg triptorelin) zero, three, and six days after the fresh embryo transfer, while the control group did not receive anything. Finally, chemical and clinical pregnancy rates, number of mature oocytes, fertilization rate, total dose of gonadotropin, and the estradiol level were determined.

Results

The baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. No significant difference was observed between embryo transfer cycles. Clinical results showed that differences between the fertilization rate, chemical and clinical pregnancies were not significant.

Conclusion

The results showed that receiving multiple doses of GnRH agonist in the luteal phase of ART cycles neither improves embryo implantation nor the pregnancy rates; therefore, further studies are required.

Efficacy of daily GnRH agonist for luteal phase support following GnRH agonist triggered ICSI cycles versus conventional strategy: A Randomized controlled trial

Objective:

The use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) as an alternative for human chronic gonadotropin (hCG) trigger has potential benefits, but the optimal luteal phase support (LPS) following GnRHa trigger remains to be elucidated. We aimed to investigate a new strategy (daily GnRH agonist for LPS following GnRH agonist trigger) as an alternative for the conventional approach to the patients undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

Methods:

In this randomized controlled trial study, 44 ICSI patients were randomly assigned into two groups: group 1, patients received standard strategy (hCG trigger [10000 IU] and progesterone bid [400 mg/BD] for LPS); group 2, patients received a dose of GnRHa (0.2 mg) for ovulation trigger and subcutaneous injection of GnRHa bid (0.2 mg) for LPS.

Results:

The pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth rates for the patients undergoing LPS following the GnRHa trigger were similar to those of patients undergoing the standard strategy.

Conclusions:

We showed that a daily subcutaneous injection of GnRHa for LPS following the GnRHa trigger can be successfully performed as an alternative to the standard strategy, with comparable pregnancy and live birth rates in ICSI patients.

Luteal phase support for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection fresh cycles: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Various luteal phase supports (LPSs) have been proven to increase the pregnancy rate in fresh cycles of in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection; however, there is still significant debate regarding the optimal use of LPS.

METHODS

A systematic review with the use of a network meta-analysis was performed via electronic searching of Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov and Google Scholar (up to January 2021) to compare the effectiveness and safety of various LPSs, as well as to evaluate the effects of different initiations of LPSs on pregnancy outcomes. The primary outcomes included live birth and ongoing pregnancy, with the results presented as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

RESULTS

Eighty-nine randomized controlled trials with 29,625 women comparing 14 interventions or placebo/no LPS treatments were included in the meta-analyses. No significant differences were found in terms of the pregnancy outcomes when LPS was started within 48 h after oocyte retrieval versus a delayed initiation between 48 h and 96 h after oocyte retrieval. The addition of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists to progesterone vaginal pessaries showed a significant benefit in terms of live birth (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.78). Only human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) was found to be more efficacious than the placebo/no LPS treatment in terms of live birth (OR 15.43, 95% CI 2.03 to 117.12, low evidence). Any active LPSs (except for rectal or subcutaneous progesterone) was significantly more efficacious than the placebo/no LPS treatment in terms of ongoing pregnancy, with ORs ranging between 1.77 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.90) for the vaginal progesterone pessary and 2.14 (1.23 to 3.70) for the intramuscular progesterone treatment. Among the comparisons of efficacy and tolerability between the active treatments, the differences were small and very uncertain.

CONCLUSION

Delays in progesterone supplementation until 96 h after oocyte retrieval does not affect pregnancy outcomes. The safety of GnRH agonists during the luteal phase needs to be evaluated in future studies before the applications of these agonists in clinical practice. With comparable efficacy and acceptability, there may be several viable clinical options for LPS.

No significant long-term complications from inadvertent exposure to gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist during early pregnancy in mothers and offspring: a retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

Administration of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) in the luteal phase is commonly used for pituitary suppression during in vitro fertilisation (IVF). There is an ineluctable risk of inadvertent exposure of spontaneous pregnancy to GnRH-a. However, little is known about the pregnancy complications and repregnancy outcomes of the affected women and the neurodevelopmental outcomes of the GnRH-a-exposed children.

