Clomiphene citrate in combination with gonadotropins for controlled ovarian stimulation in women undergoing in vitro fertilization

Introduce an optimal method of ovarian stimulation in the polycystic ovarian syndrome affected: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Currently, optimal method of ovarian stimulation (OS) to in-vitro fertilization (IVF) in the patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS) is unknown. The present research aims to study the efficiency of minimal-OS method in treatment of infertile patients with PCOS and also the effect of gonadotropin type (recombinant FSH (r-FSH) vs. urinary Human menopausal gonadotropin (u-HMG)) on treatment cycles with GnRH-antagonist.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial, a total of 120 eligible patients were randomly allocated into four groups of OS to IVF: minimal-OS with r-FSH, minimal-OS with u-HMG, mild-OS with r-FSH and mild-OS with u-HMG. IVF outcomes of groups were analyzed statically.

RESULTS

The statistical analysis showed that there were significant differences among groups regarding stimulation duration (p < 0.0001), number of retrieved oocytes (p < 0.0001), number of obtained embryos (p < 0.0001). There were no statistically significant differences in fertilization rate (p = 0.289) and implantation rate (p = 0.757) among our participants. There were also significant differences among these four groups in terms of clinical pregnancy rate (/ET and /cycles) (p < 0.0001, p = 0.021, respectively) and live birth rate/cycles (p < 0.0001). Also cases of freeze all embryos due to prevention of ovarian hyper stimulation syndrome (OHSS) (p = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

On the basis of present results the minimal-OS with u-HMG may be one of optimal methods of control OS in the patients with PCOS in respect to serum levels of estradiol on the day of triggering final oocyte maturation, total dose of prescribed gonadotropin, the optimal number of oocytes and embryos obtained, rate of clinical pregnancy and the incidence of OHSS risk.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT, NCT03876145. Registered 15/03/2019. Retrospectively registered, http://www.

CLINICALTRIAL

gov/ NCT03876145.

Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation for poor ovarian responders undergoing in vitro fertilisation/intracytoplasmic sperm injection: a protocol for systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) is the routine regimen used to generate a sufficient number of follicles during in vitro fertilisation (IVF) or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment. Poor ovarian response is a challenge encountered by many clinicians during COH and poor ovarian responders (PORs) usually have higher follicle stimulating hormone levels, lower levels of anti-Mullerian hormone and few oocytes retrieved, which have been attributed mainly to advanced maternal age and poor follicle reserve or other reasons that could impair ovarian response during ovarian stimulation. Over the last few decades, researchers have proposed a series of strategies and ovarian stimulation protocols to improve pregnancy outcomes in patients with POR during their IVF/ICSI treatment. However, clinical decisions regarding COH protocols in PORs during IVF/ICSI treatment remain controversial. Traditional pairwise meta-analysis only allows the direct comparison of two protocols in COH for patients with POR. However, many of these COH protocols have not been compared directly in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Thus, we aim to use network meta-analysis (NMA) to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of COH protocols and to generate treatment rankings of these COH protocols for the most clinically important and commonly reported outcomes events.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, SinoMed, CNKI, WanFang database and Chongqing VIP information databases will be searched for all RCTs of COH for POR women during IVF/ICSI from inception to 31 March 2020. Primary outcomes will include live birth rate and number of oocytes retrieved. Secondary outcomes will include ongoing pregnancy rate, clinical pregnancy rate, miscarriage rate, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome rate, multiple pregnancy rate and cycle cancellation rate. Pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian NMA will be conducted for each outcome. Subgroup analysis, meta-regression, and sensitivity analysis will be performed to assess the robustness of the findings. The generation of NMA plots and subsequent results will be performed by using R V.4.0.1. The assessment of confidence in network estimates will use the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis)web application (see https://cinema.ispm.unibe.ch/).

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review does not require ethics approval and the results of the NMA will be submitted to a peer-review journal.

Mild versus conventional ovarian stimulation for IVF in poor, normal and hyper-responders: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Mild ovarian stimulation has emerged as an alternative to conventional IVF with the advantages of being more patient-friendly and less expensive. Inadequate data on pregnancy outcomes and concerns about the cycle cancellation rate (CCR) have prevented mild, or low-dose, IVF from gaining wide acceptance.

OBJECTIVE AND RATIONALE

To evaluate parallel-group randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on IVF where comparisons were made between a mild (≤150 IU daily dose) and conventional stimulation in terms of clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness in patients described as poor, normal and non-polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) hyper-responders to IVF.

