Role of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist in the management of subfertile couples with intrauterine insemination and controlled ovarian stimulation

Agents for ovarian stimulation for intrauterine insemination (IUI) in ovulatory women with infertility

BACKGROUND

Intrauterine insemination (IUI), combined with ovarian stimulation (OS), has been demonstrated to be an effective treatment for infertile couples. Several agents for ovarian stimulation, combined with IUI, have been proposed, but it is still not clear which agents for stimulation are the most effective. This is an update of the review, first published in 2007.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of agents for ovarian stimulation for intrauterine insemination in infertile ovulatory women.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group trials register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL and two trial registers from their inception to November 2020. We performed reference checking and contacted study authors and experts in the field to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included truly randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared different agents for ovarian stimulation combined with IUI for infertile ovulatory women concerning couples with unexplained infertility. mild male factor infertility and minimal to mild endometriosis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

In this updated review, we have included a total of 82 studies, involving 12,614 women. Due to the multitude of comparisons between different agents for ovarian stimulation, we highlight the seven most often reported here. Gonadotropins versus anti-oestrogens (13 studies) For live birth, the results of five studies were pooled and showed a probable improvement in the cumulative live birth rate for gonadotropins compared to anti-oestrogens (odds ratio (OR) 1.37, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.05 to 1.79; I² = 30%; 5 studies, 1924 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following anti-oestrogens is assumed to be 22.8%, the chance following gonadotropins would be between 23.7% and 34.6%. The pooled effect of seven studies revealed that we are uncertain whether gonadotropins lead to a higher multiple pregnancy rate compared with anti-oestrogens (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.60 to 4.17; I² = 58%; 7 studies, 2139 participants; low-certainty evidence). Aromatase inhibitors versus anti-oestrogens (8 studies) One study reported live birth rates for this comparison. We are uncertain whether aromatase inhibitors improve live birth rate compared with anti-oestrogens (OR 0.75, CI 95% 0.51 to 1.11; 1 study, 599 participants; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of live birth following anti-oestrogens is 23.4%, the chance following aromatase inhibitors would be between 13.5% and 25.3%. The results of pooling four studies revealed that we are uncertain whether aromatase inhibitors compared with anti-oestrogens lead to a higher multiple pregnancy rate (OR 1.28, CI 95% 0.61 to 2.68; I² = 0%; 4 studies, 1000 participants; low-certainty evidence).  Gonadotropins with GnRH (gonadotropin-releasing hormone) agonist versus gonadotropins alone (4 studies) No data were available for live birth. The pooled effect of two studies  revealed that we are uncertain whether gonadotropins with GnRH agonist lead to a higher multiple pregnancy rate compared to gonadotropins alone (OR 2.53, 95% CI 0.82 to 7.86; I² = 0; 2 studies, 264 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Gonadotropins with GnRH antagonist versus gonadotropins alone (14 studies) Three studies reported live birth rate per couple, and we are uncertain whether gonadotropins with GnRH antagonist improve live birth rate compared to gonadotropins (OR 1.5, 95% CI 0.52 to 4.39; I² = 81%; 3 studies, 419 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a live birth following gonadotropins alone is 25.7%, the chance following gonadotropins combined with GnRH antagonist would be between 15.2% and 60.3%. We are also uncertain whether gonadotropins combined with GnRH antagonist lead to a higher multiple pregnancy rate compared with gonadotropins alone (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.74 to 2.28; I² = 0%; 10 studies, 2095 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Gonadotropins with anti-oestrogens versus gonadotropins alone (2 studies) Neither of the studies reported data for live birth rate. We are uncertain whether gonadotropins combined with anti-oestrogens lead to a higher multiple pregnancy rate compared with gonadotropins alone, based on one study (OR 3.03, 95% CI 0.12 to 75.1; 1 study, 230 participants; low-certainty evidence). Aromatase inhibitors versus gonadotropins (6 studies) Two studies  revealed that aromatase inhibitors may decrease live birth rate compared with gonadotropins (OR 0.49, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.71; I²=0%; 2 studies, 651 participants; low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a live birth following gonadotropins alone is 31.9%,  the chance of live birth following aromatase inhibitors would be between 13.7% and 25%. We are uncertain whether aromatase inhibitors compared with gonadotropins lead to a higher multiple pregnancy rate (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.06 to 8.17; I²=77%; 3 studies, 731 participants; very low-certainty evidence).  Aromatase inhibitors with gonadotropins versus anti-oestrogens with gonadotropins (8 studies) We are uncertain whether aromatase inhibitors combined with gonadotropins improve live birth rate compared with anti-oestrogens plus gonadotropins (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.3 8 to 2.54;  I² = 69%; 3 studies, 708 participants; very low-certainty evidence). This suggests that if the chance of a live birth following anti-oestrogens plus gonadotropins is 13.8%, the chance following aromatase inhibitors plus gonadotropins would be between 5.7% and 28.9%. We are uncertain of the effect of aromatase inhibitors combined with gonadotropins compared to anti-oestrogens combined with gonadotropins on multiple pregnancy rate (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.39 to 4.37;  I² = 0%; 5 studies, 901 participants; low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available results, gonadotropins probably improve cumulative live birth rate compared with anti-oestrogens (moderate-certainty evidence). Gonadotropins may also improve cumulative live birth rate when compared with aromatase inhibitors (low-certainty evidence). From the available data, there is no convincing evidence that aromatase inhibitors lead to higher live birth rates compared to anti-oestrogens. None of the agents compared lead to significantly higher multiple pregnancy rates. Based on low-certainty evidence, there does not seem to be a role for different combined therapies, nor for adding GnRH agonists or GnRH antagonists in IUI programs.

