Midluteal buserelin is superior to early follicular phase buserelin in combined gonadotropin-releasing hormone analog and gonadotropin stimulation in in vitro fertilization**Supported by a grant from Hoechst Aktiengesellschaft, Frankfurt/Main, Germany.††The following investigators participated in the conduct and analysis of this study: Paul Devroey, Akademisch Ziekenhuis, Vrije Universiteit, Brussels, Belgium; Bengt Fredricsson, Huddinge University Hospital, Huddinge, Sweden; Kertsin Hagenfeldt, Karolinska Hospital, Stockholm, Sweden; David Healy, Prince Henry’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia; Konrad Lisse, Frauenklinik Charité, Berlin, Germany; Thomas Rabe and Janos Urbancsek, Universitäts-Frauenklinik, Heidelberg, Germany; Joop Schoemaker, Akademisch Ziekenhuis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist protocols for pituitary suppression in assisted reproduction

BACKGROUND

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) are commonly used in assisted reproduction technology (ART) cycles to prevent a luteinising hormone (LH) surge during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) prior to planned oocyte retrieval, thus optimising the chances of live birth. We compared the benefits and risks of the different GnRHa protocols used.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different GnRHa protocols used as adjuncts to COH in women undergoing ART.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases in December 2022: the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and registries of ongoing trials. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and contacted experts in the field for any additional trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any two protocols of GnRHa, or variations of the protocol in terms of different doses or duration, used in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles in subfertile women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. Our primary outcome measures were number of live births or ongoing pregnancies and incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) per woman/couple randomised. Our secondary outcome measures included number of clinical pregnancies, pregnancy losses, number of oocytes retrieved, amount of gonadotropins used, and cost and acceptability of the treatment protocols.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 40 RCTs (4148 women). The trials evaluated 10 different comparisons between protocols. The evidence is current to December 2022. Only half of the studies reported the primary outcome of live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates. We restricted the primary analysis of live birth and ongoing pregnancy to trials with low risk of selection and reporting bias. Nineteen studies compared long and short protocols. The primary analysis restricted to trials with low risk of bias included five studies reporting on live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates. Results showed little or no difference when the long protocol was compared with a short protocol (odds ratio (OR) 1.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.83 to 2.52; I² = 0%; 5 studies, 381 women; low-certainty evidence). For the same comparison, there was evidence that the long protocol may improve clinical pregnancy rates when compared to the short protocol (OR 1.56, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.40; I² = 23%; 8 studies, 552 women; low-certainty evidence). No study in this comparison reported on OHSS. We are uncertain if there is a difference between groups in terms of live birth and ongoing pregnancy rates when the following GnRHa protocols were compared: long versus ultrashort (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.72 to 4.36; 1 study, 150 women; very low-certainty evidence); long luteal versus long follicular phase (OR 1.89, 95% CI 0.87 to 4.10; 1 study, 223 women; very low-certainty evidence); GnRHa reduced-dose versus GnRHa same-dose continued in the long protocol (OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.66 to 3.87; 1 study, 96 women; very low-certainty evidence); GnRHa administration for two versus three weeks before stimulation (OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.37 to 2.05; 1 study, 85 women; very low-certainty evidence); GnRHa continued versus discontinued after human chorionic gonadotropin (HCG) administration in the long protocol (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.64; 1 study, 181 women; very low-certainty evidence); and 500 µg dose versus 80 µg dose in the short protocol (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.98; 1 study, 200 women; very low-certainty evidence). Clinical pregnancy rates may improve with a 100 µg dose compared to a 25 µg dose in the short protocol (OR 2.30, 95% CI 1.06 to 5.00; 2 studies, 133 women; low-certainty evidence). Only four of the 40 included studies reported adverse events. We are uncertain of any difference in OHSS rate in the GnRHa reduced-dose versus GnRHa same-dose regimen in the long protocol (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.04 to 5.35; 1 study, 96 women; very low-certainty evidence) or when administration of GnRHa lasted for two versus three weeks before stimulation (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.06 to 15.37; 1 study, 85 women; very low-certainty evidence). Regarding miscarriage rates, we are uncertain of any difference when the GnRHa long protocol was administered for two versus three weeks before stimulation (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.18 to 4.87; 1 study, 85 women; very low-certainty evidence) and when a 500 µg dose was compared with an 80 µg dose in the short protocol (OR 3.15, 95% CI 0.32 to 31.05; 1 study, 131 women; very low-certainty evidence). No studies reported on cost-effectiveness or acceptability of the different treatment protocols. The certainty of the evidence ranged from low to very low. The main limitations were failure to report live birth or ongoing pregnancy rates, poor reporting of methods in the primary studies, imprecise findings due to lack of data, and insufficient data regarding adverse events. Only eight of the 40 included studies were conducted within the last 10 years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When comparing long and short GnRHa protocols, we found little or no difference in live birth and ongoing pregnancy rates, but there was evidence that the long protocol may improve clinical pregnancy rates overall. We were uncertain of any difference in OHSS and miscarriage rates for all comparisons, which were reported by only two studies each. There was insufficient evidence to draw any conclusions regarding other adverse effects or the cost-effectiveness and acceptability of the different treatment protocols.

