Oral contraceptive pill, progestogen or estrogen pre-treatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques

Evaluation of GnRH antagonist pretreatment before ovarian stimulation in a GnRH antagonist protocol in normal ovulatory women undergoing IVF/ICSI: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Synchronization of follicles is key to improving ovulation stimulation with the gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol. GnRH antagonist administration in the early follicular phase can quickly decrease gonadotrophin (Gn) levels and achieve downregulation before stimulation, which may improves synchronization. A previous small randomized controlled study (RCT) showed that pretreatment with a GnRH antagonist for 3 days before stimulation may increase oocyte retrieval but cannot increase the pregnancy rate. This study investigated whether the GnRH antagonist pretreatment protocol in ovulatory women can increase the synchronization of follicles and pregnancy outcomes compared with the conventional GnRH antagonist protocol.

METHODS

This RCT included 136 normal ovulatory women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF)/intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI). Both groups were treated with recombinant follicle-stimulating hormone (r-FSH) and a flexible GnRH antagonist protocol. The women were randomized into two equal groups with or without GnRH antagonist administration from day 2 of the menstrual cycle for 3 days before stimulation. Our primary outcome was the number of retrieved oocytes. Secondary outcomes included the pregnancy rate and live birth rate.

RESULTS

Both groups had similar baseline characteristics. The number of retrieved oocytes in the study group was comparable to that in the control group (9.5 [8.0-13.0] vs. 11.0 [7.0-14.8], P = 0.469). There was no significant difference in the follicle size. The fertilization rate, number of good-quality embryos, implantation rate, pregnancy rate, ongoing pregnancy rate, live birth rate per embryonic transfer cycle, and miscarriage rate were similar between the two groups.

CONCLUSION

This large RCT analysed GnRH antagonist pretreatment with the GnRH antagonist protocol applied to normal ovulatory women undergoing IVF/ICSI. The number of retrieved oocytes and pregnancy outcomes did not significantly vary.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR1800019730 . Registered 26 November 2018.

Effect of preconceptional DHEA treatment on in vitro fertilization outcome in poor ovarian respond women: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background

Women undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) with poor ovarian respond (POR) always have very low clinical pregnancy rates. In previous data, dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA) was suggested as a promising treatment and maybe has a good pregnancy outcome. But there is no sufficient evidence from randomized clinical trials evaluating the effect of DHEA preconceptional treatment on live birth in POR.

Methods

This trial is a multicenter active-placebo double-blind clinical trial (1:1 treatment ratio of active versus placebo). The infertile POR patients undergoing IVF or ICSI will be enrolled and randomly assigned to two parallel groups. Participants in these two groups will be given 4–12 weeks’ treatment of DHEA or placebo, respectively. The primary outcome is live birth rate.

Discussion

The results of this study will provide evidence for the effect of preconceptional DHEA treatment on IVF outcome in POR.

Trial registration

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR-IPR-15006909. Registered on November 9, 2015.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-3146-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Consensus Statement on the Use of Oral Contraceptive Pills in Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome Women in India

Objective:

To provide consensus recommendations for health-care providers on the use of oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) in polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) women in India.

Participants:

Extensive deliberations, discussions, and brainstorming were done with different fraternities (specialists) being involved. These included endocrinologists, gynecologists, reproductive endocrinologists, dermatologists, public health experts, researchers, and a project manager with a team to develop the guideline.

Evidence:

Published literature was retrieved through searches of Medline and The Cochrane Database from January 2003 to December 2017 using appropriate-controlled vocabulary (e.g., oral contraceptive pills, polycystic ovarian syndrome, long term outcomes, infertility). Clinical practice guideline collections, clinical trial registries, and national and international medical specialty societies' publications and data were also reviewed to suggest the recommendations.

Process:

The working group for guideline committee included members from the PCOS Society (India), Indian Society for Assisted Reproduction, The Mumbai Obstetric and Gynecological Society, The Endocrine Society of India, Indian Association of Dermatologists, Venereologists and Leprologists, Cosmetic Dermatology Society (India), Academicians from Medical Colleges, National Institute for Research in Reproductive Health, and a Research Associate. The core team included five reproductive endocrinologists, five gynecologists, five dermatologists, three endocrinologists, two public health experts and one research associate.

Conclusions:

This consensus statement provides the guidance/recommendations for Indian practitioners regarding the use of OCP in women with PCOS. PCOS is one of the common endocrinopathies encountered in gynecological/endocrine practice. The spectrum of this disorder may range from prepubertal girls with premature pubarche, young girls with hirsutism, acne and anovulatory cycles, married women with infertility, and elderly women. Although obesity is a common feature for most PCOS patients, 'lean PCOS' also exists. For several years, OCPs have played an important role in the symptom management of PCOS women. This is due to the fact that OCPs decrease the luteinizing hormone, reduce androgen production, and increase sex hormone-binding globulin, which binds androgens. Several new formulations of OCPs have been developed to decrease the side effects. This includes use of less androgenic progestins and lower doses of ethinyl estradiol. These consensus recommendations help the health provider to choose the right type of OCPs, which will alleviate the symptoms with least side effects. It also gives insight into the indications, contraindications, and concerns regarding its short, intermediate and long-term use.