Pregnancy rates after slow-release insemination (SRI) and standard bolus intrauterine insemination (IUI) - A multicentre randomised, controlled trial

This multicentre, randomised, controlled cross-over trial was designed to investigate the effect of intra-uterine slow-release insemination (SRI) on pregnancy rates in women with confirmed infertility or the need for semen donation who were eligible for standard bolus intra-uterine insemination (IUI). Data for a total of 182 women were analysed after randomisation to receive IUI (n = 96) or SRI (n = 86) first. The primary outcome was serological pregnancy defined by a positive beta human chorionic gonadotropin test, two weeks after insemination. Patients who did not conceive after the first cycle switched to the alternative technique for the second cycle: 44 women switched to IUI and 58 switched to SRI. In total, there were 284 treatment cycles (IUI: n = 140; SRI: n = 144). Pregnancy rates following SRI and IUI were 13.2% and 10.0%, respectively, which was not statistically significant (p = 0.202). A statistically significant difference in pregnancy rates for SRI versus IUI was detected in women aged under 35 years. In this subgroup, the pregnancy rate with SRI was 17% compared to 7% with IUI (relative risk 2.33; p = 0.032) across both cycles. These results support the hypothesis that the pregnancy rate might be improved with SRI compared to standard bolus IUI, especially in women aged under 35 years.

Gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist use in controlled ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination cycles in women with polycystic ovary syndrome

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effect of the GnRH antagonist on gonadotropin ovulation induction in women with PCOS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 175 intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) were included in the study. Women in the control group (n = 87) underwent controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with recombinant follicle stimulating hormone (r-FSH) only, while women in the study group (n = 88) were administered r-FSH plus cetrorelix.

RESULTS

As expected, the mean value of luteinizing hormone and progesterone, on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin administration were statistically significantly lower in patients receiving GnRH antagonist than the control group (p = 0.002). Premature luteinization occurred in only one of the patients in the GnRH antagonist group (1.1%) and in 15 of the 88 cycles in the control group (17.2%), showing a significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.001). The clinical pregnancy rate per cycle was higher in GnRH-antagonist group compared to the control group but the difference did not reach to a statistical significance (25% vs 14.9%, P = 0.096).

CONCLUSIONS

Adding GnRH-antagonist in COS/IUI cycles in women with PCOS resulted in a lower incidence of premature luteinization but did not improve pregnancy rates. However, owing to some benefits, antagonist therapy could be considered as a reasonable alternative to IVF in order to reduce PCOS patients'emotional distress.

