Risk of severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome in GnRH antagonist versus GnRH agonist protocol: RCT including 1050 first IVF/ICSI cycles

A second dose of kisspeptin-54 improves oocyte maturation in women at high risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a Phase 2 randomized controlled trial

STUDY QUESTION

Can increasing the duration of LH-exposure with a second dose of kisspeptin-54 improve oocyte maturation in women at high risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

A second dose of kisspeptin-54 at 10 h following the first improves oocyte yield in women at high risk of OHSS.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Kisspeptin acts at the hypothalamus to stimulate the release of an endogenous pool of GnRH from the hypothalamus. We have previously reported that a single dose of kisspeptin-54 results in an LH-surge of ~12-14 h duration, which safely triggers oocyte maturation in women at high risk of OHSS.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

Phase-2 randomized placebo-controlled trial of 62 women at high risk of OHSS recruited between August 2015 and May 2016. Following controlled ovarian stimulation, all patients (n = 62) received a subcutaneous injection of kisspeptin-54 (9.6 nmol/kg) 36 h prior to oocyte retrieval. Patients were randomized 1:1 to receive either a second dose of kisspeptin-54 (D; Double, n = 31), or saline (S; Single, n = 31) 10 h thereafter. Patients, embryologists, and IVF clinicians remained blinded to the dosing allocation.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

Study participants: Sixty-two women aged 18-34 years at high risk of OHSS (antral follicle count ≥23 or anti-Mullerian hormone level ≥40 pmol/L). Setting: Single centre study carried out at Hammersmith Hospital IVF unit, London, UK. Primary outcome: Proportion of patients achieving an oocyte yield (percentage of mature oocytes retrieved from follicles ≥14 mm on morning of first kisspeptin-54 trigger administration) of at least 60%. Secondary outcomes: Reproductive hormone levels, implantation rate and OHSS occurrence.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

A second dose of kisspeptin-54 at 10 h following the first induced further LH-secretion at 4 h after administration. A higher proportion of patients achieved an oocyte yield ≥60% following a second dose of kisspeptin-54 (Single: 14/31, 45%, Double: 21/31, 71%; absolute difference +26%, CI 2-50%, P = 0.042). Patients receiving two doses of kisspeptin-54 had a variable LH-response following the second kisspeptin dose, which appeared to be dependent on the LH-response following the first kisspeptin injection. Patients who had a lower LH-rise following the first dose of kisspeptin had a more substantial 'rescue' LH-response following the second dose of kisspeptin. The variable LH-response following the second dose of kisspeptin resulted in a greater proportion of patients achieving an oocyte yield ≥60%, but without also increasing the frequency of ovarian over-response and moderate OHSS (Single: 1/31, 3.2%, Double: 0/31, 0%).

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

Further studies are warranted to directly compare kisspeptin-54 to more established triggers of oocyte maturation.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Triggering final oocyte maturation with kisspeptin is a novel therapeutic option to enable the use of fresh embryo transfer even in the woman at high risk of OHSS.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTEREST(S)

The study was designed, conducted, analysed and reported entirely by the authors. The Medical Research Council (MRC), Wellcome Trust & National Institute of Health Research (NIHR) provided research funding to carry out the studies. There are no competing interests to declare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Clinicaltrial.gov identifier NCT01667406.

TRIAL REGISTRATION DATE

8 August 2012.

DATE OF FIRST PATIENT'S ENROLMENT

10 August 2015.

How to personalize ovarian stimulation in clinical practice

Controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) in in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles is the starting point from which couple’s prognosis depends. Individualization in follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) starting dose and protocol used is based on ovarian response prediction, which depends on ovarian reserve. Anti-Müllerian hormone levels and the antral follicle count are considered the most accurate and reliable markers of ovarian reserve. A literature search was performed for studies that addressed the ability of ovarian reserve markers to predict poor and high ovarian response in assisted reproductive technology cycles. According to the predicted response to ovarian stimulation (poor- normal- or high- response), it is possible to counsel couples before treatment about the prognosis, and also to individualize ovarian stimulation protocols, choosing among GnRH-agonists or antagonists for endogenous FSH suppression, and the FSH starting dose in order to decrease the risk of cycle cancellation and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome. In this review we discuss how to choose the best COS therapy, based on ovarian reserve markers, in order to enhance chances in IVF.

