Pretreatment with oral contraceptives in infertile anovulatory patients with polycystic ovary syndrome who receive gonadotropins for controlled ovarian stimulation

Association between preconception anti-androgen therapy and pregnancy outcomes of patients with PCOS: A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) not only increases fertility challenges for women of reproductive age, but also leads to increased complications during pregnancy and even affects the birth weight of newborns. Also, hyperandrogenemia is associated with lower pregnancy rates and lower live birth rates and may even play a role in preterm delivery and pre-eclampsia in patients with PCOS. However, it is still controversial whether PCOS patients are treated with androgen-lowering therapy before pregnancy.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of anti-androgen therapy prior to ovulation induction on maternal and infant pregnancy outcomes in patients with PCOS.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study.

RESULTS

A total of 296 patients with PCOS were enrolled in the study. The prevalence of adverse pregnancy outcomes, and neonatal complications was lower in DRSP(with drospirenone ethinyl estradiol tablets (II) pretreatment) group than in NO-DRSP(without drospirenone ethinyl estradiol tablets (II) pretreatment) groups (DRSP vs. NO-DRSP: adverse pregnancy outcomes, 12.16% vs. 27.03%, P=0.001; neonatal complications, 17.16% vs. 36.67%, P<0.001). No significant difference was found in maternal complications. Further subgroup analysis revealed that PCOS with pretreatment decreased the risk of preterm delivery (2.99% vs. 10.00%; Adjusted RR, 3.80; 95% CI, 1.19-12.13), pregnancy loss (9.46% vs. 18.92%; Adjusted RR, 2.07; 95% CI, 1.08-3.96), low birth weight (0.75% vs 7.50%; Adjusted RR, 12.08; 95% CI, 1.50-97.31), fetal malformations(1.49% vs. 8.33%; Adjusted RR, 5.63; 95% CI, 1.20-26.33).There were no significant differences in the incidence of DM and PIH as pregnancy complications between the two groups (P>0.05).

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that preconception androgen-lowering therapy in patients with PCOS improves pregnancy outcomes and reduces neonatal complications.

Role of luteinizing hormone elevation in outcomes of ovulation induction with letrozole for polycystic ovary syndrome

Introduction

The effect of elevated luteinizing hormone (LH) on the clinical outcomes of ovulation induction (OI) in infertile anovulatory patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) remains controversial. This retrospective study included PCOS patients undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI) following letrozole (LE) stimulation without OC pretreatment.

Materials and methods

A retrospective cohort analysis was conducted in a single, academic ART center from January 2013 to May 2019. In total, 835 IUI cycles of PCOS patients treated with letrozole were collected for the analysis. Cohorts were separated based on the level of basal LH (bLH) and LH level after letrozole administration (LH_le) during OI. OI response and reproductive outcomes were evaluated for each cohort.

Results

No adverse effects of dysregulated levels of either bLH or LH_le on ovulation rate or reproductive outcomes were observed. Furthermore, the cohort of individuals with normal bLH and high LH_le levels, exclusive of LH surge, exhibited significantly higher rates of clinical pregnancy (30.3% vs. 17.3%, p = 0.002) and live birth (24.2% vs. 15.2%, p = 0.024) than those with normal bLH and normal LH_le.

Conclusion

These results indicated that high LH levels in PCOS are not solid evidence of poor prognosis of letrozole-induced ovulation, while elevated LH_le may be a prospective predictor for better OI outcomes. It seems that preinhibition of LH secretion is not needed.

A Randomized Cohort Study: Is It Worth the Time to Receive Antiandrogenic Pretreatment Before Ovulation Induction for Women With Polycystic Ovary Syndrome?

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of antiandrogenic pretreatment using combined oral contraceptives (COCs) before ovulation induction in infertile patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) with hyperandrogenism.

DESIGN

Prospective, randomized open-labeled cohort study.

SETTING

Multicenter.

PATIENTS

PCOS patients with hyperandrogenism and requiring infertility treatments.