Comparison of Two Regimens of Gonadotropin-releasing Hormone Antagonists in Clomiphene-gonadotropin Induced Controlled Ovulation and Intrauterine Insemination Cycles: Randomized Controlled Study

Context:

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists in fixed or flexible regimens are used for prevention of premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge, however, data comparing these regimens in stimulated intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles are lacking.

Aims:

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of GnRH antagonists in fixed and flexible regimens on the rate of premature luteinization (PL) and ovulation rate in sequential clomiphene-gonadotropin controlled ovulation–IUI cycles.

Settings and Design:

This study was conducted at tertiary care center; this was randomized controlled study.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 45 infertile women randomized into three groups of 15 each received clomiphene citrate + human menopausal gonadotrophin. GnRH antagonist was added according to fixed (n = 15) and flexible (n = 15) protocol. No antagonist in control group (n = 15). PL was defined as LH level ≥10 mIU/ml and progesterone level ≥1.0 ng/ml.

Statistical Analysis:

Mean values compared using the Student's t-test or one-way analysis of variance. Categorical variables distribution tested using either Pearson's Chi-square or Fisher's exact test as appropriate.

Results:

Of a total of 45 women, 58% (n = 26) presented with primary and 42% (n = 19) secondary infertility with mean age of 30.8 ± 3.43 years and BMI 26.57 ± 3.22 kg/m². Fixed regimen (3.7%) showed most reduction in PL compared to flexible (15.38%, P = 0.33) or control (36.67%, P = 0.004). On human chorionic gonadotropin day, mean LH (P = 0.002) and progesterone (P = 0.079) levels in fixed, flexible, and control groups were as follows: 5.04 ± 5.47 mIU/ml, 3.95 ± 4.16 mIU/ml, 9.57 ± 7.91 mIU/ml, and 0.409 ± 0.320 ng/ml, 0.579 ± 0.727 ng/ml, and 1.033 ± 1.022 ng/ml, respectively. Ovulation (P = 0.813) and pregnancy rates (P = 0.99) were 88.9%, 84.6%, and 90% and 22.2%, 19.23%, and 10% in fixed, flexible, and control groups, respectively.

Conclusions:

Addition of antagonist in any regimen appears to lower PL rates and improve pregnancy rates in controlled ovarian stimulation and IUI cycles.

The curious case of premature luteinization

PURPOSE

Premature luteinization (PL) affects 12.3-46.7% of fresh in vitro fertilization cycles, and there is accumulating evidence confirming its negative effect on success rates. However, despite its clinical significance, PL is poorly understood and defined. This narrative review aims to provide a fresh look at the phenomenon of PL by summarizing the existing evidence and re-evaluating fundamental issues.

METHODS

A thorough electronic search was conducted covering the period from 1978 until January 2018 in PubMed, Embase, and Medline databases, and references of relevant studies were cross-checked. Meeting proceedings of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine were also hand searched.

RESULTS

In the curious case of PL, one should go back to the beginning and re-consider every step of the way. The pathogenesis, definition, measurement methods, clinical implications, and management strategies are discussed in detail, highlighting controversies and offering "food for thought" for future directions.

CONCLUSIONS

Authors need to speak the same language when studying PL in order to facilitate comparisons. The terminology, progesterone cut-off, measurement methods and days of measurement should be standardized and globally accepted; otherwise, there can be no scientific dialog. Future research should focus on specific patient profiles that may require a tailored approach. Progesterone measurements throughout the follicular phase possibly depict the progesterone exposure better than an isolated measurement on the day of hCG. Adequately powered randomized controlled trials should confirm which the best prevention and management plan of PL is, before introducing any strategy into clinical practice.

