Clomid stair-step protocol may shorten the time to ovulation but not to pregnancy: a randomized clinical trial

Chinese herbal medicine for subfertile women with polycystic ovarian syndrome

BACKGROUND

Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is characterised by both metabolic and reproductive disorders, and affects 5% to 15% of women of reproductive age. Different western medicines have been proposed for PCOS-related subfertility, such as oral contraceptives, insulin sensitisers and laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD). Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) have also been used for subfertility caused by PCOS for decades, and are expected to become an alternative treatment for subfertile women with PCOS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) for subfertile women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase and six other databases, from inception to 2 June 2020. In addition, we searched three trials registries, the reference lists of included trials and contacted experts in the field to locate trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing CHM versus placebo, no treatment or conventional (western) therapies for the treatment of subfertile women with PCOS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in included studies and extracted data. We contacted primary study authors for additional information. We conducted meta-analyses. We used the odds ratios (ORs) to report dichotomous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs with 609 participants. The comparisons in the included trials were as follows: CHM versus clomiphene, CHM plus clomiphene versus clomiphene (with or without ethinyloestradiol cyproterone acetate (EE/CPA)), CHM plus follicle aspiration plus ovulation induction versus follicle aspiration plus ovulation induction alone, and CHM plus laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) versus LOD alone. The overall certainty of the evidence for most comparisons was very low. None of the included studies reported the primary outcome, live birth rate. Most studies reported the secondary outcomes, and only one study reported data on adverse events. In trials that compared CHM to clomiphene (with or without LOD in both study arms), we are uncertain of the effect of CHM on pregnancy rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.41, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.63 to 3.19; I² = 28%; 3 studies, 140 participants; very low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following clomiphene is assumed to be 21.5%, the chance following CHM would vary between 14.7% and 46.7%. No study reported data on adverse events. When CHM plus clomiphene was compared to clomiphene (with or without EE/CPA), there was low certainty evidence of a higher pregnancy rate in the CHM plus clomiphene group (OR 3.06, 95% CI 2.05 to 4.55; I² = 10%; 6 studies, 470 participants; low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following clomiphene is assumed to be 31.5%, the chance following CHM plus clomiphene would vary between 48.5% and 67.7%. No data were reported on adverse events. In trials that compared CHM plus follicle aspiration and ovulation induction to follicle aspiration and ovulation induction alone, we are uncertain of the effect of CHM on pregnancy rates (OR 1.62, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.68; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following follicle aspiration and ovulation induction is assumed to be 29.2%, the chance following CHM with follicle aspiration and ovulation induction would vary between 15.9% and 70%. Reported adverse events included severe luteinised unruptured follicle syndrome (LUFS) (Peto OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.14; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (Peto OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.00 to 8.19; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence) or multiple pregnancy (Peto OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.14; 1 study, 44 women; very low certainty evidence). These results suggest that if the chances of LUFS, OHSS, and multiple pregnancy following follicle aspiration and ovulation induction are assumed to be 8.3%, 4.2%, and 8.3% respectively, the chances following CHM with follicle aspiration and ovulation induction would be 0.5% to 35.8%, 0% to 26.3% and 0.5% to 35.8% respectively.  In trials that compared CHM plus LOD to LOD alone, we are uncertain if CHM improves pregnancy rates (OR 3.50, 95% CI 0.72 to 17.09; 1 study, 30 women; very low certainty evidence). Results suggest that if the chance of pregnancy following LOD is assumed to be 40%, the chance following CHM with LOD would vary between 32.4% and 91.9%. No data were reported on adverse events. We are uncertain of the results in the comparison groups for all outcomes. The certainty of the evidence for all other comparisons and outcomes was very low. The main limitations in the evidence were failure to report live birth or adverse events, failure to describe study methods in adequate detail and imprecision due to very low event rates and wide CIs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support the use of CHM for subfertile women with PCOS. No data are available on live birth. We are uncertain of the effect of CHM on pregnancy rates for there is no consistent evidence to indicate that CHM influences fertility outcomes. However, we find that the addition of CHM to clomiphene may improve pregnancy rates, but there is very limited, low certainty evidence for this outcome. Furthermore, there is insufficient evidence on adverse effects to indicate whether CHM is safe. In the future, well-designed, carefully conducted RCTs are needed, with a particular focus on the live birth rate and other safety indexes.