Predictive value of plasma human chorionic gonadotropin measured 14 days after Day-2 single embryo transfer

INTRODUCTION

Prediction of pregnancy outcome after in vitro fertilization is important for patients and clinicians. Early plasma human chorionic gonadotropin (p-hCG) levels are the best known predictor of pregnancy outcome, but no studies have been restricted to single embryo transfer (SET) of Day-2 embryos. The aim of the present study was to investigate the predictive value of p-hCG measured exactly 14 days after the most commonly used Day-2 SET on pregnancy, delivery, and perinatal outcome.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective analysis of prospectively collected data on 466 women who had p-hCG measured exactly 14 days after Day-2 SET during a randomized trial including 1050 unselected women (aged 18-40 years) undergoing their first in vitro fertilization/ intracytoplasmic sperm injection treatment.

RESULTS

The p-hCG predicted clinical pregnancy [area under the curve (AUC) 0.953; 95% CI 0.915-0.992] significantly better than ongoing pregnancy (AUC 0.803, 95% CI 0.717-0.890) and delivery (AUC 0.772, 95% CI 0.691-0.854). Women with p-hCG levels in the lowest quartile had significantly lower clinical pregnancy, ongoing pregnancy, and delivery rates (p < 0.001), whereas the pregnancy outcome and post-clinical pregnancy loss remained similar throughout the three highest p-hCG quartiles. The p-hCG level was related to neither birthweight nor gestational age at delivery.

CONCLUSIONS

Clinical pregnancy is significantly better predicted by p-hCG compared with ongoing pregnancy and delivery. Clinical pregnancy rates, ongoing pregnancy rates, and delivery rates remained similar throughout the three highest p-hCG quartiles with no trend towards "the higher the better".

Comparisons of GnRH antagonist protocol versus GnRH agonist long protocol in patients with normal ovarian reserve: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist (GnRH-ant) protocol and gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-a) long protocol in patients with normal ovarian reserve.

METHODS

We searched the PubMed (1992-2016), Cochrane Library (1999-2016), Web of Science (1950-2016), Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM, 1979-2016), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI, 1994-2016). Any randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared GnRH-ant protocol and GnRH-a long protocol in patients with normal ovarian reserve were included, and data were extracted independently by two reviewers. The meta-analysis was performed by Revman 5.3 software.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine RCTs (6399 patients) were included in this meta-analysis. Stimulation days (mean difference (MD) [95% confidence interval (CI)] = -0.8 [-1.36, -0.23], P = 0.006), gonadotrophin (Gn) dosage (MD [95% CI] = -3.52 [-5.56, -1.48], P = 0.0007), estradiol (E2) level on the day of human chorionic gonadotrophin (HCG) administration (MD [95% CI] = -365.49 [-532.93, -198.05], P<0.0001), the number of oocytes retrieved (MD [95% CI] = -1.41 [-1.84, -0.99], P<0.00001), the embryos obtained (MD [95% CI] = -0.99 [-1.38, -0.59], P<0.00001), incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) (OR [95% CI] = 0.69 [0.57, 0.83], P<0.0001) were statistically significantly lower in GnRH-ant protocol than GnRH-a long protocol. However, the clinical pregnancy rate (OR [95% CI] = 0.90 [0.80, 1.01], P = 0.08), ongoing pregnancy rate (OR [95% CI] = 0.88 [0.77, 1.00], P = 0.05), live birth rate (OR [95% CI] = 0.95 [0.74, 1.09], P = 0.27), miscarriage rate (OR [95% CI] = 0.98 [0.69, 1.40], P = 0.93), and cycle cancellation rate (OR [95% CI] = 0.86 [0.52, 1.44], P = 0.57) showed no significant differences between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

GnRH-ant protocol substantially decreased the incidence of OHSS without influencing the pregnancy rate and live birth rate compared to GnRH-a long protocol among patients with normal ovarian reserve.

Standards of Care in infertility in Europe

Evidence-based medicine is the principal approach to medical practice. There are several debatable issues in infertility, which require clarification. Over the past 20 years, reliable methodology has been developed for the management of infertile couples. This includes high quality diagnostic and therapeutic procedures, which are applied in highly specialised infertility centres. The European Board and College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (EBCOG) has published Standards of Care for Women's Health in Europe, which should be the cornerstone for the clinicians and service providers in the European Union to establish common protocols within their centres. Each infertility treatment should result in the highest possible success rate and all appropriate measures for the patient's safety should be in place. The treatment protocols should minimise risk of complications, such as ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). The current use of GnRH agonists to trigger final follicle maturation has provided the means for avoiding this syndrome. Additionally, multiple pregnancy rates are still high in assisted reproductive technology (ART). These rates should be reduced by the adoption of single embryo transfer during IVF treatment and by the proper monitoring of ovulation induction protocols. EBCOG Standards of Care for infertility and assisted conception treatment derived from the best available evidence should underpin the provision of high quality infertility services in European countries.