METHODS

Retrospective analysis was used to determine obstetric and repregnancy outcomes after natural conception in 114 women who naturally conceived while receiving GnRH-a during their early pregnancy over the past 17 years. The GnRH-a-exposed children were evaluated to determine their neonatal characteristics and long-term neurodevelopmental outcomes. The outcomes were compared to those of relevant age-matched control groups.

RESULTS

Sixty-five women had 66 live births. The neonatal health outcomes and the incidence of maternal complications were similar in the GnRH-a-exposed and control groups. Thirty-one GnRH-a-exposed children, aged 2-8 years, were available for investigation of neurodevelopment. Except for one case of autism spectrum disorder, the full-scale intelligence quotient score was within the normal range and similar to that of the control group. Most mothers with successful pregnancies and about one-third of the women who had spontaneous abortions were subsequently able to conceive naturally again. IVF is recommended for repregnancy in women who have experienced ectopic pregnancies.

CONCLUSIONS

Accidental exposure to GnRH-a in early pregnancy might be safe. Reproductive treatment suggestions for repregnancy should be made with consideration of the outcomes of the previously GnRH-a-exposed spontaneous pregnancy.

Effects of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) as luteal phase support in intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles: a randomized controlled trial

Background

This paper describes a blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) designed to evaluate the effect of gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) administration on outcomes of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in subjects stimulated with the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol. A total of 268 women who underwent ICSI cycles with GnRH antagonist ovarian stimulation protocol were included in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to the intervention (GnRH-a) and control groups. The intervention group received a single dose injection of triptorelin (0.1 mg) subcutaneously 6 days after oocyte retrieval while the control group received placebo. The rates of chemical and clinical pregnancy were defined as the primary outcome values.

Results

Two hundred forty participants accomplished the study, and their data were analyzed. No significant difference was detected between the chemical pregnancy rates of the intervention and control groups. However, the clinical pregnancy rate was significantly higher in the GnRH-a group than in the placebo group.

Conclusions

The findings of the present study suggest that the GnRH-a support in the luteal phase can result in a significant improvement of pregnancy rates in ICSI cycles following the ovarian stimulation with GnRH antagonist protocol.

Does the ultrasound appearance of the endometrium during treatment with assisted reproductive technologies influence pregnancy outcomes?

We evaluated endometrial pattern, defined as the relative echogenicity of the endometrium on a longitudinal uterine ultrasonic section, as a surrogate for endometrial receptivity in an attempt to evaluate the association between endometrial pattern and pregnancy outcome in women who underwent ART treatment. The primary outcome was live birth and secondary outcomes were clinical intrauterine pregnancy and miscarriage. Potential associations were evaluated using cluster-weighted generalized estimating equations to account for within-couple correlation among repeated ART cycles while adjusting for potentially confounding variables. There were 1034 ART cycles with embryo transfer (778 fresh, 256 frozen) among 695 women (median age: 31.0 (6.0) years). The average number of embryos transferred per cycle was 2.1. The clinical intrauterine pregnancy rate per transfer was 56.0% for fresh and 54.3% for frozen cycles. The overall live birth rate per embryo transfer was 48.4%. Live birth rates were unchanged when the endometrium was semi-trilinear (RR:0.91 CI:0.74,1.12) or unilinear (RR:1.15 CI:0.89,1.49) in comparison to trilinear endometrium after controlling for potentially confounding variables. Results were similar when analysed separately for fresh and frozen cycles and when evaluating associations with clinical intrauterine pregnancy and miscarriage rates. It appears that endometrial pattern does not significantly affect live birth in ART and our data do not support cancelling an ART cycle if the endometrium is less than trilinear.

Administration effects of single-dose GnRH agonist for luteal support in females undertaking IVF/ICSI cycles: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