SEARCH METHODS

Searches with no language restrictions were performed using Medline, Embase, Cochrane central, Pre-Medicine from January 1990 until April 2020, using pre-specified search terms. References of included studies were hand-searched as well as advance access articles to key journals. Only parallel-group RCTs that used ≤150 IU daily dose of gonadotrophin as mild-dose IVF (MD-IVF) and compared with a higher conventional dose (CD-IVF) were included. Studies were grouped under poor, normal or hyper-responders as described by the authors in their inclusion criteria. Women with PCOS were excluded in the hyper-responder group. The risk of bias was assessed as per Cochrane Handbook for the included studies. The quality of evidence (QoE) was assessed according to the GRADE system. PRISMA guidance was followed for review methodology.

OUTCOMES

A total of 31 RCTs were included in the analysis: 15 in the poor, 14 in the normal and 2 in the hyper-responder group. Live birth rates (LBRs) per randomisation were similar following use of MD-IVF in poor (relative risk (RR) 0.91 (CI 0.68, 1.22)), normal (RR 0.88 (CI 0.69, 1.12)) and hyper-responders (RR 0.98 (CI 0.79, 1.22)) when compared to CD-IVF. QoE was moderate. Cumulative LBRs (5 RCTs, n = 2037) also were similar in all three patient types (RR 0.96 (CI 0.86 1.07) (moderate QoE). Risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome was significantly less with MD-IVF than CD-IVF in both normal (RR 0.22 (CI 0.10, 0.50)) and hyper-responders (RR 0.47 (CI 0.31, 0.72)), with moderate QoE. The CCRs were comparable in poor (RR 1.33 (CI 0.96, 1.85)) and hyper-responders (RR 1.31 (CI 0.98, 1.77)) but increased with MD-IVF among normal responders (RR 2.08 (CI 1.38, 3.14)); all low to very low QoE. Although fewer oocytes were retrieved and fewer embryos created with MD-IVF, the proportion of high-grade embryos was similar in all three population types (low QoE). Compared to CD-IVF, MD-IVF was associated with less gonadotrophin use and lower cost.

WIDER IMPLICATIONS

This updated review provides reassurance on using MD-IVF not only for the LBR per cycle but also for the cumulative LBR, with moderate QoE. With risks identified with 'freeze-all' strategies, it may be time to recommend mild-dose ovarian stimulation for IVF for all categories of women i.e. hyper, poor and normal responders to IVF.

Anti-Müllerian hormone is correlated with cumulative live birth in minimal ovarian stimulation with clomiphene citrate: a retrospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Several studies have investigated the correlation between the serum anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) level and in vitro fertilization (IVF) outcomes in controlled ovarian stimulation cycles; however, studies regarding the correlation of the serum AMH level with IVF outcomes in minimal ovarian stimulation cycles remain limited. In this study, we aimed to analyze the correlation of the serum AMH level with ovarian responsiveness, embryonic outcomes, and cumulative live birth rates in clomiphene citrate (CC)-based minimal ovarian stimulation cycles.

METHODS

Clinical records of 689 women whose entire ovarian stimulation regimen consisted solely of minimal stimulation cycle IVF using CC alone from November 2017 to October 2019 were retrospectively reviewed. The association between IVF outcomes and the serum AMH level before the initiation of the first fertility treatment was analyzed. Furthermore, the correlation of the serum AMH level with cumulative live birth rates after IVF treatment was assessed. The Cochran-Armitage test, Pearson's chi-squared test, Spearman rank correlation test, Student's t-test, one-way analysis of variance, logistic regression analysis, Kaplan-Meier method and Cox proportional hazards model were used to analyze the data.

RESULTS

The serum AMH level positively correlated with the number of retrieved oocytes, blastocyst formation rate, blastocyst cryopreservation rate, and live birth rate per oocyte retrieval in CC-based minimal ovarian stimulation cycles without any exogenous gonadotropin administration. Furthermore, the cumulative live birth rate and treatment period required for conceiving were strongly associated with the serum AMH level at the initiation of fertility treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

A low serum AMH level correlated with low ovarian responsiveness, impaired pre-implantation embryonic development, and decreased cumulative live birth rate in CC-based minimal ovarian stimulation cycles. Therefore, the cycle success rate would be predicted by measuring the serum AMH level in minimal ovarian stimulation with CC alone.