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist protocols for pituitary suppression in assisted reproduction

BACKGROUND

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) are commonly used in assisted reproduction technology (ART) cycles to prevent a luteinising hormone surge during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) prior to planned oocyte retrieval, thus optimising the chances of live birth.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of the different GnRHa protocols as adjuncts to COH in women undergoing ART cycles.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from inception to April 2015: the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library (2015, Issue 3), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and registries of ongoing trials. Reference lists of relevant articles were also searched.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any two protocols of GnRHa used in in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles in subfertile women.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently selected studies, assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted the data. The primary outcome measure was number of live births or ongoing pregnancies per woman/couple randomised. Secondary outcome measures were number of clinical pregnancies, number of oocytes retrieved, dose of gonadotrophins used, adverse effects (pregnancy losses, ovarian hyperstimulation, cycle cancellation, and premature luteinising hormone (LH) surges), and cost and acceptability of the regimens. We combined data to calculate odds ratios (OR) for dichotomous variables and mean differences (MD) for continuous variables, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed statistical heterogeneity using the I² statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for the main comparisons using 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation' (GRADE) methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 37 RCTs (3872 women), one ongoing trial, and one trial awaiting classification. These trials made nine different comparisons between protocols. Twenty of the RCTs compared long protocols and short protocols. Only 19/37 RCTs reported live birth or ongoing pregnancy.There was no conclusive evidence of a difference between a long protocol and a short protocol in live birth and ongoing pregnancy rates (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.81; 12 RCTs, n = 976 women, I² = 15%, low quality evidence). Our findings suggest that in a population in which 14% of women achieve live birth or ongoing pregnancy using a short protocol, between 13% and 23% will achieve live birth or ongoing pregnancy using a long protocol. There was evidence of an increase in clinical pregnancy rates (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.92; 20 RCTs, n = 1643 women, I² = 27%, moderate quality evidence) associated with the use of a long protocol.There was no evidence of a difference between the groups in terms of live birth and ongoing pregnancy rates when the following GnRHa protocols were compared: long versus ultrashort protocol (OR 1.78, 95% CI 0.72 to 4.36; one RCT, n = 150 women, low quality evidence), long luteal versus long follicular phase protocol (OR 1.89, 95% CI 0.87 to 4.10; one RCT, n = 223 women, low quality evidence), when GnRHa was stopped versus when it was continued (OR 0.75, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.33; three RCTs, n = 290 women, I² = 0%, low quality evidence), when the dose of GnRHa was reduced versus when the same dose was continued (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.52; four RCTs, n = 407 women, I² = 0%, low quality evidence), when GnRHa was discontinued versus continued after human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) administration in the long protocol (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.64; one RCT, n = 181 women, low quality evidence), and when administration of GnRHa lasted for two versus three weeks before stimulation (OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.68; one RCT, n = 85 women, low quality evidence). Our primary outcomes were not reported for any other comparisons.Regarding adverse events, there were insufficient data to enable us to reach any conclusions except about the cycle cancellation rate. There was no conclusive evidence of a difference in cycle cancellation rate (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.59 to 1.55; 11 RCTs, n = 1026 women, I² = 42%, low quality evidence) when a long protocol was compared with a short protocol. This suggests that in a population in which 9% of women would have their cycles cancelled using a short protocol, between 5.5% and 14% will have cancelled cycles when using a long protocol.The quality of the evidence ranged from moderate to low. The main limitations in the evidence were failure to report live birth or ongoing pregnancy, poor reporting of methods in the primary studies, and imprecise findings due to lack of data. Only 10 of the 37 included studies were conducted within the last 10 years.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

When long GnRHa protocols and short GnRHa protocols were compared, we found no conclusive evidence of a difference in live birth and ongoing pregnancy rates, but there was moderate quality evidence of higher clinical pregnancy rates in the long protocol group. None of the other analyses showed any evidence of a difference in birth or pregnancy outcomes between the protocols compared. There was insufficient evidence to make any conclusions regarding adverse effects.