Weekend-free scheduled IVF/ICSI procedures and single embryo transfer do not reduce live-birth rates in a general infertile population

INTRODUCTION

Scheduling of ovum pickup only on weekdays may result in cases of apparently suboptimal timing for human chorionic gonadotropin and ovum pickup. This study aimed to assess whether live-birth rates were reduced in women with a potentially suboptimal day for human chorionic gonadotropin and ovum pickup to avoid weekend work, according to ultrasonographic data on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin planning.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An evaluation of the optimal human chorionic gonadotropin priming date was performed in treatment protocols of 1000 consecutive patients undergoing their first in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmatic sperm injection with single-embryo transfer. An ideal ovum pickup day was characterized by human chorionic gonadotropin-scheduling when three or more follicles reached 17 mm (day 0) or with one day of delay (day +1) (n = 760). A non-ideal ovum pickup was either early (day -1, -2, -3) (n = 24) or delayed (day +2, +3, +4) (n = 216). Live-birth rates in the ideal and non-ideal ovum pickup groups was set as primary outcome measure.

RESULTS

Early-ovum pickups were excluded as they were infrequent. No differences between ideal and delayed ovum pickup groups were found regarding number of oocytes retrieved (9.87 vs. 9.78, p = 0.990), pregnancy rates (28.3% vs. 29.6%, p = 0.701) or live-birth rates (26.2% vs. 25.9%, p = 0.939). However, sub analyses indicated that treatment with gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonists resulted in significantly lower clinical pregnancy rates in delayed ovum pickups (odds ratio 0.46, p = 0.014), compared with agonist treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Weekend work may not be needed for in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmatic sperm injection single-embryo transfer treatments. However, in gonadotropin releasing hormone antagonist cycles, delaying ovum pickup more than one day may result in unfavorable outcomes.

Effect of Frozen Embryo Transfer and Progestin-primed Ovary Stimulation on IVF outcomes in women with high body mass index

Among women undergoing IVF, high BMI negatively affects pregnancy outcomes when using the conventional ovary stimulating protocols combined with fresh embryo transfer. Therefore, finding a proper treatment for these high BMI women is more important and urgent when obesity is prevalent. In our study, we reported a retrospective study of 4457 women who were divided into normal BMI group (18.5 kg/m²–24.9 kg/m²) and high BMI group (≥25 kg/m²) undergoing 4611 IVF treatment cycles with frozen embryo transfer (FET). We found the high BMI group originally had the poor oocytes performance, but after FET they got the similar pregnancy outcomes as the normal BMI group. Then under FET we analyzed the IVF outcomes of our new progestin-primed ovary stimulation (PPOS) protocol, indicating that the hMG + MPA (4 or 10 mg/d) groups had the obvious better pregnancy results than the conventional short group in the high BMI group, and binary logistic regression analysis showed the hMG + MPA (10 mg/d) group was associated with better pregnancy outcomes than the hMG + MPA (4 mg/d) group. These results indicate PPOS - hMG + MPA (10 mg/d) combined with FET might be a new potential treatment choice for the high BMI women undergoing IVF treatments.

Oral contraceptive pill, progestogen or oestrogen pretreatment for ovarian stimulation protocols for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques

BACKGROUND

Among subfertile women undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART), hormone pills given before ovarian stimulation may improve outcomes.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether pretreatment with the combined oral contraceptive pill (COCP) or with a progestogen or oestrogen alone in ovarian stimulation protocols affects outcomes in subfertile couples undergoing ART.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases from inception to January 2017: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Central Register Studies Online, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and PsycINFO. We also searched the reference lists of relevant articles and registers of ongoing trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of hormonal pretreatment in women undergoing ART.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures recommended by Cochrane. The primary review outcomes were live birth or ongoing pregnancy and pregnancy loss.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 29 RCTs (4701 women) of pretreatment with COCPs, progestogens or oestrogens versus no pretreatment or alternative pretreatments, in gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonist or antagonist cycles. Overall, evidence quality ranged from very low to moderate. The main limitations were risk of bias and imprecision. Most studies did not describe their methods in adequate detail. Combined oral contraceptive pill versus no pretreatmentWith antagonist cycles in both groups the rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy was lower in the pretreatment group (OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.95; 6 RCTs; 1335 women; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence). There was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of pregnancy loss (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.82 to 2.26; 5 RCTs; 868 women; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence), multiple pregnancy (OR 2.21, 95% CI 0.53 to 9.26; 2 RCTs; 125 women; I² = 0%; low quality evidence), ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS; OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.40; 2 RCTs; 642 women; I² = 0%, low quality evidence), or ovarian cyst formation (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.08 to 2.75; 1 RCT; 64 women; very low quality evidence).In COCP plus antagonist cycles versus no pretreatment in agonist cycles, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.25; 4 RCTs; 724 women; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence), multiple pregnancy (OR 1.36, 95% CI 0.85 to 2.19; 4 RCTs; 546 women; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence), or OHSS (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.20 to 1.96; 2 RCTs; 290 women, I² = 0%), but there were fewer pregnancy losses in the pretreatment group (OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.72; 5 RCTs; 780 women; I² = 0%; moderate quality evidence). There were no data suitable for analysis on ovarian cyst formation.One small study comparing COCP versus no pretreatment in agonist cycles showed no clear difference between the groups for any of the reported outcomes. Progestogen versus no pretreatmentAll studies used the same protocol (antagonist, agonist or gonadotrophins) in both groups. There was insufficient evidence to determine any differences in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (agonist: OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.65; 2 RCTs; 222 women; I² = 24%; low quality evidence; antagonist: OR 0.67, 95% CI 0.18 to 2.54; 1 RCT; 47 women; low quality evidence; gonadotrophins: OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.09 to 4.23; 1 RCT; 42 women; very low quality evidence), pregnancy loss (agonist: OR 2.26, 95% CI 0.67 to 7.55; 2 RCTs; 222 women; I² = 0%; low quality evidence; antagonist: OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.06 to 2.09; 1 RCT; 47 women; low quality evidence; gonadotrophins: OR 1.00, 95% CI 0.06 to 17.12; 1 RCT; 42 women; very low quality evidence) or multiple pregnancy (agonist: no data available; antagonist: OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.06 to 17.76; 1 RCT; 47 women; low quality evidence; gonadotrophins: no data available). Three studies, all using agonist cycles, reported ovarian cyst formation: rates were lower in the pretreatment group (OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.32; 374 women; I² = 1%; moderate quality evidence). There were no data on OHSS. Oestrogen versus no pretreatmentIn antagonist or agonist cycles, there was insufficient evidence to determine whether the groups differed in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy (antagonist versus antagonist: OR 0.79, 95% CI 0.53 to 1.17; 2 RCTs; 502 women; I² = 0%; low quality evidence; antagonist versus agonist: OR 0.88, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.50; 2 RCTs; 242 women; I² = 0%; very low quality evidence), pregnancy loss (antagonist versus antagonist: OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 1.47; 1 RCT; 49 women; very low quality evidence; antagonist versus agonist: OR 1.59, 95% CI 0.62 to 4.06; 1 RCT; 220 women; very low quality evidence), multiple pregnancy (antagonist versus antagonist: no data available; antagonist versus agonist: OR 2.24, 95% CI 0.09 to 53.59; 1 RCT; 22 women; very low quality evidence) or OHSS (antagonist versus antagonist: no data available; antagonist versus agonist: OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.25 to 9.42; 1 RCT; 220 women). Ovarian cyst formation was not reported. Head-to-head comparisonsCOCP was compared with progestogen (1 RCT, 44 women), and with oestrogen (2 RCTs, 146 women), and progestogen was compared with oestrogen (1 RCT, 48 women), with an antagonist cycle in both groups. COCP in an agonist cycle was compared with oestrogen in an antagonist cycle (1 RCT, 25 women). Data were scant but there was no clear evidence that any of the groups differed in rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy, pregnancy loss or other adverse events.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Among women undergoing ovarian stimulation in antagonist protocols, COCP pretreatment was associated with a lower rate of live birth or ongoing pregnancy than no pretreatment. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether rates of live birth or ongoing pregnancy were influenced by pretreatment with progestogens or oestrogens, or by COCP pretreatment using other stimulation protocols. Findings on adverse events were inconclusive, except that progesterone pretreatment may reduce the risk of ovarian cysts in agonist cycles, and COCP in antagonist cycles may reduce the risk of pregnancy loss compared with no pretreatment in agonist cycles.

The high responder: a review of pathophysiology and outcomes during IVF treatment

This review attempts to summarize the known literature on high responders to ovarian stimulation during assisted reproductive techniques (ART). Response to gonadotrophins is subject to significant interindividual and intercycle variation, thus carrying a risk of high response or poor response to ovarian stimulation regimens. The main risk for high responders is the development of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) which is associated with significant morbidity. Hence, the definition of high responders in the literature has primarily focussed on risk factors for OHSS. Strategies to reduce OHSS including tailoring of the ovarian stimulation regimens and adjusting gonadotrophin doses according to patient characteristics and findings during the cycle of stimulation. In addition, modifying the type of ovulation trigger used and adjuvant therapies, such as metformin, intravenous colloids and vascular endothelial growth factor blockers, have also been studied as options to reduce OHSS. Apart from the risk of OHSS, high response also appears to have an adverse impact on the oocyte and endometrium, though there is a paucity of data regarding the extent and mechanisms behind this impact.

Interventions for the prevention of OHSS in ART cycles: an overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS) in assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles is a treatment-induced disease that has an estimated prevalence of 20% to 33% in its mild form and 3% to 8% in its moderate or severe form. These numbers might even be higher for high-risk women such as those with polycystic ovaries or a high oocyte yield from ovum pickup.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this overview is to identify and summarise all evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on interventions for prevention or treatment of moderate, severe and overall OHSS in couples with subfertility who are undergoing ART cycles.