The aim of the present meta-analysis was to evaluate the effects of the addition of single-dose gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) for luteal support on pregnancy outcomes in females partaking in in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles. In total, the studies were hand-searched from six electronic databases to compare the pregnancy outcomes between single-dose GnRHa administered as luteal phase support (GnRHa group) and regular luteal support (control group). In the GnRHa group, single-dose GnRH agonist were administered at 5/6 days after IVF/ICSI procedures. In the control group, single-dose GnRH agonist was not added during luteal phase support. Only randomized controlled trials were included. Sensitivity analysis was performed using Revman 5.3 software; the high heterogeneity identified in the present analysis was primarily caused by one study included. Following exclusion of this particular study, the meta-analysis results indicated significantly higher rates of ongoing pregnancy or live birth per transfer (P=0.002), clinical pregnancy per transfer (CPR; P=0.001) and multiple pregnancy per pregnancy (P=0.020) in the GnRHa group compared with those in the control group. Meta-analysis of a subgroup of trials with long-acting GnRH-a ovarian treatment protocols indicated that the rate of ongoing pregnancy or live birth (P=0.080), CPR (P=0.090) and multiple pregnancy per pregnancy (P=0.140) were not significantly different between the two groups. However, the results from trials that had used a multi-dose GnRH antagonist ovarian treatment protocol indicated a significantly higher ongoing pregnancy or live birth rate per transfer (P=0.010), CPR per transfer (P<0.0001) and multiple pregnancy rate per pregnancy (P=0.003) compared with those in the control group. The present results suggested that administration of single-dose GnRH agonist in the luteal phase may be an ideal choice for patients undergoing IVF/ICSI therapy.

The body's integrated repair kit: Studying mesenchymal stem cells for better ligament repair

In this issue of the Biomedical Journal, we learn that the sport injury-prone knee ligaments might harbour their own repair kit in the form of mesenchymal stem cells, and that TERT transformation helps to keep these cells longer in culture for more extensive studies. In addition, we get a demonstration that diffusion tensor imaging can reliably show the activity of specific neural circuits, that rheumatoid arthritis patients are more prone to insulin resistance, and that platelet-enriched plasma gels significantly improve wound healing after pilonidal sinus surgery. Furthermore, two procreation-related articles inform us that growth hormone treatment improves endometrial receptivity in older women, and that elevated maternal liver enzymes do not impact on the outcome of laser therapy for twin-twin transfusion syndrome. Finally, our attention is brought to the importance of subjective well-being evaluation for orthodontic correction needs, as well as the possibility that exercise could maybe increase sperm telomere length.

Clinical pregnancy following GnRH agonist administration in the luteal phase of fresh or frozen assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles: Systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective(s)

To study if the GnRH agonist administration in luteal phase improves clinical pregnancy rate of fresh and frozen embryo transfer. Also, this meta-analysis compares the treatment effect of luteal GnRH agonist administration between long agonist and antagonist protocols of fresh cycles, and between two types of treatment: fresh and frozen embryo transfers.

Study design

Systematic review and meta-analysis (registration number CRD42017059152)

Results

For the overall 20 studies (5497 patients), clinical pregnancy rate significantly increased in group of GnRH agonist administration compared to control group (RR 1.24, 95% CI 1.14–1.34, p < 0.0001). Regarding the treatment effect of luteal GnRH agonist administration between long agonist and antagonist protocol fresh cycles, no significant difference was observed (RR = 1.28, 95% CI 0.98–1.67, p = 0.07). Also, in comparison between fresh and frozen embryo transfer, similar effect of GnRH agonist administration was found (RR = 0.93, 95% CI 0.74–1.16, p = 0.49).

Conclusion(s)

There is evidence that GnRH agonist administration in luteal phase improve clinical pregnancy rate in both fresh and frozen cycles. Within fresh cycles, no significant difference of clinical pregnancy rate is found between two protocols. In frozen cycles, the effect of GnRH agonist administration in enhancing clinical pregnancy rate is similar to fresh cycles.

Analysis of two different luteal phase support regimes and evaluation of in vitro fertilization-intra cytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes

Objective:

To evaluate clinical pregnancy rates, miscarriage rates, ongoing pregnancy rates, and in vitro fertilization-intra cytoplasmic sperm injection outcomes of gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) administration compared with human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) application for luteal phase support.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 456 patients were included in the study. The patients were divided into two groups according to luteal phase support type: in group 1 (n=158), single-dose triptorelin acetate 0.1 mg was given on the sixth day after the oocyte pick-up (OPU). In group 2 (n=298), hCG 1500 IU was given on day 4, 7 and 10 after the OPU.

Results:

Both groups were homogeneous in relation with age and antral follicle count. The number of stimulation days and endometrial thickness on hCG day (mm) were found to be significantly higher in group 2 than in group 1 (p<0.001). The clinical pregnancy rate was slightly higher in the GnRHa group, but this difference was not statistically significant.