Clomiphene and other antioestrogens for ovulation induction in polycystic ovarian syndrome

BACKGROUND

Subfertility due to anovulation is a common problem in women. First-line oral treatment is with antioestrogens such as clomiphene citrate, but resistance may be apparent with clomiphene. Alternative and adjunctive treatments have been used including tamoxifen, dexamethasone, and bromocriptine. The effectiveness of these is to be determined.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the relative effectiveness of antioestrogen agents including clomiphene alone or in combination with other medical therapies in women with subfertility associated with anovulation, possibly caused by polycystic ovarian syndrome.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted a search of the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL (all from inception to August 2016) to identify relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs). We searched the United Kingdom National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidelines and the references of relevant reviews and RCTs. We also searched the clinical trial registries for ongoing trials (inception until August 2016).

SELECTION CRITERIA

We considered RCTs comparing oral antioestrogen agents for ovulation induction (alone or in conjunction with medical therapies) in anovulatory subfertility. We excluded insulin-sensitising agents, aromatase inhibitors, and hyperprolactinaemic infertility.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently performed data extraction and quality assessment. The primary outcome was live birth; secondary outcomes were pregnancy, ovulation, miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, and adverse effects.

MAIN RESULTS

This is a substantive update of a previous review. We identified an additional 13 studies in the 2016 update. The review now includes 28 RCTs (3377 women) and five RCTs awaiting classification. Five of the 28 included trials reported live birth/ongoing pregnancy. Secondary outcomes were poorly reported.The quality of the evidence ranged from low to very low. The primary reasons for downgrading the evidence were imprecision and risk of bias associated with poor reporting. Antioestrogen versus placebo Live birth rate, miscarriage rate, multiple pregnancy rate, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS)No data were reported for these outcomes. Clinical pregnancy rateClomiphene citrate was associated with an increased chance of a clinical pregnancy compared with placebo, though the size of the benefit was very uncertain (odds ratio (OR) 5.91, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.77 to 19.68; 3 studies; 133 women; low-quality evidence). If the chance of a clinical pregnancy was 5% in the placebo group, then between 8% and 50% of women would have a clinical pregnancy in the clomiphene group. Clomiphene citrate versus tamoxifen Live birth rateThere was no clear evidence of a difference in the chance of a live birth between the clomiphene citrate and tamoxifen groups (OR 1.24, 95% CI 0.59 to 2.62; 2 studies; 195 women; low-quality evidence). If 20% of women in the tamoxifen group had a live birth, then between 13% and 40% of women in the clomiphene citrate group would have a live birth. Miscarriage rateThere was no clear evidence of a difference in the chance of a miscarriage between the clomiphene citrate and tamoxifen groups (OR 1.81, 95% CI 0.80 to 4.12; 4 studies; 653 women; low-quality evidence). If 3% of women in the tamoxifen group had a miscarriage, then between 2% and 10% in the clomiphene citrate group would have a miscarriage. Clinical pregnancy rateThere was no clear evidence of a difference in the chance of a clinical pregnancy between the clomiphene citrate and tamoxifen groups (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.85; 5 studies; 757 women; I² = 69%; low-quality evidence). If 22% of women in the tamoxifen group had a clinical pregnancy, then between 21% and 35% in the clomiphene citrate group would have a clinical pregnancy. Multiple pregnancy rate There was insufficient evidence of a difference in the chance of a multiple pregnancy between the clomiphene citrate group (OR 2.34, 95% CI 0.34 to 16.04; 3 studies; 567 women; very low-quality evidence). If 0% of women in the tamoxifen group had a multiple pregnancy, then between 0% and 0.5% of women in the clomiphene group would have a multiple pregnancy. OHSSThere were no instances of OHSS in either the clomiphene citrate or the tamoxifen group reported from three studies. Clomiphene citrate with tamoxifen versus tamoxifen alone Clinical pregnancy rateThere was insufficient evidence to determine whether there was a difference between groups (OR 3.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 91.60; 1 study; 20 women; very low-quality evidence). No data were reported for the other outcomes. Other comparisons of interestLimited evidence suggested that compared with a gonadotropin, clomiphene citrate was associated with a reduced chance of a pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, or live birth, with no clear evidence of a difference in multiple pregnancy rates.The comparison of clomiphene citrate plus medical adjunct versus clomiphene alone was limited by the number of trials reporting the comparison and poor reporting of clinical outcomes relevant to this systematic review and by the number of adjuncts reported (ketoconazole, bromocriptine, dexamethasone, combined oral contraceptive, human chorionic gonadotropin, hormone supplementation). The addition of dexamethasone or combined oral contraceptive suggested a possible benefit in pregnancy outcomes, but findings were very uncertain and further research is required to confirm this.There was limited evidence suggesting that a 10-day regimen of clomiphene citrate improves pregnancy outcomes compared with a 5-day regimen. Data for early versus late regimens of clomiphene citrate were insufficient to be able to make a judgement on differences for pregnancy outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found evidence suggesting that clomiphene citrate improves the chance of a clinical pregnancy compared with placebo, but may reduce the chance of live birth or ongoing pregnancy when compared with a gonadotropin. Due to low event rates, we advise caution interpreting these data.The comparison of clomiphene citrate plus medical adjunctive versus clomiphene alone was limited by the number of trials reporting the comparison. The evidence was very low quality and no firm conclusions could be drawn, but very limited evidence suggested a benefit from adjunctive dexamethasone or combined oral contraceptives. Low-quality evidence suggested that a 10-day regimen of clomiphene citrate improves pregnancy rates compared with a 5-day regimen, but further research is required.

