Comparison of leuprolide acetate and human chorionic gonadotropin for the induction of ovulation in clomiphene citrate-stimulated cycles

Efficacy of GnRH agonist trigger in women having history of follicular-endometrial asynchrony with clomiphene/IUI cycles in unexplained infertility

PURPOSE

An alternative option to human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) is GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) for ovulation trigger in intrauterine insemination (IUI) cycles. This study aims to compare the efficacy of GnRH-a with hCG in women with history of follicular-endometrial asynchrony after clomiphene in IUI cycles.

METHODS

This prospective observational study recruited 631 women with unexplained infertility and follicular-endometrial asynchrony (follicle ≥ 18 mm, endometrial thickness (ET) < 7 mm) in previous two failed clomiphene/IUI cycles. Overall 27 patients with synchronized follicular-endometrial relationship and 49 women with persistent ET < 7 mm and/or follicle > 26 mm were excluded. Remaining women (n = 555) were divided into two groups: Group A (n = 285) received GnRH-a and Group B (n = 270) received hCG ovulation trigger. Finally, 513 patients, who underwent IUI, were analysed.

RESULTS

Cancellation due to luteinized unruptured follicle was more in hCG group (P = 0.01). Higher clinical pregnancies (10.33 vs. 4.96%, P = 0.03) and live birth rates (8.86 vs. 4.13%, P = 0.03) were noted with GnRH-a trigger. Miscarriage rate was comparable in both the groups (10.71 and 16.67% in Group A and Group B, respectively).

CONCLUSION

In unexplained infertility, GnRH agonist is an useful alternative for triggering ovulation in women with follicular-endometrial asynchrony following clomiphene induction.

hCG Triggering in ART: An Evolutionary Concept

Human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) is no longer a single, omnipotent ovulation triggering option. Gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist, initially presented as a substitute for hCG, has led to a new era of administering GnRH agonist followed by hCG triggering. According to this new concept, GnRH agonist enables successful ovum maturation, while hCG supports the luteal phase and pregnancy until placental shift.

Synchronised approach for intrauterine insemination in subfertile couples

BACKGROUND

In many countries intrauterine insemination (IUI) is the treatment of first choice for a subfertile couple when the infertility work up reveals an ovulatory cycle, at least one open Fallopian tube and sufficient spermatozoa. The final goal of this treatment is to achieve a pregnancy and deliver a healthy (singleton) live birth. The probability of conceiving with IUI depends on various factors including age of the couple, type of subfertility, ovarian stimulation and the timing of insemination. IUI should logically be performed around the moment of ovulation. Since spermatozoa and oocytes have only limited survival time correct timing of the insemination is essential. As it is not known which technique of timing for IUI results in the best treatment outcome, we compared different techniques for timing IUI and different time intervals.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of different synchronisation methods in natural and stimulated cycles for IUI in subfertile couples.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched for all publications which described randomised controlled trials of the timing of IUI. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (1966 to October 2014), EMBASE (1974 to October 2014), MEDLINE (1966 to October 2014) and PsycINFO (inception to October 2014) electronic databases and prospective trial registers. Furthermore, we checked the reference lists of all obtained studies and performed a handsearch of conference abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different timing methods for IUI were included. The following interventions were evaluated: detection of luteinising hormone (LH) in urine or blood, single test; human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration; combination of LH detection and hCG administration; basal body temperature chart; ultrasound detection of ovulation; gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist administration; or other timing methods.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the trials, extracted the data and assessed study risk of bias. We performed statistical analyses in accordance with the guidelines for statistical analysis developed by The Cochrane Collaboration. The overall quality of the evidence was assessed using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen RCTs were included in the review, of which 14 were included in the meta-analyses (in total 2279 couples). The evidence was current to October 2013. The quality of the evidence was low or very low for most comparisons . The main limitations in the evidence were failure to describe study methods, serious imprecision and attrition bias.Ten RCTs compared different methods of timing for IUI. We found no evidence of a difference in live birth rates between hCG injection versus LH surge (odds ratio (OR) 1.0, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06 to 18, 1 RCT, 24 women, very low quality evidence), urinary hCG versus recombinant hCG (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.03, 1 RCT, 284 women, low quality evidence) or hCG versus GnRH agonist (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.6, 3 RCTS, 104 women, I(2) = 0%, low quality evidence).Two RCTs compared the optimum time interval from hCG injection to IUI, comparing different time frames that ranged from 24 hours to 48 hours. Only one of these studies reported live birth rates, and found no difference between the groups (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.00, 1 RCT, 204 couples). One study compared early versus late hCG administration and one study compared different dosages of hCG, but neither reported the primary outcome of live birth.We found no evidence of a difference between any of the groups in rates of pregnancy or adverse events (multiple pregnancy, miscarriage, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS)). However, most of these data were very low quality.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine whether there is any difference in safety and effectiveness between different methods of synchronization of ovulation and insemination. More research is needed.