INTERVENTIONS

Randomization to direct ovulation induction of letrozole (letrozole group) or ethinylestradiol/cyproterone acetate (EE/CPA) for 3 months and subsequent letrozole-induced ovulation (EE/CPA+ letrozole group). The maximum number of ovulation induction cycle was three to four.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Ovulation rate, conception rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, and live birth rate were the main outcomes of the study.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the cumulative ovulation, conception, ongoing pregnancy, and live birth rates between the letrozole and EE/CPA+ letrozole groups (cumulative ovulation: 206/254 [81.10%] vs. 169/205 [82.44%], risk ratio [RR]= 1.09 [0.68,1.76], P=0.713; conception: 44/90 [48.89%] vs. 42/76 [55.26%], RR= 1.29 [0.70,2.38], P=0.413; ongoing pregnancy: 33/90 [36.67%] vs. 33/76 [43.42%], RR=1.33 [0.71,2.47], P=0.376; and live birth: 32/90 [35.56%] vs. 31/76 [40.79%], RR=1.25 [0.67, 2.34], P=0.489).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study showed that COC pretreatment was not superior to direct letrozole-induced ovulation therapy in improving ovulation and pregnancy results in women with PCOS. There is no benefit to perform antiandrogenic therapy before ovulation induction in patients with PCOS in clinical practice.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier ChiCTR1900022839.

Effect of pretreatment with combined oral contraceptives on outcomes of assisted reproductive technology for women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of pretreatment with combined oral contraceptives (COC) on outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) who underwent assisted reproductive technology for subfertility.

METHODS

Two authors independently searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochran Library to identify and review articles published from October 1995 until December 2018 according to selection criteria. Outcomes are expressed as mean difference and odds ratio (OR) in a meta-analysis model.

RESULTS

A total of seven studies were included in this meta-analysis: one randomized controlled study and two prospective and four retrospective cohort studies. Meta-analysis showed that the COC pretreatment did not affect rate of clinical pregnancy (OR = 0.93, 95% confidence interval CI 0.65-1.34, I² = 76%) or ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OR = 0.90, 95% CI 0.57-1.44, I² = 0%). However, the rate of miscarriage in the COC group was significantly higher (OR = 1.33, 95% CI 1.02-1.72, I² = 9%) and the rate of cumulative live birth was significantly lower compared with the control group (OR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.54-0.98, I² = 55%). Subgroup analysis showed higher rates of miscarriage and lower rates of cumulative live birth in studies with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol (OR = 1.69, 95% CI 1.17-2.44, I² = 0% and OR = 0.38, 95% CI 0.29-0.50, respectively).

CONCLUSION

Pretreatment with COC in women with PCOS before assisted reproductive technology may have an adverse effect on clinical outcomes, especially with a GnRH antagonist protocol.

Comparing the risk of adverse pregnancy outcomes of Chinese patients with polycystic ovary syndrome with and without antiandrogenic pretreatment

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prevalence of adverse pregnancy outcomes in healthy Chinese women and to investigate whether these outcomes could be decreased in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) by ethinylestradiol/cyproterone acetate (EE/CPA) pretreatment.

DESIGN

Retrospective study.

SETTING

Medical university.

PATIENT(S)

Six thousand healthy women (group A) were selected from 24,566 pregnant women by randomized sampling. Four hundred forty-eight patients with PCOS without EE/CPA pretreatment were assigned to group B, and 222 patients with PCOS with 3 months of pretreatment to group C. All patients with PCOS had biochemical and/or clinical hyperandrogenism and conceived within 3 monthly ovulation inductions using clomiphene.

INTERVENTION(S)

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), pregnancy-induced hypertension (PIH), premature delivery (PD), and neonatal birth weight.

RESULT(S)

The prevalence of GDM, PIH, and PD was higher in group B than in groups A and C (A vs. B vs. C: GDM, 21.2% vs. 35.0% vs. 22.5%; PIH, 6.5% vs. 14.1% vs. 7.7%; PD, 5.4% vs. 8.6% vs. 6.8%). No significant difference was found in neonatal birth weight. After adjusting for age, pregestational body mass index, education level, and employment status, PCOS without pretreatment increased the risk of GDM (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.666; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.340-2.072), PIH (aOR = 1.487; 95% CI, 1.093-2.023), and PD (aOR = 1.522; 95% CI 1.051-2.205), compared with healthy women. No increased risk was found in group C.