Conclusion:

Although there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups, luteal phase support with single-dose GnRHa might be as efficient as three doses of hCG. Large prospective, randomized-controlled studies are required comparing GnRHa and hCG for luteal phase support.

Ovarian manipulation in ART: going beyond physiological standards to provide best clinical outcomes

Current knowledge on ovarian physiology has challenged the traditional concept of folliculogenesis, creating the basis for novel ovarian stimulation protocols in assisted reproduction technology. The purpose of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of novel clinical interventions that could aid clinicians in individualizing their protocols to patients' characteristics and personal situations. We conducted a literature review of the available evidence on new approaches for ovarian stimulation from both retrospective and prospective studies in the PubMed database. Here, we present some of the most important interventions, including follicle growth in the gonadotropin-independent and dependent stage, manipulation of estradiol production throughout ovarian stimulation, control of mid-cycle gonadotropin surges, and luteal phase support after different stimulation protocols and trigger agents. The latest research on IVF has moved physicians away from the classical physiology, allowing the development of new strategies to decouple organ functions from the female reproductive system and challenging the traditional concept of IVF.

Oral dydrogesterone vs. vaginal progesterone capsules for luteal-phase support in women undergoing embryo transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To identify, appraise, and summarize the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing oral dydrogesterone to vaginal progesterone capsules for luteal-phase support (LPS) in women offered fresh or frozen embryo transfers following in vitro fertilization.

METHODS

Two independent authors screened the literature for papers based on titles and abstracts, then selected the studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. Dydrogesterone and progesterone were compared based on risk ratios (RR) and the precision of the estimates was assessed through the 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

An electronic search performed on June 7, 2017 retrieved 376 records, nine of which were papers deemed eligible and included in this systematic review and quantitative analysis. Good quality evidence indicates that oral dydrogesterone provided at least similar results than vaginal progesterone capsules on live birth/ongoing pregnancy (RR=1.08, 95%CI=0.92-1.26, I2=29%, 8 RCTs, 3,386 women) and clinical pregnancy rates (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.27; I2=43%; 9 RCTs; 4,061 women). Additionally, moderate quality evidence suggests there is no relevant difference on miscarriage rates (RR=0.92, 95%CI=0.68-1.26, I2=6%, 8 RCTs, 988 clinical pregnancies; the quality of the evidence was downgraded because of imprecision).

CONCLUSIONS

Good quality evidence from RCTs suggest that oral dydrogesterone provides at least similar reproductive outcomes than vaginal progesterone capsules when used for LPS in women undergoing embryo transfers. Dydrogesterone is a reasonable option and the choice of either of the medications should be based on cost and side effects.

Impact of Mid-Luteal Phase GnRH Agonist Administration on Reproductive Outcomes in GnRH Agonist-Triggered Cycles: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether the addition of a mid-luteal bolus of GnRH agonist (GnRHa) improves the implantation rate (IR) in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles.

DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Private IVF center.

PATIENTS

328 IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients were triggered with GnRHa and received 1,500 IU HCG on the day of oocyte pick-up (OPU) in addition to a standard luteal phase support (LPS).

INTERVENTIONS

In addition, the study group received a bolus of GnRHa 6 days after OPU, whereas the control group did not.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Implantation rate.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Ongoing pregnancy (OP) and live birth (LB) rates.

RESULTS

Although serum concentrations of FSH, LH, E2, and P on day OPU + 7 were significantly higher in the study group compared to the control group, the IR was not statistically different between the treatment group (27%) and the control group (23%) [odds ratio (OR) 1.2 (95% CI 0.9-1.7), P < 0.27]. Similarly, the OP rate was 37% in the treatment group and 31% in the control group [OR 1.3 (95% CI 0.8-2.0), P < 0.23]. The LB rate was 36% in the treatment group and 31% in the control group [OR: 1.3 (95% CI 0.8-2.0), P < 0.27].

CONCLUSION

Although a trend toward a higher IR and pregnancy rate was observed in the treatment group, this difference was not statistically significant. However, the absolute risk difference of 5% found for LB is clinically relevant, warranting further investigation.

NCT

02053779.