Oral medications including clomiphene citrate or aromatase inhibitors with gonadotropins for controlled ovarian stimulation in women undergoing in vitro fertilisation

BACKGROUND

Gonadotropins are the most commonly used medications for controlled ovarian stimulation in in vitro fertilisation (IVF). However, they are expensive and invasive, and are associated with the risk of ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS). Recent calls for more patient-friendly regimens have led to growing interest in the use of clomiphene citrate (CC) and aromatase inhibitors with or without gonadotropins to reduce the burden of hormonal injections. It is currently unknown whether regimens using CC or aromatase inhibitors such as letrozole (Ltz) are as effective as gonadotropins alone.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness and safety of regimens including oral induction medication (such as clomiphene citrate or letrozole) versus gonadotropin-only regimens for controlled ovarian stimulation in IVF or intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) treatment.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases: Cochrane Gynaecology and Fertility Group Specialised Register (searched January 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL CRSO), MEDLINE (1946 to January 2017), Embase (1980 to January 2017), and reference lists of relevant articles. We also searched trials registries ClinicalTrials.gov (clinicaltrials.gov/) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (www.who.int/trialsearch/Default.aspx). We handsearched relevant conference proceedings.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The primary outcomes were live-birth rate (LBR) and OHSS.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Three review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and Peto odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MD) for continuous outcomes. We analyzed the general population of women undergoing IVF treatment and (as a separate analysis) women identified as poor responders. We assessed the overall quality of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 studies in the updated review. Most of the new trials in the updated review included poor responders and evaluated Ltz protocols. We could perform meta-analysis with data from 22 studies including a total of 3599 participants. The quality of the evidence for different comparisons ranged from low to moderate. The main limitations in the quality of the evidence were risk of bias associated with poor reporting of study methods, and imprecision.In the general population of women undergoing IVF, it is unclear whether CC or Ltz used with or without gonadotropins compared to use of gonadotropins along with gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) agonists or antagonists resulted in a difference in live birth (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.27, 4 RCTs, n = 493, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy rate (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.16, 12 RCTs, n = 1998, I2 = 3%, moderate-quality evidence). This means that for a typical clinic with 23% LBR using a GnRH agonist regimen, switching to CC or Ltz protocols would be expected to result in LBRs between 15% and 30%. Clomiphene citrate or Ltz protocols were associated with a reduction in the incidence of OHSS (Peto OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.41, 5 RCTs, n = 1067, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence). This means that for a typical clinic with 6% prevalence of OHSS associated with a GnRH regimen, switching to CC or Ltz protocols would be expected to reduce the incidence to between 0.5% and 2.5%. We found evidence of an increase in cycle cancellation rate with the CC protocol compared to gonadotropins in GnRH protocols (RR 1.87, 95% CI 1.43 to 2.45, 9 RCTs, n = 1784, I2 = 61%, low-quality evidence). There was moderate quality evidence of a decrease in the mean number of ampoules used,) and mean number of oocytes collected with CC with or without gonadotropins compared to the gonadotropins in GnRH agonist protocols, though data were too heterogeneous to pool.Similarly, in the poor-responder population, it is unclear whether there was any difference in rates of live birth (RR 1.16, 95% CI 0.49 to 2.79, 2 RCTs, n = 357, I2 = 38%, low-quality evidence) or clinical pregnancy (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.12, 8 RCTs, n = 1462, I2 = 0%, low-quality evidence) following CC or Ltz with or without gonadotropin versus gonadotropin and GnRH protocol. This means that for a typical clinic with a 5% LBR in the poor responders using a GnRH protocol, switching to CC or Ltz protocols would be expected to yield LBRs between 2% to 14%. There was low quality evidence that the CC or Ltz protocols were associated with an increase in the cycle cancellation rate (RR 1.46, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.81, 10 RCTs, n = 1601, I2 = 64%) and moderate quality evidence of a decrease in the mean number of gonadotropin ampoules used and the mean number of oocytes collected, though data were too heterogeneous to pool. The adverse effects of these protocols were poorly reported. In addition, data on foetal abnormalities following use of CC or Ltz protocols are lacking.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no conclusive evidence indicating that clomiphene citrate or letrozole with or without gonadotropins differed from gonadotropins in GnRH agonist or antagonist protocols with respect to their effects on live-birth or pregnancy rates, either in the general population of women undergoing IVF treatment or in women who were poor responders. Use of clomiphene or letrozole led to a reduction in the amount of gonadotropins required and the incidence of OHSS. However, use of clomiphene citrate or letrozole may be associated with a significant increase in the incidence of cycle cancellations, as well as reductions in the mean number of oocytes retrieved in both the general IVF population and the poor responders. Larger, high-quality randomized trials are needed to reach a firm conclusion before they are adopted into routine clinical practice.