CONCLUSION(S)

In our highly selected study population, patients with PCOS are more likely to develop GDM, PIH, and PD. Pretreatment with EE/CPA was associated with a lower risk of GDM, PIH, and PD.

Oral contraceptive pill, progestogen or oestrogen pretreatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques

BACKGROUND

Among subfertile women undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART), hormone pills given before ovarian stimulation may improve outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether pretreatment with the combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) or with a progestogen or oestrogen alone in ovarian stimulation protocols affects outcomes in subfertile couples undergoing ART.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from inception to January 2017: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and registers of ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of hormonal pretreatment in women undergoing ART.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy and pregnancy loss.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 RCTs (4701 women) of pretreatment with COCPs, progestogens or oestrogens versus no pretreatment or alternative pretreatments, in gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist or antagonist cycles. Overall, evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were risk of bias and imprecision. Most studies did not describe their methods in adequate detail. Combined oral contraceptive pill versus no pretreatmentWith antagonist cycles in both groups the rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy was lower in the pretreatment group (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.95; 6 RCTs; 1335 women; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of pregnancy loss (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.26; 5 RCTs; 868 women; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence), multiple pregnancy (OR 2.21, 95% CI 0.53 to 9.26; 2 RCTs; 125 women; I² = 0%; low quality evidence), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS; OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.40; 2 RCTs; 642 women; I² = 0%, low quality evidence), or ovarian cyst formation (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.75; 1 RCT; 64 women; very low quality evidence).In COCP plus antagonist cycles versus no pretreatment in agonist cycles, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.25; 4 RCTs; 724 women; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence), multiple pregnancy (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.19; 4 RCTs; 546 women; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence), or OHSS (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.96; 2 RCTs; 290 women, I² = 0%), but there were fewer pregnancy losses in the pretreatment group (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.72; 5 RCTs; 780 women; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence). There were no data suitable for analysis on ovarian cyst formation.One small study comparing COCP versus no pretreatment in agonist cycles showed no clear difference between the groups for any of the reported outcomes. Progestogen versus no pretreatmentAll studies used the same protocol (antagonist, agonist or gonadotrophins) in both groups. There was insufficient evidence to determine any differences in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (agonist: OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.65; 2 RCTs; 222 women; I² = 24%; low quality evidence; antagonist: OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.54; 1 RCT; 47 women; low quality evidence; gonadotrophins: OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.09 to 4.23; 1 RCT; 42 women; very low quality evidence), pregnancy loss (agonist: OR 2.26, 95% CI 0.67 to 7.55; 2 RCTs; 222 women; I² = 0%; low quality evidence; antagonist: OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.09; 1 RCT; 47 women; low quality evidence; gonadotrophins: OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 17.12; 1 RCT; 42 women; very low quality evidence) or multiple pregnancy (agonist: no data available; antagonist: OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.06 to 17.76; 1 RCT; 47 women; low quality evidence; gonadotrophins: no data available). Three studies, all using agonist cycles, reported ovarian cyst formation: rates were lower in the pretreatment group (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.32; 374 women; I² = 1%; moderate quality evidence). There were no data on OHSS. Oestrogen versus no pretreatmentIn antagonist or agonist cycles, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (antagonist versus antagonist: OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.17; 2 RCTs; 502 women; I² = 0%; low quality evidence; antagonist versus agonist: OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.50; 2 RCTs; 242 women; I² = 0%; very low quality evidence), pregnancy loss (antagonist versus antagonist: OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.47; 1 RCT; 49 women; very low quality evidence; antagonist versus agonist: OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.62 to 4.06; 1 RCT; 220 women; very low quality evidence), multiple pregnancy (antagonist versus antagonist: no data available; antagonist versus agonist: OR 2.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 53.59; 1 RCT; 22 women; very low quality evidence) or OHSS (antagonist versus antagonist: no data available; antagonist versus agonist: OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.25 to 9.42; 1 RCT; 220 women). Ovarian cyst formation was not reported. Head-to-head comparisonsCOCP was compared with progestogen (1 RCT, 44 women), and with oestrogen (2 RCTs, 146 women), and progestogen was compared with oestrogen (1 RCT, 48 women), with an antagonist cycle in both groups. COCP in an agonist cycle was compared with oestrogen in an antagonist cycle (1 RCT, 25 women). Data were scant but there was no clear evidence that any of the groups differed in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy, pregnancy loss or other adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Among women undergoing ovarian stimulation in antagonist protocols, COCP pretreatment was associated with a lower rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy than no pretreatment. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy were influenced by pretreatment with progestogens or oestrogens, or by COCP pretreatment using other stimulation protocols. Findings on adverse events were inconclusive, except that progesterone pretreatment may reduce the risk of ovarian cysts in agonist cycles, and COCP in antagonist cycles may reduce the risk of pregnancy loss compared with no pretreatment in agonist cycles.