METHODS

Published Cochrane systematic reviews reporting on moderate, severe or overall OHSS as an outcome in ART cycles were eligible for inclusion in this overview. We also identified Cochrane submitted protocols and title registrations for future inclusion in the overview. The evidence is current to 12 December 2016. We identified reviews, protocols and titles by searching the Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Database of Systematic Reviews and Archie (the Cochrane information management system) in July 2016 on the effectiveness of interventions for outcomes of moderate, severe and overall OHSS. We undertook in duplicate selection of systematic reviews, data extraction and quality assessment. We used the AMSTAR (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews) tool to assess the quality of included reviews, and we used GRADE methods to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome. We summarised the characteristics of included reviews in the text and in additional tables.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 27 reviews in this overview. The reviews were generally of high quality according to AMSTAR ratings, and included studies provided evidence that ranged from very low to high in quality. Ten reviews had not been updated in the past three years. Seven reviews described interventions that provided a beneficial effect in reducing OHSS rates, and we categorised one additional review as 'promising'. Of the effective interventions, all except one had no detrimental effect on pregnancy outcomes. Evidence of at least moderate quality indicates that clinicians should consider the following interventions in ART cycles to reduce OHSS rates.• Metformin treatment before and during an ART cycle for women with PCOS (moderate-quality evidence).• Gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol in ART cycles (moderate-quality evidence).• GnRH agonist (GnRHa) trigger in donor oocyte or 'freeze-all' programmes (moderate-quality evidence). Evidence of low or very low quality suggests that clinicians should consider the following interventions in ART cycles to reduce OHSS rates.• Clomiphene citrate for controlled ovarian stimulation in ART cycles (low-quality evidence).• Cabergoline around the time of human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG) administration or oocyte pickup in ART cycles (low-quality evidence).• Intravenous fluids (plasma expanders) around the time of hCG administration or oocyte pickup in ART cycles (very low-quality evidence).• Progesterone for luteal phase support in ART cycles (low-quality evidence).• Coasting (withholding gonadotrophins) - a promising intervention that needs to be researched further for reduction of OHSS.On the basis of this overview, we must conclude that evidence is currently insufficient to support the widespread practice of embryo cryopreservation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Currently, 27 reviews in the Cochrane Library were conducted to report on or to try to report on OHSS in ART cycles. We identified four review protocols but no new registered titles that can potentially be included in this overview in the future. This overview provides the most up-to-date evidence on prevention of OHSS in ART cycles from all currently published Cochrane reviews on ART. Clinicians can use the evidence summarised in this overview to choose the best treatment regimen for individual patients - a regimen that not only reduces the chance of developing OHSS but does not compromise other outcomes such as pregnancy or live birth rate. Review results, however, are limited by the lack of recent primary studies or updated reviews. Furthermore, this overview can be used by policymakers in developing local and regional protocols or guidelines and can reveal knowledge gaps for future research.

Pretreatment of normal responders in fresh in vitro fertilization cycles: A comparison of transdermal estradiol and oral contraceptive pills

Objective

The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of pretreatment with transdermal estradiol (E₂) compared to oral contraceptive pills (OCPs) on controlled ovarian stimulation (COS) response in normal responders undergoing fresh in vitro fertilization (IVF)-embryo transfer (ET) cycles.

Methods

A retrospective cohort study was performed of normal responders undergoing fresh IVF-ET cycles who received pretreatment with transdermal E₂ versus OCPs prior to fresh IVF-ET. The total days of ovarian stimulation, total dosage of gonadotropins, total number of oocytes, and mature oocytes retrieved were noted. Pregnancy outcomes after ET were also recorded.

Results

A total of 2,092 patients met the inclusion criteria: 1,057 and 1,035 patients in the transdermal E₂ and OCP groups, respectively. Patients in the OCP group had a longer duration of COS (10.7±1.63 days, p<0.01) than the E₂ group (9.92±1.94 days). Patients in the OCP group also required higher cumulative doses of gonadotropins (2,657.3±1,187.9 IU) than those in the E₂ group (2,550.1±1,270.2 IU, p=0.002). No statistically significant differences were found in the total and mature oocytes retrieved or in the rates of biochemical pregnancy, clinical pregnancy, spontaneous miscarriage, and live birth between the groups.

Conclusion

Our findings suggest that compared to OCPs, pretreatment with transdermal E₂ is associated with a shorter duration of ovarian stimulation and lower gonadotropin utilization, without compromising the oocyte yield or pregnancy outcomes in normal-responder patients undergoing fresh IVF.

Effect of pretreatment with oral contraceptives and progestins on IVF outcomes in women with polycystic ovary syndrome

STUDY QUESTION

Do oral contraceptives (OCs) and progestins impact live birth rate of IVF when used for cycle scheduling in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS)?

SUMMARY ANSWER

OCs used for scheduling IVF cycle were associated with lowered rates of pregnancy and live birth after fresh embryo transfer, whereas progestins used for this purpose yield higher rates of pregnancy and live birth than OCs.

WHAT IS KNOWN ALREADY

Due to oligo-menorrhea in PCOS, OCs and progestin are extensively used to schedule the start of an IVF cycle in women with PCOS. Little is known about the effect of such pretreatments on outcomes, especially, the rate of live birth.

STUDY DESIGN, SIZE, DURATION

This was a nested cohort study and secondary analysis of a multicenter randomized trial, which was designed to compare live birth rate after fresh embryo transfer vs frozen embryo transfer (FET) in women with PCOS (Frefro-PCOS). A total of 1508 women were enrolled from 14 centers between June 2013 and May 2014.

PARTICIPANTS/MATERIALS, SETTING, METHODS

At the discretion of local investigators, subjects were instructed to wait for spontaneous menses (Control group, n = 323), or were prescribed progestins (P group, n = 283) or OCs (OCs group, n = 902) to induce menstruation prior to the start of ovarian stimulation. GnRH antagonist protocol was initiated at Day 2 or 3 of induced or spontaneous menses cycle. The rates of pregnancy, pregnancy loss and live birth after either fresh embryo transfer or FET were compared among these three groups.