Management of ovarian stimulation for IVF: narrative review of evidence provided for World Health Organization guidance

In this paper, a review of evidence provided to the World Health Organization (WHO) guideline development, who prepare global guidance on the management of ovarian stimulation for women undergoing IVF, is presented. The purpose of ovarian stimulation is to facilitate retrieval of multiple oocytes during a single IVF cycle. Availability of multiple oocytes compensates for inefficiencies in subsequent stages of the cycle, which include oocyte maturation, IVF, embryo culture, embryo transfer, and implantation. Multiple embryos can be transferred in most women, and spare embryos can be frozen to allow for future chances of pregnancy without the need for repeated ovarian stimulation and oocyte retrieval. Our evidence synthesis team addressed 10 clinical questions on management of ovarian stimulation for IVF, prepared a narrative review of the evidence and drafted recommendations to be considered through WHO guideline development processes. Our main outcome measures were live birth, clinical pregnancy, and ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome.

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.

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.

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.

Low-cost in vitro fertilization: current insights

Despite the development of in vitro fertilization (IVF) more than 30 years ago, the cost of treatment remains high. Furthermore, over the years, more sophisticated technologies and expensive medications have been introduced, making IVF increasingly inaccessible despite the increasing need. Globally, the option to undergo IVF is only available to a privileged few. In recent years, there has been growing interest in exploring strategies to reduce the cost of IVF treatment, which would allow the service to be provided in low-resource settings. In this review, we explore the various ways in which the cost of this treatment can be reduced.

"Mild" vs. "long" protocol for controlled ovarian hyperstimulation in patients with expected poor ovarian responsiveness undergoing in vitro fertilization (IVF): a large prospective randomized trial

BACKGROUND

This large prospective, randomized study was designed to compare the "mild" protocol with clomiphene citrate, low-dose gonadotropins and a GnRH-antagonist (CC/Gn/GnRH-ant protocol) with the "long" protocol with a GnRH-agonist and high-dose Gn for the controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) of patients with expected poor ovarian responsiveness undergoing IVF.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 695 women with clinical, endocrine and ultrasound characteristics suggesting a low ovarian reserve and a poor responsiveness to COH were recruited and randomly assigned to receive the CC/Gn/GnRH-ant "mild" protocol (mild group, n = 355) or the "long" protocol with high-dose Gn (long group, n = 340).

RESULTS

The "mild" stimulation led to significantly shorter follicular phase, lower consumption of exogenous Gn and lower peak estradiol level than the "long" regimen. With the "long" protocol, significantly less cycles were cancelled due to the lack of ovarian response; further, it obtained significantly more oocytes, more mature oocytes, more embryos, and a thicker endometrium. As for the final IVF outcome, however, the two stimulation regimens obtained comparable implantation rate, clinical pregnancy rate, and ongoing pregnancy rate at 12 weeks.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the "mild" CC/Gn/GnRH-ant stimulation protocol is a valid alternative to the long protocol with high Gn dose as it obtains a comparable success rate and requires significantly less medications, with an obvious economical advantage.

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.

Clomiphene combined with gonadotropins and GnRH antagonist versus conventional controlled ovarian hyperstimulation without clomiphene in women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques: systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness and safety of controlled ovarian hyperstimulation (COH) using clomiphene citrate associated with gonadotropin and GnRH antagonist (CC + Ant) versus conventional COH without clomiphene citrate (Non-CC) for women undergoing assisted reproductive techniques (ART).

METHODS

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled-trials comparing CC + Ant versus non-CC. The last search was performed in Apr 13 2012. The following outcomes were retrieved from included trials and compared between CC + Ant versus non-CC: live birth, clinical pregnancy, ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome (OHSS), miscarriage, multiple pregnancy, endometrial thickness, total oocytes retrieved, MII oocytes retrieved, total gonadotropin used, and duration of COH.

RESULTS

Seven trials (702 participants) were included. There was no significant difference in live birth (55/182 = 30.2 % vs. 47/181 = 26.0 %, p = 0.26, CC + Ant vs. non-CC, respectively), clinical pregnancy (98/346 = 28.3 % vs. 84/356 = 23.6 %, p = 0.12), miscarriage (6/35 = 17.1 % vs. 7/32 = 21.9 %, p = 0.42), endometrial thickness, and on the number of oocytes retrieved. There was a significant reduction in OHSS (1/216 = 0.5 % vs. 9/217 = 4.1 %, p = 0.01), consumption of gonadotropins, and duration of COH.

CONCLUSIONS

Compared to non-CC, CC + Ant is likely to reduce the risk of OHSS, medication costs, and the duration of COH without evidence of effect on live birth and clinical pregnancy. More trials are still needed to improve the quality of the evidence. Future studies should evaluate women with PCOS or at increased risk of OHSS, quality of life, satisfaction with the treatment, total cost per live birth, and frequency of congenital anomalies.