Synchronised approach for intrauterine insemination in subfertile couples

BACKGROUND

Intrauterine insemination (IUI) should logically be performed around the moment of ovulation. Since spermatozoa and oocytes have only limited survival times correct timing is essential. As it is not known which technique of timing for IUI results in the best treatment outcome, we compared different techniques for timing IUI and different time intervals.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of different synchronisation methods in natural and stimulated cycles for IUI in subfertile couples.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched for all publications which described randomised controlled trials of the timing of IUI. We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), (1966 to March 2009), EMBASE (1974 to March 2009) and Science Direct (1966 to March 2009) electronic databases. Furthermore, we checked the reference lists of all obtained studies and performed a handsearch of conference abstracts.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only truly randomised controlled trials comparing different timing methods for IUI were included. The following interventions were evaluated: detection of luteinising hormone (LH) in urine or blood, single test; human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration; combination of LH detection and hCG administration; basal body temperature chart; ultrasound detection of ovulation; gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist administration; or other timing methods.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected the trials to be included according to the above mentioned criteria. We performed statistical analyses in accordance with the guidelines for statistical analysis developed by The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten studies were included comparing urinary LH surge versus hCG injection; recombinant hCG versus urinary hCG; and hCG versus a GnRH agonist. One study compared the optimum time interval from hCG injection to IUI. The results of these studies showed no significant differences between different timing methods for IUI expressed as live birth rates: hCG versus LH surge (odds ratio (OR) 1.0, 95% CI 0.06 to 18); urinary hCG versus recombinant hCG (OR 1.2, 95% CI 0.68 to 2.0); and hCG versus GnRH agonist (OR 1.1, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.1). All the secondary outcomes analysed showed no significant differences between treatment groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no evidence to advise one particular treatment option over another. The choice should be based on hospital facilities, convenience for the patient, medical staff, costs and drop-out levels. Since different time intervals between hCG and IUI did not result in different pregnancy rates, a more flexible approach might be allowed.

Luteal phase defects following agonist-triggered ovulation: a patient-dependent response

The luteal phase (LP) of patients receiving triptorelin 0.1 mg to trigger ovulation was studied. Patients not pregnant in the first cycle with 0.1 mg were randomized into different groups for a second cycle: 0.1 mg again for patients who experienced a normal LP (group 1); patients affected with LP disorders were randomized into the following groups: 0.1 mg again (group 2); increasing dosage of triptorelin 0.5 mg once (group 3) or 0.1 mg three times (group 4); luteal support either with oral micronized progesterone (group 5) or human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) 1500 IU (group 6). Ovulation occurred in all cycles, but an inadequate LP was observed in 34.4% of the non-conceptional cycles. Patients demonstrating a normal LP as well as those affected with luteal disorders in their first cycle showed the same luteal pattern in their consecutive cycles triggered in the same way. In defective LP patients, increasing or repeating triptorelin doses did not restore the luteal phase or the pregnancy rate, both returning closer to normal after luteal support. Defective LP observed after agonist-triggered ovulation do not occur at random; therefore this patient-dependent response may be related to the personal characteristics of each patient's pre-ovulatory physiological surge profile.