MAIN RESULTS AND THE ROLE OF CHANCE

With fresh embryo transfer, women with OC-induced menses had lower rates of clinical pregnancy (48.8% vs 63.6%, relative rate (RR): 0.77, 95% CI: 0.66-0.89) and live birth (36.1% vs 48.1%, RR: 0.75, 95% CI: 0.61-0.92) than women with spontaneous menses. With freeze-all and deferred FET, women with OC-induced menses had a similar pregnancy rate but a higher pregnancy loss rate (27.7% vs 13.0%, RR: 2.13, 95% CI: 1.28-3.52) after FET than women with spontaneous menses. The live birth rate after FET in women with OC-induced menses, progestin-induced menses and spontaneous menses was 49.4%, 50.7% and 60.2%, respectively (P = 0.06). Progestin-induced menses was associated with similar rates of pregnancy, pregnancy loss and live birth after transfer of either fresh or frozen embryos compared with spontaneous menses. Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that OCs used for menses induction was associated with lower rate of live birth.

LIMITATIONS, REASONS FOR CAUTION

The methods for menses induction were not assigned randomly, thus selection bias was highly likely because of the study design and significant differences that were observed in the baseline characteristics of the women in the different groups. The mean BMI in this study population was relatively normal; the applicability of this result to obese PCOS women needs to be evaluated in further study.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF THE FINDINGS

Our results suggest that either waiting for a spontaneous menses or using progestin is a better option than using OCs to induce menses in women with PCOS prior to ovarian stimulation using GnRH antagonist protocol for IVF. Further randomized controlled studies are needed to confirm our findings.

STUDY FUNDING/COMPETING INTERESTS

This study was funded by National Basic Research Program of China (973 Program) (2012CB944700), the State Key Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China (81430029), National Natural Science Foundation of China (81471428) and Thousand Talents Program (Drs Legro and Zhang H). Dr Legro reports receiving consulting fees from Euroscreen, Kindex, Bayer and Millendo Pharmaceuticals and research funding from Ferring. Others report no disclosures.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Frefro-PCOS was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01841528.

A simplified universal approach to COH protocol for IVF: ultrashort flare GnRH-agonist/GnRH-antagonist protocol with tailored mode and timing of final follicular maturation

Recently, several new promising modifications have been introduced to clinical practice that may simplify and optimize IVF outcome. In the present opinion paper we present a simplified approach to controlled ovarian hyperstimulation protocol (COH), which combines the benefits of the ultrashort flare GnRH agonist/GnRH antagonist protocol and the personalized tailored mode and timing of ovulation triggering, aiming to improve IVF outcome while eliminating of severe OHSS.In patients at risk to develop severe ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), GnRH agonist (GnRHa) trigger if offered for final follicular maturation. While in those achieving ≥20 oocytes, the freeze all policy with the subsequent frozen-thawed embryo transfers (ET) is recommended, in those where less than 20 oocytes are retrieved, patients are re-evaluated 3 days after oocyte retrieval (day of ET) for signs of early moderate OHSS. If no early signs of OHSS developed, one embryo was transferred, and the patients are instructed to inject 1500 IU of HCG. In cases where signs of early moderate OHSS appear, the freeze all policy is recommended.In Patients not at risk to develop severe OHSS- three different modes of concomitant administration of both GnRHa and a standard bolus of hCG (5000-10,000 units) prior to oocyte retrieval were suggested. Standard hCG dose concomitant with GnRHa (dual trigger), 35-37 h before oocyte retrieval is offered to normal responders patients, resulting in improved oocyte/embryo quality and IVF outcome. GnRHa 40 h and standard hCG added 34 h prior to oocyte retrieval (double trigger), respectively are offered to patients demonstrating abnormal final follicular maturation despite normal response to COH. The double trigger results in significantly higher number of oocytes retrieved, higher proportions of the number of oocytes retrieved to the number of follicles >10 mm and >14 mm in diameter on day of hCG administration, higher number of MII oocytes and proportion of MII oocytes per number of oocytes retrieved, with the consequent significantly increased number of top-quality embryos, as compared to the hCG-only trigger cycles. Standard hCG dose concomitant with GnRHa (dual trigger), 34 h before oocyte retrieval should be offered to poor responders patients, aiming to overcome premature luteinization, while achieving high yield of mature oocytes.Further studies are required to support this new concept prior to its implementation as a universal COH protocol to IVF practice.

Comparison of The Effectiveness of Clomiphene Citrate versus Letrozole in Mild IVF in Poor Prognosis Subfertile Women with Failed IVF Cycles

BACKGROUND

Our objective was to evaluate the effectiveness of clomiphene citrate (CC) vs. letrozole (L) plus human menopausal gonadotropin (hMG) in gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist protocol in poor prognosis women with previous failed ovarian stimulation undergoing intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included cycles with CC and L plus hMG/GnRH antagonist protocols of 32 poor responders who had failed to have ideal follicles to be retrieved during oocyte pick-up (OPU) or embryo transfer (ET) at least for 2 previous in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles with microdose flare protocol or GnRH antagonist protocol from January 2006 to December 2009. Main outcome measures were implantation, clinical pregnancy and live birth rates per cycle. Duration of stimulation, mean gonadotropin dose used, endometrial thickness, number of mature follicles, serum estradiol (E2) and progesterone (P) levels on the day of human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) administration, number of retrieved oocytes and fertilization rates were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total number of 42 cycles of 32 severe poor responders were evaluated. Total gonadotropin consumption was significantly lower (1491 ± 873 vs. 2808 ± 1581 IU, P=0.005) and mean E2 level on the day of hCG injection were significantly higher in CC group than L group (443.3 ± 255.2 vs. 255.4 ± 285.2 pg/mL, P=0.03). ET, overall pregnancy and live birth rates per cycle were significantly higher in CC than L protocol (27.2 vs. 15%, 13.6 vs. 0% and 4.5 vs. 0%, respectively, P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Severe poor responders who had previously failed to respond to microdose or GnRH antagonist protocols may benefit from CC plus hMG/GnRH antagonist protocol despite high cancellation rate.