Blastocyst vs cleavage-stage embryo transfer: systematic review and meta-analysis of reproductive outcomes

OBJECTIVES

Blastocyst transfer in assisted reproduction techniques could be advantageous because the timing of exposure of the embryo to the uterine environment is more analogous to a natural cycle and permits embryo self-selection after activation of the embryonic genome on day 3. Conversely, the in-vitro environment is likely to be inferior to that in vivo, and in-vitro culture beyond embryonic genomic activation could potentially harm the embryo. Our objective was to identify, appraise and summarize the available evidence comparing the effectiveness of blastocyst vs cleavage-stage embryo transfer.

METHODS

This was a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the transfer of blastocysts (days 5-6) with the transfer of cleavage-stage embryos (days 2-3) in women undergoing in-vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. The last electronic searches were run on 1 August 2016. Abstracts and studies with a mean difference between the two study groups of > 0.5 for the number of embryos transferred were excluded.

RESULTS

We screened 1187 records and assessed 33 potentially eligible studies. Twelve studies were included, comprising a total of 1200 women undergoing blastocyst transfer and 1218 undergoing cleavage-stage embryo transfer. We observed low-quality evidence of no significant difference of blastocyst transfer on live birth/ongoing pregnancy (relative risk (RR), 1.11 (95% CI, 0.92-1.35), 10 RCTs, 1940 women, I²  = 54%), clinical pregnancy (RR, 1.10 (95% CI, 0.93-1.31), 12 RCTs, 2418 women, I²  = 64%), cumulative pregnancy (RR, 0.89 (95% CI, 0.67-1.16), four RCTs, 524 women, I²  = 63%) and miscarriage (RR, 1.08 (95% CI, 0.74-1.56), 10 RCTs, 763 pregnancies, I²  = 0%). There was moderate-quality evidence of a decrease in the number of women with surplus embryos after the blastocyst-stage embryo transfer (RR, 0.78 (95% CI, 0.66-0.91)). Overall, the quality of the evidence was limited by the quality of the included studies and by unexplained inconsistency across studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Current evidence shows no superiority of blastocyst compared with cleavage-stage embryo transfer in clinical practice. As the quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes is low, additional well-designed RCTs are still needed before robust conclusions can be drawn. Copyright © 2016 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Impact of Mid-Luteal Phase GnRH Agonist Administration on Reproductive Outcomes in GnRH Agonist-Triggered Cycles: A Randomized Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

To explore whether the addition of a mid-luteal bolus of GnRH agonist (GnRHa) improves the implantation rate (IR) in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles.

DESIGN

A randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Private IVF center.

PATIENTS

328 IVF/intracytoplasmic sperm injection patients were triggered with GnRHa and received 1,500 IU HCG on the day of oocyte pick-up (OPU) in addition to a standard luteal phase support (LPS).

INTERVENTIONS

In addition, the study group received a bolus of GnRHa 6 days after OPU, whereas the control group did not.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Implantation rate.

SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Ongoing pregnancy (OP) and live birth (LB) rates.

RESULTS

Although serum concentrations of FSH, LH, E2, and P on day OPU + 7 were significantly higher in the study group compared to the control group, the IR was not statistically different between the treatment group (27%) and the control group (23%) [odds ratio (OR) 1.2 (95% CI 0.9-1.7), P < 0.27]. Similarly, the OP rate was 37% in the treatment group and 31% in the control group [OR 1.3 (95% CI 0.8-2.0), P < 0.23]. The LB rate was 36% in the treatment group and 31% in the control group [OR: 1.3 (95% CI 0.8-2.0), P < 0.27].

CONCLUSION

Although a trend toward a higher IR and pregnancy rate was observed in the treatment group, this difference was not statistically significant. However, the absolute risk difference of 5% found for LB is clinically relevant, warranting further investigation.

NCT

02053779.

Effect of mid-luteal phase GnRH agonist on frozen-thawed embryo transfers during natural menstrual cycles: a randomised clinical pilot study

This prospective randomised crossover study evaluated the effect of mid-luteal single-dose gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (triptoreline) on pregnancy outcomes in natural-cycle frozen embryo transfers (FETs). Ninety-eight women were randomised to receive either standard luteal support with vaginal micronised progesterone or an additional single dose of 0.1 mg triptoreline at the time of implantation. The intervention group was composed of 65 FET cycles and the control group of 62 cycles. In the intervention group, there were more positive pregnancy tests, clinical pregnancies and live births, but the differences did not reach statistical significance. The mean beta human chorionic gonadotropin (β-hCG) concentration of singleton pregnancies was significantly lower in the intervention group compared to the control group (p = 0.048). No difference was detected in the median birth weight of the newborns.