Prevention and treatment of moderate and severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome: a guideline

Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) is an uncommon but serious complication associated with assisted reproductive technology (ART). This systematic review aims to identify who is at high risk, how to prevent OHSS, and the treatment for existing OHSS.

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone antagonists for assisted reproductive technology

BACKGROUND

Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists can be used to prevent a luteinizing hormone (LH) surge during controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) without the hypo-oestrogenic side-effects, flare-up, or long down-regulation period associated with agonists. The antagonists directly and rapidly inhibit gonadotrophin release within several hours through competitive binding to pituitary GnRH receptors. This property allows their use at any time during the follicular phase. Several different regimens have been described including multiple-dose fixed (0.25 mg daily from day six to seven of stimulation), multiple-dose flexible (0.25 mg daily when leading follicle is 14 to 15 mm), and single-dose (single administration of 3 mg on day 7 to 8 of stimulation) protocols, with or without the addition of an oral contraceptive pill. Further, women receiving antagonists have been shown to have a lower incidence of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Assuming comparable clinical outcomes for the antagonist and agonist protocols, these benefits would justify a change from the standard long agonist protocol to antagonist regimens. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2001, and previously updated in 2006 and 2011.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists compared with the standard long protocol of GnRH agonists for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in assisted conception cycles.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (searched from inception to May 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, inception to 28 April 2015), Ovid MEDLINE (1966 to 28 April 2015), EMBASE (1980 to 28 April 2015), PsycINFO (1806 to 28 April 2015), CINAHL (to 28 April 2015) and trial registers to 28 April 2015, and handsearched bibliographies of relevant publications and reviews, and abstracts of major scientific meetings, for example the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). We contacted the authors of eligible studies for missing or unpublished data. The evidence is current to 28 April 2015.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Two review authors independently screened the relevant citations for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different GnRH agonist versus GnRH antagonist protocols in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and extracted the data. The primary review outcomes were live birth and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Other adverse effects (miscarriage and cycle cancellation) were secondary outcomes. We combined data to calculate pooled odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Statistical heterogeneity was assessed using the I(2) statistic. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each comparison using GRADE methods.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 73 RCTs, with 12,212 participants, comparing GnRH antagonist to long-course GnRH agonist protocols. The quality of the evidence was moderate: limitations were poor reporting of study methods.Live birthThere was no conclusive evidence of a difference in live birth rate between GnRH antagonist and long course GnRH agonist (OR 1.02, 95% CI 0.85 to 1.23; 12 RCTs, n = 2303, I(2)= 27%, moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the chance of live birth following GnRH agonist is assumed to be 29%, the chance following GnRH antagonist would be between 25% and 33%.OHSSGnRH antagonist was associated with lower incidence of any grade of OHSS than GnRH agonist (OR 0.61, 95% C 0.51 to 0.72; 36 RCTs, n = 7944, I(2) = 31%, moderate quality evidence). The evidence suggested that if the risk of OHSS following GnRH agonist is assumed to be 11%, the risk following GnRH antagonist would be between 6% and 9%.Other adverse effectsThere was no evidence of a difference in miscarriage rate per woman randomised between GnRH antagonist group and GnRH agonist group (OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.30; 33 RCTs, n = 7022, I(2) = 0%, moderate quality evidence).With respect to cycle cancellation, GnRH antagonist was associated with a lower incidence of cycle cancellation due to high risk of OHSS (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.32 to 0.69; 19 RCTs, n = 4256, I(2) = 0%). However cycle cancellation due to poor ovarian response was higher in women who received GnRH antagonist than those who were treated with GnRH agonist (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.65; 25 RCTs, n = 5230, I(2) = 68%; moderate quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate quality evidence that the use of GnRH antagonist compared with long-course GnRH agonist protocols is associated with a substantial reduction in OHSS without reducing the likelihood of achieving live birth.