Assisted reproductive technology: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

As many as one in six couples will encounter problems with fertility, defined as failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after regular intercourse for 12 months. Increasingly, couples are turning to assisted reproductive technology (ART) for help with conceiving and ultimately giving birth to a healthy live baby of their own. Fertility treatments are complex, and each ART cycle consists of several steps. If one of the steps is incorrectly applied, the stakes are high as conception may not occur. With this in mind, it is important that each step of the ART cycle is supported by good evidence from well-designed studies.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on procedures and treatment options available to couples with subfertility undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART).

METHODS

Published Cochrane systematic reviews of couples undergoing ART (in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection) were eligible for inclusion in the overview. We also identified Cochrane reviews in preparation, for future inclusion.The outcomes of the overview were live birth (primary outcome), clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (secondary outcomes). Studies of intrauterine insemination and ovulation induction were excluded.Selection of systematic reviews, data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken in duplicate. Review quality was assessed by using the AMSTAR tool. Reviews were organised by their relevance to specific stages in the ART cycle. Their findings were summarised in the text and data for each outcome were reported in 'Additional tables'.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-nine systematic reviews published in The Cochrane Library up to July 2015 were included. All were high quality. Thirty-two reviews identified interventions that were effective (n = 19) or promising (n = 13), 14 reviews identified interventions that were either ineffective (n = 2) or possibly ineffective (n = 12), and 13 reviews were unable to draw conclusions due to lack of evidence.An additional 11 protocols and five titles were identified for future inclusion in this overview.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This overview provides the most up to date evidence on ART cycles from systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials. Fertility treatments are costly and the stakes are high. Using the best available evidence to optimise outcomes is best practice. The evidence from this overview could be used to develop clinical practice guidelines and protocols for use in daily clinical practice, in order to improve live birth rates and reduce rates of multiple pregnancy, cycle cancellation and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

Scheduling cycles with gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist protocol in in vitro fertilization: Is there a scope in batch in vitro fertilization?

In India, a practice of "Batch in vitro fertilization (IVF)" has evolved in many infertility centers in an effort to align infertility management with logistics. A "Batch IVF" is an approach where the menstrual cycles of multiple women are programmed, such that they can undergo all the processes; from stimulation until embryo transfer about the same time. In "Batch IVF", the day for initiating stimulation is calculated retrospectively from the day the visiting embryologist is available at the clinic (day of ovum pick-up). Aligning the cycles of multiple women with steroids followed by down regulation with long gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist (GnRH-A) is one of the currently employed methods for batching. There is sufficient evidence on scheduling cycles with steroids in GnRH-An protocol without compromising on the outcome. The objective of this paper is to provide evidence-based clinical concept on scheduling cycles in "Batch IVF" setup with GnRH-An protocol through literature review.

Assisted reproductive technology: an overview of Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

As many as one in six couples will encounter problems with fertility, defined as failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after regular intercourse for 12 months. Increasingly, couples are turning to assisted reproductive technology (ART) for help with conceiving and ultimately giving birth to a healthy live baby of their own. Fertility treatments are complex, and each ART cycle consists of several steps. If one of the steps is incorrectly applied, the stakes are high as conception may not occur. With this in mind, it is important that each step of the ART cycle is supported by good evidence from well-designed studies.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on procedures and treatment options available to couples with subfertility undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART).

METHODS

Published Cochrane systematic reviews of couples undergoing ART (in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection) were eligible for inclusion in the overview. We also identified Cochrane reviews in preparation, for future inclusion.The outcomes of the overview were live birth (primary outcome), clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (secondary outcomes). Studies of intrauterine insemination and ovulation induction were excluded.Selection of systematic reviews, data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken in duplicate. Review quality was assessed by using the AMSTAR tool. Reviews were organised by their relevance to specific stages in the ART cycle. Their findings were summarised in the text and data for each outcome were reported in 'Additional tables'.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-eight systematic reviews published in The Cochrane Library were included. All were high quality. Thirty-two reviews identified interventions that were effective (n = 19) or promising (n = 13), 14 reviews identified interventions that were either ineffective (n = 3) or possibly ineffective (n=11), and 12 reviews were unable to draw conclusions due to lack of evidence.An additional 11 protocols and one title were identified for future inclusion in this overview.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This overview provides the most up to date evidence on ART cycles from systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials. Fertility treatments are costly and the stakes are high. Using the best available evidence to optimise outcomes is best practice. The evidence from this overview could be used to develop clinical practice guidelines and protocols for use in daily clinical practice, in order to improve live birth rates and reduce rates of multiple pregnancy, cycle cancellation and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

Assisted reproductive technology: an overview of Cochrane Reviews

BACKGROUND

As many as one in six couples will encounter problems with fertility, defined as failure to achieve a clinical pregnancy after regular intercourse for 12 months. Increasingly, couples are turning to assisted reproductive technology (ART) for help with conceiving and ultimately giving birth to a healthy live baby of their own. Fertility treatments are complex, and each ART cycle consists of several steps. If one of the steps is incorrectly applied, the stakes are high as conception may not occur. With this in mind, it is important that each step of the ART cycle is supported by good evidence from well-designed studies.