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonist protocols for pituitary suppression in assisted reproduction

BACKGROUND

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone agonists (GnRHa) are used in assisted reproduction technology (ART) cycles to prevent a luteinizing hormone surge. Various protocols have been described in the literature, such as long protocols (continuous and stop or reduce dose, long luteal, or long follicular protocol); short protocols and ultrashort protocols.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the most effective GnRHa protocol as an adjuvant to gonadotrophins in ART cycles.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAHL and PsycINFO. Reference lists of relevant articles were also searched. All the searches were updated to August 2010.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Only randomised controlled trials comparing any two protocols of GnRHa in in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) cycles were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The primary outcome measure was live births per women. Secondary outcome measures were pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, number of oocytes retrieved and amount of gonadotrophins used. Data were independently extracted in 2 x 2 tables by two authors. Odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated after verifying the presence of homogeneity of treatment effect across all trials. For continuous variables mean differences (MD) were calculated.

MAIN RESULTS

Of 29 included studies, 17 compared long with short protocols; two compared long with ultrashort protocols; four compared a follicular versus luteal start of GnRHa; three compared continuation versus stopping the GnRHa at the start of stimulation; three compared continuation of the same dose versus reduced dose of GnRHa and one compared a short versus short stop protocol.There was no evidence of a difference in the live birth rate but this outcome was only reported by three studies.There was evidence of a significant increase in clinical pregnancy rate (OR 1.50, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.93) in a long protocol when compared to a short protocol. That is there is a 50% increase in chance of achieving pregnancy if a long protocol is used as compared to a short protocol, although this difference could range from 16% to 93% increased chance of pregnancy. This difference did not persist when the meta-analysis was done only on the studies with adequate randomisation (OR 1.38, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.05).There was evidence of an increased number of oocytes (MD 1.61, 95% CI 0.18 to 3.04) obtained when a long protocol was used as compared to a short protocol. That is there is a 60% increase in the number of oocytes retrieved when a long protocol is used as compared to a short protocol, although this difference could range from 18% to 304% more oocytes.There was evidence of an increase (MD 12.90, 95% CI 3.29 to 22.51) in the requirement for gonadotrophins in long as compared to short protocols. That is approximately 12.9 more ampoules of gonadotrophins were consumed when a long protocol was used as compared to a short protocol. This difference could range from 3.29 to 22.51 more gonadotrophin ampoules.There was no evidence of a difference in any of the outcome measures for luteal versus follicular start of GnRHa and stopping versus continuation of GnRHa at the start of stimulation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The pregnancy rate was found to be higher when GnRHa was used in a long protocol as compared to a short or ultrashort protocol. There was no evidence of a difference in live birth rate, but this outcome was only reported by three studies. There was no evidence of a difference in the outcomes amongst various long protocols; nor that stopping or reducing GnRHa at the start of stimulation was associated with a reduced pregnancy rate. For all comparison, except a long versus short protocol, there was a lack of power.

Impact of GnRH analogues on oocyte/embryo quality and embryo development in in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection cycles: a case control study

BACKGROUND

Despite the clinical outcomes of ovarian stimulation with either GnRH-agonist or GnRH-antagonist analogues for in vitro fertilization (IVF) being well analysed, the effect of analogues on oocyte/embryo quality and embryo development is still not known in detail. The aim of this case-control study was to compare the efficacy of a multiple-dose GnRH antagonist protocol with that of the GnRH agonist long protocol with a view to oocyte and embryo quality, embryo development and IVF treatment outcome.

METHODS

Between October 2001 and December 2008, 100 patients were stimulated with human menopausal gonadotrophin (HMG) and GnRH antagonist in their first treatment cycle for IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). One hundred combined GnRH agonist + HMG (long protocol) cycles were matched to the GnRH antagonist + HMG cycles by age, BMI, baseline FSH levels and by cause of infertility. We determined the number and quality of retrieved oocytes, the rate of early-cleavage embryos, the morphology and development of embryos, as well as clinical pregnancy rates. Statistical analysis was performed using Wilcoxon's matched pairs rank sum test and McNemar's chi-square test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

The rate of cytoplasmic abnormalities in retrieved oocytes was significantly higher with the use of GnRH antagonist than in GnRH agonist cycles (62.1% vs. 49.9%; P < 0.01). We observed lower rate of zygotes showing normal pronuclear morphology (49.3% vs. 58.0%; P < 0.01), and higher cell-number of preembryos on day 2 after fertilization (4.28 vs. 4.03; P < 0.01) with the use of GnRH antagonist analogues. The rate of mature oocytes, rate of presence of multinucleated blastomers, amount of fragmentation in embryos and rate of early-cleaved embryos was similar in the two groups. Clinical pregnancy rate per embryo transfer was lower in the antagonist group than in the agonist group (30.8% vs. 40.4%) although this difference did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.17).