Clinical experience with an ovarian stimulation protocol for intrauterine insemination adopting a gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist at low dose

Studies testing the effectiveness of GnRH antagonists in controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) for intrauterine insemination (IUI) have provided controversial results. The present study was undertaken to evaluate, whether the use of a half of the conventional dose of the GnRH antagonist cetrorelix can be effective in increasing the successful rate of IUI cycles. Patients started COS with human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) on day three of the menstrual cycle. Cetrorelix was started when at least one follicle of ≥14 mm, was detected at the ultrasound scan, according to the flexible multiple daily dose protocol, and continued until the trigger day with recombinant hCG. Patients adopting GnRH antagonist at low dose had a pregnancy rate (21.7%) that was significantly higher (p < 0.05) in comparison to women receiving hMG only (8.7%). These results suggest that adding a reduced dose of GnRH antagonist to the COS for IUI cycles significantly improves the outcome of the procedure.

Evaluation of Role of GnRH Antagonist in Intrauterine Insemination (IUI) Cycles with Mild Ovarian Hyperstimulation (MOH): A Prospective Randomised Study

AIMS AND OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the role of GnRH antagonist in prevention of premature LH surge and increasing pregnancy rates in IUI cycle with mild ovarian hyperstimulation (MOH).

STUDY DESIGN

Prospective parallel, randomised controlled study.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Couples diagnosed with unexplained, male factor subfertility and with one or both tubes patent were randomised to receive either a GnRH antagonist (study group) or no intervention (control group). All women were treated with clomiphene citrate (D3-D7) followed by HMG. A GnRH antagonist was added when one or more follicles of 16 mm diameter or more were visualised in the study group. When at least one follicle reached a size of ≥18 mm, ovulation was induced by hCG injection. A single IUI was performed 36 h later. The primary outcome was premature LH surge and pregnancy rate. The secondary outcomes were the amount of gonadotropins used, duration of use of GnRH antagonist and incidence and severity of OHSS.

RESULTS

A total of seventy patients attending the infertility clinic in the outpatient department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, of a tertiary care centre, were recruited in the study which was carried out from August 2011 to March 2013. The study group included 34 women and 36 in the control arm. The incidence of premature LH surge was significantly lower in the antagonist group as compared to the control group 2.9 vs. 13.9 %, with a p value of <0.001. The clinical pregnancy rates were similar in both the groups 8.8 vs. 11.1 %, p value being 1.000. The amount of gonadotropins used in GnRH antagonist group was lower than in control group but not statistically significant. Duration of GnRH antagonist was 1.85 ± 0.61 days in the study group.

CONCLUSION

The delayed administration of GnRH antagonists in MOH with IUI cycles when follicle size is ≥16 mm is beneficial in terms of preventing the occurrence of premature LH surge but with no improvement in pregnancy rates.

Dose-finding study of Leuplin depot for prevention of premature luteinizing hormone surge during controlled ovarian stimulation: a pilot study in intrauterine insemination treatment

OBJECTIVE

The standard dose of depot gonadotropin releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) may be too much to prevent premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surge in controlled ovarian stimulation (COS). The purpose of this study was to find out the minimal effective dose of Leuplin depot to prevent premature LH surge in patients undergoing intrauterine insemination (IUI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

From January 2006 to December 2007, unexplained infertile patients who were going to undergo IUI were recruited into the study. They were assigned sequentially to one of the following treatment groups. The first 50 patients received the 1/3-dose of Leuplin depot in the midluteal phase of the cycle preceding COS. If no premature LH surge occurred in the 50 patients, the study was continued with 1/4-dose of Leuplin depot in the subsequent 50 patients. Similarly, if no premature LH surge occurred with 1/4 dose, the study was continued with 1/5-dose of Leuplin depot in the following 50 patients. Ovarian stimulation was started with human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) at 112.5 IU/d after downregulation, then IUI was performed 36 hours after human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) injection.

RESULTS

Premature LH surge was effectively prevented with 1/3-dose and 1/4-dose of Leuplin depot. Premature LH surge occurred in three of the 50 patients (6%) in the 1/5-dose group. The patients in the 1/4-dose group received a significantly lower amount of hMG and fewer days of COS, compared with the 1/3-dose group.

CONCLUSION

The 1/4 dose of Leuplin depot is the minimal effective dose to prevent premature LH surge. Further trial is worthwhile to compare the reducing dose Leuplin depot and daily low-dose leuprolide in in vitro fertilization (IVF) programs.