OBJECTIVES

To summarise the evidence from Cochrane systematic reviews on procedures and treatment options available to couples with subfertility undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART).

METHODS

Published Cochrane systematic reviews of couples undergoing ART (in vitro fertilisation or intracytoplasmic sperm injection) were eligible for inclusion in the overview. We also identified Cochrane reviews in preparation, for future inclusion.The outcomes of the overview were live birth (primary outcome), clinical pregnancy, multiple pregnancy, miscarriage and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (secondary outcomes). Studies of intrauterine insemination and ovulation induction were excluded.Selection of systematic reviews, data extraction and quality assessment were undertaken in duplicate. Review quality was assessed by using the AMSTAR tool. Reviews were organised by their relevance to specific stages in the ART cycle. Their findings were summarised in the text and data for each outcome were reported in 'Additional tables'.

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-four systematic reviews published in The Cochrane Library were included. All were high quality. Thirty reviews identified interventions that were effective (n = 18) or promising (n = 12), 13 reviews identified interventions that were either ineffective (n = 3) or possibly ineffective (n=10), and 11 reviews were unable to draw conclusions due to lack of evidence.An additional 15 protocols and two titles were identified for future inclusion in this overview.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This overview provides the most up to date evidence on ART cycles from systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials. Fertility treatments are costly and the stakes are high. Using the best available evidence to optimise outcomes is best practice. The evidence from this overview could be used to develop clinical practice guidelines and protocols for use in daily clinical practice, in order to improve live birth rates and reduce rates of multiple pregnancy, cycle cancellation and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

First intention IVF protocol for polycystic ovaries: does oral contraceptive pill pretreatment influence COH outcome?

BACKGROUND

Morphological aspect of polycystic ovaries (PCO) is a very common finding in an IVF center population: this includes PCOS patients identified in 18-25% of the couples presenting with infertility and so called "sonographic PCO only" the prevalence of which has been estimated as high as 33% in asymptomatic patients. Finding the optimal first intention IVF protocol for polycystic ovaries patients is still challenging in order to improve the controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) outcome while avoiding ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). It has been suggested that women with PCO would benefit from a longer period of pituitary down-regulation. The purpose of this study was to compare an extended duration of OCP pretreatment with a classic GnRH agonist protocol.

METHODS

A single center prospective non-randomized study was performed from January 2009 to December 2010 in the Lille University Hospital including 113 women diagnosed with PCO(S) according to the Rotterdam ultrasonographic criteria and undergoing their first IVF attempt. Comprehensive hormonal and ultra-sonographic assessments were collected during COH in these patients. LH and androgen suppression and dynamics of follicular growth were compared between the two protocols as well as the COH outcome in terms of oocyte/embryo number and quality, implantation and pregnancy rates.

RESULTS

No significant difference was observed between the two groups concerning dynamics of follicular growth and hormonal values. Clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates were significantly lower in the OCP group despite same oocyte and embryo quality. Nevertheless, the cumulative pregnancy rate did not differ between the two groups. The incidence of OHSS was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Extended duration of OCP pretreatment, as a first intention IVF protocol for PCO patients, does not improve the pattern of follicular growth nor the oocyte and embryo quality.

Does hormonal contraception prior to in vitro fertilization (IVF) negatively affect oocyte yields? A pilot study

BACKGROUND

As oral contraceptives (OCs) suppress anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), and hormonal contraceptives (HCs), likely, suppress functional ovarian reserve, this study was initiated to determine whether HC affect oocyte yields.

METHODS

We investigated in a retrospective cohort study 43 oocyte donors in 71 in vitro fertilization (IVF) cycles, evaluating anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) and oocyte yields as reflections of functional ovarian reserve (OR). In 25 IVF cycles egg donors were on HC within one month prior to IVF, and in 46 cycles they were not. Donors, based on their HCs, were further subdivided into 12 with less, and 13 with more androgenic progestins.

RESULTS

While the three groups did not differ in age, age at menarche, BMI and AMH, oocyte yields among donors who utilized estrane- and gonane-derived (higher androgenic) HCs were lower 11.3 (95% CI 8.3 - 14.3) than either donors using no HCs 16.6 (95% CI 14.7 -18.4) (P < 0.05) or those using anti-androgenic HCs 19.0 (95% CI 12.2-25.8) (P< 0.01). Significance was maintained after adjustments for the donor age and total FSH dose used in ovulation induction.

CONCLUSIONS

Even in young oocyte donors, high androgenic OC exposure appears to suppress functional ovarian reserve and oocyte yields. Since OCs are often routinely used in preparation for IVF, such practice may require reevaluation. Especially in women with diminished ovarian reserve OCs, and especially high androgenic progestin HCs, should, likely, be avoided.