Chinese herbal medicine for subfertile women with polycystic ovarian syndrome

BACKGROUND

Polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is one of the most common reproductive endocrinology abnormalities, and affects 5% to 10% of women of reproductive age. Western medicines, such as oral contraceptives, insulin sensitizers and laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD), have been used to treat PCOS. Recently, many studies have been published that consider Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) as an alternative treatment for women with PCOS.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the efficacy and safety of CHM for subfertile women with PCOS.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched sources, including the following databases, from inception to 9 June 2016: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialized Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), PsycINFO, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP, Wanfang and trial registries. In addition, we searched the reference lists of included trials and contacted experts in the field to locate trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that considered the use of CHM for the treatment of subfertile women with PCOS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened appropriate trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in included studies and extracted data. We contacted primary study authors for additional information. We conducted meta-analyses. We used the odds ratios (ORs) to report dichotomous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CI). We assessed the quality of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included five RCTs with 414 participants. The comparisons in the included trials were as follows: CHM versus clomiphene, CHM plus clomiphene versus clomiphene (with or without ethinyloestradiol cyproterone acetate (CEA)), CHM plus follicle aspiration plus ovulation induction versus follicle aspiration plus ovulation induction alone, and CHM plus laparoscopic ovarian drilling (LOD) versus LOD alone. The overall quality of the evidence for most comparisons was very low.None of the included studies reported live birth rate, and only one study reported data on adverse events.When CHM was compared with clomiphene (with or without LOD in both arms), there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in pregnancy rates (odds ratio (OR) 1.98, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78 to 5.06; two studies, 90 participants, I² statistic = 0%, very low quality evidence). No study reported data on adverse events. When CHM plus clomiphene was compared with clomiphene (with or without CEA), there was low quality evidence of a higher pregnancy rate in the CHM plus clomiphene group (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.14; three RCTs, 300 women, I² statistic = 0%,low quality evidence). No data were reported on adverse events.When CHM with follicle aspiration and ovulation induction was compared with follicle aspiration and ovulation induction alone, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in pregnancy rates (OR 1.60, 95% CI 0.46 to 5.52; one study, 44 women, very low quality evidence), severe luteinized unruptured follicle syndrome (LUFS) (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.14; one study, 44 women, very low quality evidence), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.00 to 8.19; one study, 44 women, very low quality evidence) or multiple pregnancy (OR 0.60, 95% CI 0.06 to 6.14; one study, 44 women, very low quality evidence).When CHM with LOD was compared with LOD alone, there was no evidence of a difference between the groups in rates of pregnancy (OR 3.50, 95% CI 0.72 to 17.09; one study, 30 women, very low quality evidence), No data were reported on adverse events.There was no evidence of a difference between any of the comparison groups for any other outcomes. The quality of the evidence for all other comparisons and outcomes was very low. The main limitations in the evidence were failure to report live birth or adverse events, failure to describe study methods in adequate detail and imprecision due to very low event rates and wide CIs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to support the use of CHM for women with PCOS and subfertility. No data are available on live birth, and there is no consistent evidence to indicate that CHM influences fertility outcomes. However there is very limited low quality evidence to suggest that the addition of CHM to clomiphene may improve pregnancy rates. There is insufficient evidence on adverse effects to indicate whether CHM is safe.