CONCLUSION

Antagonist seemed to influence favourably some parameters of early embryo development dynamics, while other morphological parameters seemed not to be altered according to GnRH analogue used for ovarian stimulation in IVF cycles.

Evidence of improving quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in subfertility

BACKGROUND

The quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in subfertility and their suitability for inclusion in meta-analyses have been assessed in the past and found to be insufficient. Our aim was to assess whether this quality has improved over time, particularly since the publication of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, and to assess what proportion of trials could be included in the meta-analyses of pregnancy outcomes such as those included in Cochrane Reviews.

METHODS

A selection of subfertility trials published in 1990, 1996 and 2002 was collected from the Cochrane Menstrual Disorder and Subfertility Group (MDSG) database. Only trials published in English as full journal articles, claiming to be randomized and reporting on pregnancy outcomes, were included.

RESULTS

One hundred and sixty-four trials met our inclusion criteria. Twenty-four (15%) were found not to be randomized, despite claims, and only 10 trials (6%) provided adequate details on the methods of randomization and allocation concealment. Of these, only three had sufficient details extractable to allow for an intention-to-treat analysis of the outcome 'live birth'.

CONCLUSIONS

Although an improvement in some subfertility-specific issues was observed, the quality of reporting of RCTs still needs to improve to make them suitable for inclusion in meta-analyses such as those in the Cochrane Library.

Reduction of dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate synthesis in women with polycystic ovary syndrome by human menopausal gonadotropin but not purified urinary follicle stimulating hormone: a comparative pilot study

We aimed to compare the effects of two different gonadotropins on steroid production in patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS). The study group comprised 20 infertile patients diagnosed with PCOS who were accepted into in vitro fertilization-embryo transfer and gamete intra-Fallopian transfer programs. Ten patients were consecutively allocated to a purified urinary follicle stimulating hormone (FSH) administration group while the other ten received human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG). All patients were pretreated with a gonadotropin releasing hormone-agonist. The patients were followed by daily vaginal ultrasonography until at least two follicles reached a diameter of 17 mm or an estradiol value of at least 100 pg/ml per follicle. To induce ovulation, human chorionic gonadotropin was given. On the 3rd day of menstruation, serum estradiol, luteinizing hormone (LH), FSH, total testosterone, androstenedione, dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS), insulin-like growth factor-I and insulin were measured. These same parameters were measured again on the day of follicle aspiration in both serum and follicular fluid. In both groups, the serum levels of estradiol and androstenedione were raised significantly, and on aspiration day the serum level of DHEAS was significantly raised in the FSH group but not in the hMG group. Our findings suggest that in PCOS patients exogenous hMG induces a different steroid synthesis pattern compared to pure FSH, hypothetically by reduction of the delta-5 steroid synthesis pathway in the adrenals and/or in the ovary.

Serum and follicular fluid hormone levels during in vitro fertilization after short- or long-course treatment with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist

OBJECTIVE

To examine the impact of flare (short) vs. down-regulation (long) GnRH agonist (GnRH-a) on serum and follicular fluid (FF) LH and androgen concentrations in women undergoing IVF treatment cycles.

DESIGN

Prospective observational study.

SETTING

IVF clinic.

PATIENT(S)

One hundred sixteen ovulatory subjects undergoing IVF.

INTERVENTION(S)

Fifty-eight ovulatory patients undergoing a down-regulation regimen matched with 58 undergoing the flare regimen as part of an IVF cycle.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S)

Serum concentrations of LH, FSH, Progesterone (P4), Androstenedione (A), T, and E(2) on the day of hCG administration were compared between the two groups. In addition, the FF P4, 17OHP4, A, T, and E(2) levels were compared in the two groups.

RESULT(S)

Serum LH was significantly higher with the flare regimen (15.2 +/- 1.14 IU/L, P<.05) when compared with results with the down-regulation protocol (9.5 +/- 0.77 IU/L). In addition, FF A was significantly higher in the flare protocol (57.3 +/- 13.3 ng/mL, P<.05) compared with in the down-regulation protocol (27 +/- 2.44 ng/mL). Serum and FF P4, 17OH P4, T, and E(2) were not statistically significantly different between the two groups.

CONCLUSION(S)

Serum LH and FF A are significantly higher in the flare regimen in comparison with the down-regulation regimen. Circulating LH appears to play a role in determining FF A concentration.