Optimal usage of the GnRH antagonists: a review of the literature

Gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonists, which became commercially available from 1999, have been used for the prevention of premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges in controlled ovarian stimulation for in vitro fertilization or intracytoplasmic sperm injection. This review focuses on the recent literature on the use of GnRH antagonists and provides guidelines for optimal use in light of increasing evidence showing that GnRH antagonists are safe and effective, allowing flexibility of treatment in a wide range of patient populations. This includes patients undergoing first-line controlled ovarian stimulation, poor responders, and women diagnosed with polycystic ovary syndrome. The GnRH antagonist offers a viable alternative to the long agonists, providing a shorter duration of treatment with fewer injections and with no adverse effects on assisted reproductive technology outcome. This results in a significantly lower amount of gonadotropins required, which is likely to lead to improved patient compliance.

Can cycle day 7 FSH concentration during controlled ovarian stimulation be used to guide FSH dosing for in vitro fertilization?

BACKGROUND

When stimulating a patient with poor ovarian response for IVF, the maximal dose of gonadotropins injected is often determined by arbitrary standards rather than a measured response. The purpose of this study was to determine if serum FSH concentration during an IVF stimulation cycle reflects follicular utilization of FSH and whether serum FSH values may inform dose adjustments of exogenous FSH.

METHODS

In this retrospective cross sectional study we studied 155 consecutive IVF cycles stimulated only with recombinant human FSH. We only included long GnRH agonist protocols in which endogenous FSH levels were suppressed. We correlated the serum concentration of cycle day (CD) 7 FSH with the number of oocytes retrieved, cleaving embryos and pregnancy rate.

RESULTS

We found that a CD7 FSH concentration above 22 IU/L was associated with poor response regardless of the daily dose of FSH injected and a lower pregnancy rate.

CONCLUSIONS

We concluded that CD7 FSH concentration during stimulation could be used to guide FSH dosing in poor responders. If the CD7 FSH concentration is above 22 IU/L increasing the dose of FSH in an attempt to recruit more growing follicles is unlikely to be successful.

Does the degree of hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian recovery after oral contraceptive pills affect outcomes of IVF/ICSI cycles receiving GnRH-antagonist adjuvant therapy in women over 35 years of age?

PURPOSE

To evaluate if the degree of recovery of serum gonadotropins after oral contraceptive pills (OCP) pretreatment has an impact on ovarian response in GnRH-antagonist IVF cycles in women of advanced maternal age.

METHODS

In this retrospective cohort study, we included 98 women 35-42 years undergoing their first IVF cycle receiving gonadotropins and a fixed GnRH-antagonist adjuvant protocol. Data analysis was carried out according to changes in serum FSH, LH and estradiol (E(2)) levels (basal and post-OCP) divided in quartiles, and also according to absolute levels. The main outcomes were peak serum E(2), number of mature oocytes retrieved, length of stimulation, and amount of gonadotropins used.

RESULTS

By quartile analysis, patients with the highest levels of serum gonadotropins suppression and also patients with gonadotropin rebound needed larger amounts of LH during the treatment. On the other hand, women with absolute suppression of FSH/LH had increased length of stimulation.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study provide data that assist in clinical management. Gonadotropin serum levels after OCP treatment provide information for optimization of supplementation with LH in GnRH-antagonist cycles in women over age 35.

[Influence duration of the use of estrogens beyond the menses in estradiol IVF antagonist programming cycles]

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate by the birth rate the impact of the number of days of estrogens continued beyond the menses in a four days estradiol IVF antagonist programming cycles.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Retrospective study from September 2004 to January 2009 among women of age ranging between 25 and 38 years. Four milligrams of provames is prescribed 3 to 5 days before the theorical menses and continued until the beginning day of stimulation, which is distributed equitably between Thursday and Sunday. The birth rate is evaluated according to the number of days of estrogen continued beyond the menses within a limit from 1 to 8.

RESULTS

No significant difference appears neither in the duration of stimulation, in the quantity of gonadotrophin, the oocytes pick up, nor in the rate of birth between the groups.

CONCLUSION

The programming by estrogens of the antagonist IVF cycles implies a variable number of days of estrogens continued beyond the menses, which does not seem to affect the birth rate.

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-estrogenic side-effects, flare-up, or long down-regulation period associated with agonists. The antagonists directly and rapidly inhibit gonadotropin 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 regimes 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.

OBJECTIVES

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

SEARCH STRATEGY

We performed electronic searches of major databases, for example Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE (from 1987 to April 2010); 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). A date limited search of Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL from April 2010 to April 2011 was run. Eighteen studies have been entered into the Classification pending references section of this update. These studies will be appraised for inclusion or exclusion in the next update of this review, due April 2012.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial risk of bias and extracted data. If relevant data were missing or unclear, the authors were contacted for clarification.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-five RCTs (n = 7511) comparing the antagonist to the long agonist protocols fulfilled the inclusion criteria. There was no evidence of a statistically significant difference in rates of live-births (9 RCTs; odds ratio (OR) 0.86, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.08) or ongoing pregnancy (28 RCTs; OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.00). There was a statistically significant lower incidence of OHSS in the GnRH antagonist group (29 RCTs; OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.57).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The use of antagonist compared with long GnRH agonist protocols was associated with a large reduction in OHSS and there was no evidence of a difference in live-birth rates.