Impact of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist addition on pregnancy rates in gonadotropin-stimulated intrauterine insemination cycles

OBJECTIVES:

The objective of the study is to evaluate the efficacy of gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist in improving clinical pregnancy rate in gonadotropin-stimulated intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles in patients of unexplained infertility.

STUDY DESIGN:

This was a prospective, randomized case-controlled study.

SETTINGS:

The study was conducted in the infertility clinic of a tertiary care center.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Four hundred twenty-seven women undergoing IUI following controlled ovarian stimulation with gonadotropins (recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone [r-FSH] 75 IU/day) were randomly divided into two groups. Women in Group I received GnRH antagonist (Cetrorelix 0.25 mg/day) in a multiple dose flexible protocol. Women in Group II received r-FSH alone. Ovulatory trigger was given with human chorionic gonadotropin 5000 IU when dominant follicle was ≥18 mm. IUI was performed within 44–48 h. Both groups received similar luteal phase support. Primary outcome measure was clinical pregnancy rate. The trial was powered to detect an absolute increase in clinical pregnancy rate by 13% from an assumed 20% clinical pregnancy rate in the control group, with an alpha error level of 0.05 and a beta error level of 0.20.

RESULTS:

Clinical pregnancy rate in Groups I and II was 27.6% (n = 56) and 26.5% (n = 54), respectively (P=0.800). Ongoing pregnancy and multiple pregnancy rates were likewise similar between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS:

Addition of GnRH antagonist to gonadotropin-stimulated IUI cycles results in no significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate.

Effectiveness of GnRH antagonist in the management of subfertile couples undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation and intrauterine insemination: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Recent studies have indicated the use of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonists (GnRH-ant) as an adjuvant treatment to prevent premature luteinization (PL) and improve the clinical outcomes in patients undergoing controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) with intrauterine insemination (IUI). However, the results of these studies are conflicting.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials aiming to compare the clinical efficacy of GnRH-ant in COS/IUI cycles. Twelve studies were identified that met inclusion criteria and comprised 2,577 cycles assigned to COS/IUI combined GnRH-ant or COS/IUI alone.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis results suggested that GnRH-ant can significantly increase the clinical pregnancy rate (CPR) (OR = 1.42; 95% CI, 1.13-1.78) and decrease the PL rate (OR = 0.22, 95% CI, 0.16-0.30) in COS/IUI cycles. Subgroup analysis results suggested statistically significant improvement in the CPR in non-PCOS patients (OR = 1.54; 95% CI, 1.03-2.31) but not in the PCOS population (OR = 1.65; 95% CI, 0.93-2.94) and multiple mature follicle cycles (OR = 1.87; 95% CI, 0.27-12.66). There were no difference in the miscarriage and multiple pregnancy rates between the groups.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis suggested that GnRH-ant can reduce the incidence of PL and increase the CPR when used in COS/IUI cycles, and it was especially useful for non-PCOS patients. However, evidence to support its use in PCOS patients is still insufficient.

Treatment of infertility in women

OBJECTIVES

To review causes and risk factors associated with infertility, relevant diagnostic procedures, and available pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic treatment options; to identify common dosing, administration, adverse effects, and key counseling points associated with infertility treatments; and to describe the role of the pharmacist in caring for patients with infertility.

DATA SOURCES

Available clinical literature identified through searches of Medline and review of major textbooks in reproductive medicine.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies were selected primarily to reflect current infertility treatment practices in the United States. The specific criteria evaluated included date of the study; date of publication; study population, including diagnosis, baseline characteristics, and nationality; and number of participants.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Treatment of infertility often involves the use of both pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic therapy. This article provides an overview of these pharmacologic treatments and provides two tables that outline the key administration and safety concerns with these products. Nonpharmacologic procedures associated with diagnosis and treatment also are outlined.

CONCLUSION

Pharmacists are an excellent resource for patients suffering from infertility. First, pharmacists answer questions about administration and safety of these medications. Second, pharmacists discuss available treatment options and assist with referrals to specialists as needed. Third, pharmacists can provide emotional support for patients who may otherwise suffer in silence.