Obstetrical and perinatal outcomes following blastocyst transfer compared to cleavage transfer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

STUDY QUESTION

Is blastocyst transfer safe when compared to cleavage stage embryo transfer regarding obstetric and perinatal outcomes?

SUMMARY ANSWER

The clinical equipoise between blastocyst and cleavage stage embryo transfer remains as the evidence associating blastocyst transfer with some adverse perinatal outcomes is of low/very low quality.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Extended embryo culture to the blastocyst stage provides some theoretical advantages and disadvantages. While it permits embryo self-selection, it also exposes those embryos to possible harm due to the in vitro environment. Both effectiveness and safety should be weighed to permit evidence-based decisions in clinical practice.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This is a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies reporting perinatal outcomes for singletons comparing the deliveries resulting from blastocyst and cleavage stage embryo transfer. Observational studies were included because the primary outcomes, perinatal mortality and birth defects, are rare and require a large number of participants (>50 000) to be properly assessed. The last electronic searches were last run on 11 March 2016.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHOD

There were 12 observational studies encompassing 195 325 singleton pregnancies included in the study. No RCT reported the studied outcomes. The quality of the included studies was evaluated according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the quality of the evidence was evaluated according to GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

Blastocyst stage transfer was associated with increased risks of preterm birth (<37 weeks), very preterm birth (<32 weeks), large for gestational age and perinatal mortality, although the latter was only identified from one study. Conversely, blastocyst stage transfer was associated with a decrease in the risks of small for gestational age and vanishing twins, although the latter was reported by only one study.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The observational nature of the included studies and some inconsistency and imprecision in the analysis contributed to decreasing our confidence in the estimates.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Due to the overall low quality of available evidence, the clinical equipoise between cleavage stage and blastocyst transfer remains. More large well-conducted studies are needed to clarify the potential risks and benefits of blastocyst transfer. As this review was initiated to support global recommendations on best practice, and in light of the challenges in lower resource settings to offer extended culture to blastocyst stage, it is critical to take into consideration these obstetric and neonatal outcomes in order to ensure any recommendation will not result in the overburdening of existing maternal and child health care systems and services.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

No external funding was either sought or obtained for this study. The authors have no competing interests to declare.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42015023910.

Dydrogesterone vs progesterone for luteal-phase support: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVES

To compare the effects of dydrogesterone and progesterone for luteal-phase support (LPS) in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques (ART).

METHODS

We performed a systematic review to identify relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) by searching the following electronic databases: Cochrane CENTRAL, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN Registry and WHO ICTRP.

RESULTS

The last search was performed in October 2015. Eight RCTs were considered eligible and were included in the review and meta-analyses. There was no relevant difference between oral dydrogesterone and vaginal progesterone for LPS with respect to rate of ongoing pregnancy (risk ratio (RR), 1.04 (95% CI, 0.92-1.18); I(2) , 0%; seven RCTs, 3134 women), clinical pregnancy (RR, 1.07 (95% CI, 0.93-1.23); I(2) , 34%; eight RCTs, 3809 women) or miscarriage (RR, 0.77 (95% CI, 0.53-1.10); I(2) , 0%; seven RCTs, 906 clinical pregnancies). Two of the three studies reporting on dissatisfaction of treatment identified lower levels of dissatisfaction among women using oral dydrogesterone than among women using vaginal progesterone (oral dydrogesterone vs vaginal progesterone capsules: 2/79 (2.5%) vs 90/351 (25.6%), respectively; oral dydrogesterone vs vaginal progesterone gel: 19/411 (4.6%) vs 74/411 (18.0%), respectively). The third study showed no difference in dissatisfaction rate (oral dydrogesterone vs vaginal progesterone capsules: 8/96 (8.3%) vs 8/114 (7.0%), respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

Oral dydrogesterone seems to be as effective as vaginal progesterone for LPS in ART cycles, and appears to be better tolerated . Copyright © 2015 ISUOG. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.