Successive and cyclic oral contraceptive pill pretreatment improves IVF/ICSI outcomes of PCOS patients and ameliorates hyperandrogenism and antral follicle excess

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate different oral contraceptive pill (OCP) pretreatment associated differential in-vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) outcomes of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) patients and explore enhanced hormonal balance induced by the pretreatment.

METHODS

This retrospective study included 500 PCOS women and 565 normal ovulating counterparts undergoing IVF/ICSI. The PCOS patients were divided into three groups based on the OCP pretreatment regimens: non-OCP (without OCP pretreatment), unsuccessive OCP (the period of successive pretreatment ≤2 months) and successive OCP (the period of successive pretreatment ≥3 months) groups. Comprehensive hormonal and ultra-sonographic assessments were performed before/after IVF pretreatment. Confounding factors affecting pregnancy outcomes were analyzed with logistic regression.

RESULTS

PCOS patients with significant endocrine disorders had reduced implantation and pregnancy rates and increased miscarriage rate. Successive, not unsuccessive OCP pretreatment, significantly improved the implantation and pregnancy rates, and reduced the incidence of monotocous small-for-gestational age infants, which was accompanied by remarkably decreased hyperandrogenism and antral follicles.

CONCLUSION

PCOS is an independent risk factor for poor IVF outcome. Successive, not unsuccessive, OCP cyclical pretreatment could improve pregnancy outcome of PCOS patients, associated with reduction of hyperandrogenism and antral follicle excess.

Oral contraceptive pill, progestogen or estrogen pre-treatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques

BACKGROUND

For many subfertile women, assisted reproductive techniques (ART) is the only hope for a pregnancy and live birth. The combined oral contraceptive pill (OCP) given prior to the hormone therapy in an IVF cycle may result in better pregnancy outcomes of ART.

OBJECTIVES

To assess whether pre-treatment with combined OCPs, progestogens or estrogens in ovarian stimulation protocols affects outcomes in subfertile couples undergoing ART.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO. Other electronic resources on the Internet, reference list of relevant articles were also searched as well as the ESHRE abstracts (2008). All these searches were conducted in November 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of pre-treatment with combined OCP, progestogen or estrogen in subfertile women undergoing IVF/ICSI.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted the data and assessed risk of bias. We calculated Peto odds ratios for dichotomous data and weighted mean difference for continuous variables. Authors of trials were contacted in case of missing data.

MAIN RESULTS

No evidence of effect was found with regard to the number of live births when using a pre-treatment. However, the combined OCP in GnRH antagonist cycles, compared to no pre-treatment, is associated with fewer clinical pregnancies (Peto OR 0.69, P = 0.03) and more days and a higher amount of gonadotrophin therapy (respectively: MD 1.44, P < 0.00001; and MD 691.69, P < 0.00001). Also compared to placebo or no pre-treatment, a progestogen pre-treatment in GnRH agonist cycles, is associated with more clinical pregnancies (Peto OR 1.95, P = 0.007) and fewer ovarian cysts (Peto OR 0.21, P < 0.00001). At last, in estrogen pre-treated GnRH antagonist cycles, compared to no pre-treatment, more oocytes are retrieved (MD 2.01, P < 0.00001), but a higher amount of gonadotrophin therapy is needed (MD 207.08, P < 0.00001). For the other outcomes no evidence of effect was found or there were not enough studies available in the subgroup for pooling.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was evidence of improved pregnancy outcomes with progestogen pre-treatment and poorer pregnancy outcomes with a combined OCP pre-treatment. However, we conclude that major changes in ART protocols should not be made at this time, since the number of overall studies in the subgroups is small and reporting of the major outcomes is inadequate.