[Comparison of different protocols of ovulation induction, by GnRH agonists and chorionic gonadotropin]

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine the best way of using a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRHa) for triggering ovulation and to analyse the reasons for short luteal phases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirteen different regimens of GnRH-a administration were used to trigger ovulation using different dosages and either one, two or three administrations: triptorelin, buserelin spray, buserelin subcutaneously, leuprolide and nafarelin in 231 treatment cycles. Pregnancy rate and luteal phase duration were compared with those of a control group for whom ovulation was triggered with hCG.

RESULTS

Ovulation with supraphysiologic elevation of both FSH and LH was achieved in the 13 GnRHa groups. For the five main groups analysed, GnRHa produced shorter and inadequate luteal phases than did hCG but no difference was found between agonists. Pregnancy rates were not statistically different between the agonist groups or in comparison with the hCG group.

CONCLUSION

The use of GnRHa to trigger ovulation is efficient, despite short luteal phases, and has proven its utility in comparison with hCG. As the different modes of stimulation appear to yield comparable results, the cost of treatment should be a significant element to take into consideration.

Use of GnRH analog for induction of the ovulatory surge of gonadotropins in patients at risk of the ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome

A total of 32 patients undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) and 16 treated for ovulatory disturbances were stimulated with clomiphene citrate and human menopausal gonadotropin. Gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) analog was used for induction of the ovulatory surge of gonadotropins, because of the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. In four patients after IVF-embryo transfer and four patients after ovulation induction, single pregnancies were obtained. None suffered from ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. The authors suggest that the use of GnRH analog for induction of the gonadotropin ovulatory surge prevents the development of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

Leuprorelin. A review of its pharmacology and therapeutic use in prostatic cancer, endometriosis and other sex hormone-related disorders

Leuprorelin (leuprolide acetate) is a gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analogue used to treat a wide range of sex hormone-related disorders including advanced prostatic cancer, endometriosis and precocious puberty. It acts primarily on the anterior pituitary, inducing a transient early rise in gonadotrophin release. With continued use, leuprorelin causes pituitary desensitisation and/or down-regulation, leading to suppressed circulating levels of gonadotrophins and sex hormones. Clinical trials in men with advanced prostatic cancer demonstrate that leuprorelin (usually monthly depot injections of 3.75 or 7.5 mg) is less likely to cause serious adverse cardiovascular effects than diethylstilbestrol, and has comparable efficacy to bilateral orchiectomy or other GnRH analogues. Therefore, the choice between leuprorelin and orchiectomy may be made on the basis of the patient's treatment preference, along with specific patient characteristics and cost implications. Monthly intramuscular or subcutaneous administration of depot leuprorelin 3.75 mg was superior to placebo, and comparable to oral danazol 800 mg/day or intranasal buserelin 900 micrograms/day, in achieving objective and subjective responses in women with endometriosis. Thus, leuprorelin is an effective alternative to other treatments for women with endometriosis, but the recommended duration of its use in this clinical setting is limited to 6 months because it reduces bone mineral density. In children with central precocious puberty, leuprorelin (usually monthly intramuscular or subcutaneous injections of depot leuprorelin 3.75 to 15mg) decreases mean growth velocity and signs of sexual maturation and increases predicted adult height compared with baseline measurements. Although effects on final adult height are predicted from available data and require confirmation in long term follow-up studies, the absence of effective alternatives to GnRH analogues makes leuprorelin a first-line therapy for children with this rare disease. In women with uterine leiomyomata, monthly intramuscular administration of depot leuprorelin 3.75 mg for 6 months markedly reduces uterine volume and fibroid-related symptoms, but, as with other GnRH analogues, these effects dissipate following discontinuation of the drug. As adjuvant therapy in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation or gamete intrafallopian transfer, leuprorelin (usually 0.5 to 1 mg/day subcutaneously) reduces the risk of cancelled cycles for oocyte retrieval by preventing premature luteinisation. While some studies demonstrate an improvement in intermediate end-points such as increased number of mature oocytes retrieved and embryos available for transfer, a significant effect has not been demonstrated on the rate of live births per stimulated cycle.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)